Taliban buy out fund

This is interesting. A buy out fund for the Taliban.

I am not an expert on Afghanistan by any stretch of the imagination.

Everything I have read, however, talks about financial incentives being important when working with the various factions. It’s not all religious fervour – there’s a monetary incentive that plays a major role.

The British reduced their ‘subsidy’ to various tribes in the late 1800s and were quickly ejected. Time to apply some lessons learnt from history?

5 Responses to “Taliban buy out fund”

  1. Dave Says:

    One of the reasons for the "religious fervour" is based around the incoming foreign funding.
    There is Shia and Sunni money flowing into the country, families are poor, and they send their children to a new Madrass built around a Mosque.
    The existing (friendly) Sufi Islam is getting canabalized by these two waring factions, who are competing with each other for fighters.
    Afghanistan did not appreciate being occupied by Western powers, so they were not welcome. Afghanistan was in the cross-hairs of a war between people of faith against Communistic Atheists, so America formerly had favor in the eyes of many citizens. Afghanistan is in the cross-hairs of a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
    Throw into this mix, Al-Qaeda of Sunni background, who was upset with ANY Americans & former Western colonizers (i.e. non-Muslims in general) in the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia, the nation which hosts Mecca – you can see how the anti-Western forces from Shiia and Sunni extremists on both sides of the proxy-war will occasionally partner against Western "Christians" (i.e. non-Muslims.)
    Natives in nearly 99% Muslim occupied nations will not be quickly won over to Western thought since children have been taught from their infant years that Westerners are infidels, deserving of death.
    The process of splitting the opposition is really the issue. Most Afghanis do not welcome other Western or Russian influence, due to former occupations. There are Afghanis who have very good feelings towards the Americans and those who have been indoctrinated by the terrorist and do not. America should have gone it, alone, in Afghanistan, instead of forming a coalition using Western governments – this muddied the water and provided a way for Taliban and Al-Qaeda to build alliances against the re-invading Western forces.
    To illustrate this historically, when Osama Bin Laden executed the attacks on foreign embassies, foreign military, civilians in various other nations, and finally September 11 attacks in the U.S. – the United States asked Afghanistan government to give him up, the various Afghanistan tribal leaders & Imams voted to give him up, and the Taliban in charge of the government denied the request – they invited war by protecting the group which started the war, instead of properly policing their own nation.
    The people who will eventually come to power will be some Taliban and if they decide not to protect terrorists (unlawful combatants who attack citizens of other nations in other nations), then foreign military actions in Afghanistan will become unnecessary.
    If this can be done through some kind of carrot mechanism to supplement the stick proposition – then wonderful! If the carrot comes from Western nations, this will be less objectional to Afghanis, since Americans had a legitimate right to self defense, and reason to put boots on the ground.
    In the end, military solutions topple governments, political solutions build governments, security provides stabilization for governments. What makes this article wrong is the suggestion that, "there is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan."
    The writer may be ignorant of the reality of establishing & securing governments or the writer may be guilty of purposely misleading ignorant readers for a biased political agenda. No one who advocates leveraging military power ever suggests it is a complete solution, but they acknowledge it is a required part of the puzzle for securing nations. Any implied suggestion by the writer for it not being part of the solution is completely devoid of reality and reduces the credibility of everything that he writes or report on… to mere propaganda (which may have some true facts included.)

  2. Chris Says:

    Interesting stuff, thanks Dave!

  3. Riz Din Says:

    Everything the government needs to know about Afghanistan can learned from Rambo III!

  4. Hardened User Says:

    Apparently the best bribes that the US had been using in the Northern parts of Afghanistan, is giving viagra to warlords who had a couple of wives each, to assist with, ahem, issues… it worked a treat.

  5. 2010 in review « Christopher Saul's Blog Says:

    […] The busiest day of the year was February 3rd with 141 views. The most popular post that day was Taliban buy out fund. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: