Common sense: (h/t Weasel Zippers)
THE US special envoy to South Asia, Richard Holbrooke, questioned yesterday the Pakistani military’s commitment to the war on terror as he expressed concern that the peace deal in the Swat Valley represented a “surrender” to extremists.
Mr Holbrooke, who returned this week from an eight-day visit to the region, said it was unclear whether the military shared Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s commitment to fight terror.
He said the Obama administration was “troubled and confused” by the deal between local officials and pro-Taliban cleric Sufi Mohammad to impose Sharia law in the Malakand region, which includes the Swat Valley, in exchange for an end to violence.
Critics say the deal is a capitulation to terrorists.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and Taliban rebels along the lines of a truce in neighboring Pakistan.
~~~On Monday, Pakistan announced it would agree to the imposition of Islamic law in the restive Swat valley in the northwest part of the country as part of an agreement aimed at restoring peace after an 18-month military campaign. The pact was spearheaded by a hard-line cleric who is negotiating with the Taliban in the valley to give up their arms.
Asked whether Washington would approve an agreement between the Kabul government and Taliban guerrillas along similar lines, Gates replied: “If there is a reconciliation, if insurgents are willing to put down their arms, if the reconciliation is essentially on the terms being offered by the government then I think we would be very open to that.
“We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan,” Gates said.
Afghanistan’s government has said it wants to engage Taliban guerrillas who are not “hard-liners” to lay down their arms in return for a political role in the country. But representatives of the Taliban, who have made significant military gains in the last two years and now control vast swathes of countryside, say they will not negotiate while foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.
A similar deal in Swat last year collapsed in a few months and was blamed for giving insurgents time to regroup.
Surprised?
This is the September 10th, 2001 mindset so ingrained into the liberal consiousness. Recall the shrugs given when the Taliban took power in Afghanistan. Let them impose fanatical Islam as long as it will keep the peace.
We are at war with fanatical Islam and they don’t see it. They don’t want to see it. But rest assured those hard-core Islamist’s see it and wait for the day when Islam is imposed on us all.
See author page
Ironic turn here, actually… Holbrooke… a Carter/Clinton foreign policy advisor, as well a big UN buff and CFR member sees this is likely a mistake that will ultimately end in yet another failure.
On the flip side, Gates historically knows that this is unlikely to work, but any sort of tangible “peace” must include some agreement with Taliban who are not “hard-liners”.
Uh… are there *any* Taliban that aren’t “hard-liners”? Don’t think so…
Perhaps the most distressing quote in this for me is how the Obama admin is “troubled and confused”. The troubled part I can buy. But if they are “confused”, it’s because they never knew our enemy.
But then, I always said that Pakistan is going to be Obama’s biggest challenge, and thorn in his side. He would have been much better off with Musharraf.
Obama’s naïveté on terrorism is frightening. The Republicans warned about how Obama is not experienced to handle this dire issue. Survival. His Liberal mentality will be happy with a peace with anyone, anytime. Boy, sounds familiar. Can anyone say Neville Chamberlin and “We have peace in our time…” prior to WWII. It did not work in 1938 and it won’t work now.
But, Obama just wants to keep trying things tried in the 1930s that did not work, like FDRs economic policies.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
Franklin, from the dem perspective what FDR did worked.
Dems controlled congress for 40+ years.
@Hard Right
Sadly, you are right. They “thought” it worked, but it didn’t. For some reason, they still think it works even when history has proved them wrong.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
“A similar deal in Swat last year collapsed in a few months and was blamed for giving insurgents time to regroup.”
Heh. What’s a six letter word for an islamic truce????
Wait for it…..
All together now….
R-E-L-O-A-D
!!!!!
Hey, remember when Bush gave that speech in Israel that mentioned the dangers of appeasement? Remember how Obama (rather stupidly) took it as a direct insult and cried foul? Gee, I don’t think Bush was actually calling Obama an appeaser, but it sure looks like he is one right now.
Life is running as par for the course INRE Pakistani negotiations with terrorists.
Per the South Asian news via Monsters & Critics today the Taliban have refused to disarm until Islamic sharia is completely enforced in the region, a Taliban spokesman said.
My my… dad in law can’t convince son-in-law terrorist powerhouse Maulana Fazlullah to cooperate. Is this dad-in-law new here???? With the power Fazlullah yields over the region, what makes Sufi Mohammad think he can control his son-in-law?
This whole exercise is nothing new. Or, as suek laughingly quoted Wordsmith’s Jan 25th Sunday Funnies… can you say RELOAD???
A worthy visual repeat from Wordsmith’s Sunday efforts to make us all smile in the face of adversity…