DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... VP Biden: Taliban Is Not Our Enemy

While the VP may technically be correct .... I bet that servicemen and women in the line of fire from Taliban forces would disagree with him.

White House Stands By Biden Statement That Taliban Isn't U.S. Enemy | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/...test=latestnews

The White House on Monday defended Vice President Joe Biden for saying that the Taliban isn't an enemy of the United States despite the years spent fighting the militant Islamic group that gave a home to Al Qaeda and its leader Usama bin Laden while he plotted the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"It's only regrettable when taken out of context," White House spokesman Jay Carney said of  the vice president's remarks in an interview published Monday. 

"It is a simple fact that we went into Afghanistan because of the attack on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. We are there now to ultimately defeat Al Qaeda, to stabilize Afghanistan and stabilize it in part so that Al Qaeda or other terrorists who have as their aim attacks on the United States cannot establish a foothold again in that country," Carney continued.

During Biden's interview with Newsweek last week, the vice president said it's "good enough" for the U.S. if Afghanistan stops being a "haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America" and its allies. He added that the U.S. is supportive of a reconciliation process between the Afghan government and the Taliban even if it's questionable whether a reconciliation is possible. 

"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," Biden said. "There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy, because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."

Biden said that the U.S. is on a dual track in Afghanistan -- keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and support a government that is strong enough to "negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban."

Carney said the U.S. did not send the military into Afghanistan because the Taliban were in power, and the vice president's point was that "while we are fighting them, it is not the elimination -- the elimination of the Taliban is not the issue here."

Indeed, the U.S. entered Afghanistan just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans to rid the country of Al Qaeda, whose leader had been an invited guest and offered safe haven for years by the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist.

Today, fewer than 200 Al Qaeda terrorists reportedly remain in the country. But military officials say the primary attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan are being conducted by fighters loyal to the Taliban and the Taliban-tied Haqqani network, both of which are based out of neighboring Pakistan and freely cross the treacherous border.

According to Reuters, U.S. officials are hopeful that 10 months of secret negotiations with Taliban insurgents will soon result in a breakthrough that will allow the U.S. to leave Afghanistan as scheduled by 2014 without leaving the country to the whims of the hardline group. 

Reuters reported Sunday the deal the U.S. is considering would include a prisoner release of Taliban detainees in Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a renunciation of violence and international terrorism, part of reconciliation talks with the government headed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The U.S. also would offer unequivocal support for establishing a Taliban office in an Islamic country that it could use as a diplomatic headquarters, Reuters reported, and would demand preconditions such as a renunciation of violence, a break with Al Qaeda and respect for the Afghan constitution. Carney said Monday that the U.S. has been clear that those conditions "would need to be met." 

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Biden's remarks -- as well as Biden's and President Obama's belief that the Taliban are not the enemy -- are "bizarre, factually wrong and an outrageous affront our troops carrying out the fight in Afghanistan." He said the comments also reflect the administration's policy of "appeasement."

"The Taliban harbored the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on Sept 11. The Taliban continues to wage war against us and our allies, a conflict in which we have lost over 1,800 troops. The Taliban receives arms and training from Iran. And the Taliban seeks to reinstate a tyrannical government that violently rejects basic notions of human rights and oppresses minorities. The Taliban is clearly a bitter enemy of the United States," Romney said in a statement late Monday. 

Biden is a jackass... but I don't quite understand why you want to post this now.

You never did post any of these sorts of things when Bush was in office, did you? There were plenty of examples to choose from, but not only did you not post them, but you probably argued against others who posted them? Right?

These guys don't get it.

They have less of a clue than we do. At least we get taste of what the dead feels like. We know the people it affects.

Just sad all around what we put the pawns through. That statement has no political capital. Just saying.

I don't recall Bush saying anything that was quite this insensitive towards members of the military.

I posted this because I thought that it was worthy of discussion.

Wasn't Biden supposed to be on the ticket to give Obama foreign policy gravitas? Calling this team 'Dumb & Dumber' is an insult to dumb people and dumber people.

Is the Taliban a world wide terrorist group, plotting to attack insider the USA?

OR, is the Taliban an extremist religious/political group located in Afghanistan?

One of the reasons for Biden's public response concerning the Taliban might just be due to the fact the USA/NATO are attempting to negotiate a peace with the Taliban, rather than continue years of fighting against them.

If the USA is trying to negotiate peace, you don't want to publicly declare the Taliban, "the enemy". Is that so hard for some to understand?

A negotiated peace with the Taliban would probably save a lot of American soldiers lives...vs....attempting to kill all the Taliban...ya think?

Some are not looking at the "big picture" concerning Afghanistan/Taliban and just what might be at stake and why Biden would publicly say, the Taliban are not our enemy.

Some "followers" prefer to take a "small view", looking to score cheap political points while claiming they care about our soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

However ...... US soldiers, having been bombed and shot at by Taliban fighters may not see "The Taliban is not our enemy" as the best possible way of phrasing it.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like Biden is sending an open message to the Taliban and laying groundwork to get them to stop backing Al Quaeda and stop fighting us.

Letting them clearly know that "we don't have a problem with you, and we can put all this behind us and let you have your role back... but if you take down the current Gov't, then the gloves are coming off and you're directly on the target list, too". Basically, negotiating in the media as a public declaration of policy.

I think that's exactly what he means ....... but I think that he hurt himself a great deal with the way he out it.

I didn't see the context in which he put it, but I would say that what hurts him, if anything, is shoddy reporters with agendas taking and reporting things out of context.

There is more partisanship in reporting than there is in politics... and it sucks most of all for us trying to make sense of it all.

If he would have said, "Look, the Taliban is a political, economic, tribal and spiritual force in that region of the world, and any chance we have of getting the country to reconcile and become a peaceful country will have to include them in some manner. They will have to give up terrorism and other such activities which have no place in today's world, but if they renounce violence and terrorism, there is no reason they cannot take part in the political process."

Instead we got the idiotic "The Taliban (who are shooting at, bombing, and killing our soldiers) are not our enemy."

Really? He spoke in parentheses?

I dunno, this sends the wrong message. And it seems like we're trying to find an easy out of this war

The Taliban is an enemy of the United States no matter what way you see it. They support Al Qaeda, they support a society that believes that women are the as valuable as dogs.

Everything the US stands for the Taliban doesn't. They don't support political freedom. Many members of the Taliban aren't even FROM Afghanistan. All this talk about rebuilding Afghanistan and women's rights and now we're saying the Taliban isn't the enemy?

Yeah, it looks like an easy out of this war to me........... And soon there will be a civil war and the Taliban will once again take over and terrorize the people of that country. What's going to happen to that female police force if the Taliban takes over? Brave women stepping up to the plate. They'll probably all be raped, torchered, etc. Schools where girls are allowed to go, yeah, those girls will have some terrible acts done to them.

Yeah, sounds like we are backing out and we'll have wasted a whole lot of time in that country. In this case, woulda been better to kick Al Qaeda out and invest heavily in the country with CIA agents and use Predator Drones to attack any new Al Qaeda bases found.

I mean, we did demand the Taliban give up Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda after 9-11, and what did they do? They said no............ But they aren't our enemy? You've gotta be kidding me

And it'll be the second time 25-30 years we walked out on them.

Ummm.... that's the whole point.

We're sending a message that says "stop supporting them and we don't consider you an enemy. Continue to support them and you go down with them".
As for the political freedom over there and all that rot.... we don't care about that. Hell, if you gave our politicians the chance here, they wouldn't care about it here either.


Flat out, this IS exactly what you alluded to at the top of your post - they are searching for a quick and easy way out.

Quote:

---

Flat out, this IS exactly what you alluded to at the top of your post - they are searching for a quick and easy way out.

---

Yeah, but

1) do you really believe that when we leave, the Taliban won't allow Al Qaeda in with open arms (same ideology and everything). They're a match made in heaven..........

This issue with terrorists in Afghanistan isn't going to go away. Why, because it's hard for me to believe that Karzai is going to be able to keep that country together.

2) It's just disappointing to see ten years of war go to waste. I guess we should have paid attention to history, focused on finding and killing Al Qaeda and left the Taliban alone. My buddy from Pakistan said, "You're not going to be able to defeat the Taliban. Those people are nuts. They've always been fighting. Most of them aren't even from Afghanistan. They're hated by most everyone in the country, but they don't care"

May be he could just be straight with us and say that the country is unfixable. That our culture and theirs just don't match. That all these humanity reasons that i've heard mean nothing.

That this all has been a total waste. There's really no solution, continue to throw money/lives at that country and see very little progress, OR pull out, allow the country/people to get taken over by the ruthless Taliban again, let Islamic Extremist Terrorists to come back, and let everything we've been fighting for go to waste

Lose/Lose. Pretty disappointing

1. I don't think we really care about what happens after we leave.


2. While I'd sign up and go in a heartbeat if D.C. would just get off it's dead ass and process/approve my paperwork, all war is a waste.

i disagree with your first unless you are assuming we don't leave for quite sometime.

afghanistan has a rich mineral mining industry to be harvested along with being a central pipeline for oil and natural gas in europe (and thus stability)

so, we very much care what happens there

Only while we, and our interests, are there.
We will be there in some capacity as long as there is economic exploitation available to us.... and once that is gone, we won't care a bit about what happens.

We're telling the Taliban to play ball and they can be a part of the future. Don't play ball, and they're history.

ok, fair enough.

Quote:

---

You never did post any of these sorts of things when Bush was in office, did you? There were plenty of examples to choose from, but not only did you not post them, but you probably argued against others who posted them? Right?

---

because mac beat him to it every time

Quote:

---

There is more partisanship in reporting than there is in politics... and it sucks most of all for us trying to make sense of it all.

---

True.

Thank God most of us (if not all of us) are smart enough to know when we are being 'hosed' by propaganda.

Well, that may be the case, in fact it probably is, but for me, it's time we get the hell out of the middle east and let them kill each other off.

if those ding dongs wanna turn thier space into a glass parking lot,, have at it..

I recognize that if we don't stop them over there, we may feel it here. I get it.

But there is an upside to not blowing the budget on war. We can probably spend way less (no, I don't know how much less but certainly less but we're spending 10billion + a month on war) on homeland security.

Take that money and defend our borders. make it a lot harder to get to us.

We aren't doing nearly enough to stop the infiltration of terrorists into our own country.

No amount of security can stop a well trained individual with the determination to not only kill thousands,but himself as well.