World Rhetoric: The Taliban Frienemy?

What's next...pokes on Facebook?

     I could never be a politician. I believe in speaking my mind in straight forward, unambiguous terms. No wiffle-waffling around. I also know that there are certain people that you just can’t reach, no matter how hard you try to find that “common ground” to work from. Politicians on the other hand, often engage in ambiguous “double-speak,” saying one thing when they actually mean something completely different. They obfuscate the truth, covering it in layer upon layer of condition and color, until the real crux of the matter is lost in the process.

     In mid-December, Vice-President Joe Biden stated during a Newsweek interview that the Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan and sometime allies of Al Qaeda, are not our enemy. Immediate reaction to the statement was mixed, while White House spokesman Jay Carney stated that Biden’s words were “only regrettable when taken out of context.” For context’s sake, let’s look at the entire section of comments, so that we can get a better idea of what Biden was trying to convey:

    “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. 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 went on to say that the U.S. is pursuing a two-pronged approach to the situation in Afghanistan; keeping pressure on Al Qaeda, while also supporting an Afghani government that is strong enough to negotiate, yet not be overthrown by the Taliban.⁽¹⁾ President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan responded by welcoming the remarks, stating that this position on the part of the U.S. would “…bring peace and stability to the people of Afghanistan.”⁽²⁾ Meanwhile, on the part of the Taliban, according to an inside militant source and relayed to the Associated Press, the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership are again in cahoots, calling on Pakistani militants to send combatants to support their “battle against America in Afghanistan.”⁽³⁾

     Now, it’s opining time. Evidently, Jokin’ Joe and good buddy Hamid didn’t make sure Mullah Omar and the guys received a copy of the memo. While we’re talking “Barney hugs” and nice sentiments toward the Taliban, they in turn still want to kill us. Keep in mind, my fine young readers, this is the same Taliban that allowed Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to establish training camps in Afghanistan, launch an attack on U.S. soil resulting in almost 3,000 deaths, and then thumbed their noses at us when we asked that Bin Laden be given up for prosecution.

     This is the same Taliban that in 1999, issued a decree that protected the Bamiyan Buddhas, a pair of 180 and 121 foot-high, 6th century Buddha statues carved into a rock face in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan. Then in 2001, this same Taliban declared them a heresy, and blew them up. In other words people, the Taliban have a better record of flip-flopping than a short stack at IHOP. Now, it’s no great secret that the U.S. and Afghanistan have been engaged in “secret” negotiations with the Taliban, to what end I have no idea, since it is amazing to me that anyone would think they could hold the Taliban to their word.

     Currently, the Taliban are focused on overthrowing the government of Pakistan, along with getting us out of Afghanistan sooner than later. The thing to remember here is that Pakistan is a nuclear nation, having performed their first successful test, named “Chagai-I” in 1998.⁽⁴⁾ What’s even more suspiciously wiggy is that Pakistan was one of only three governments to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan. (Way to repay the kindness, eh? By trying to overthrow the very government that gave you “props” in the first place?)

     Welcome to the world of geo-politics, my fine young readers. I’m not sure what the lesson is to be learned here, maybe to “keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and your frienemies wedged somewhere in between”?

________________________________________

“Listen down you little man,
I’m not the one who’s trying to change you…
And if you come to understand, it’ll be okay yeah,
You need to change it…you need to change it now…
I’m not the one who’s trying to be your enemy,
That’s something you need to change.”
(Days of The New, “Enemy” c1999, Outpost Records.)

The Chaser: …And You Can Quote Me On That!

NOT tit for tat!

     There are a few thoughts that I have shared before about this whole “War on Terror.” I’ve shared these on Facebook, on MySpace and in e-mails to friends. I thought it might be pertinent to post them here, given the discussion about Anwar al-Awlaki and other related subjects. These are my personal opinions, and should be taken as such, except where direct quotes are used…

     In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan was a “clean shoot.” Usama bin Laden used the cover of the Taliban and the Afghani desert to mastermind and launch an attack against our country that claimed almost 3,000 lives. We gave the Taliban every opportunity to give bin Laden up, and they turned around, shrugged their shoulders and basically told us, “We don’t know what you’re talking about.” At that point, they became willingly complicit, so we had every right to go over and apply foot to arse. End of story.

     Conversely, I think that the war in Iraq was a hypocritical undertaking of global proportions. Here’s why: I (the U.S.) think you (Iraq) might have a gun (WMDs). Not only do I think you might have a gun, I think you might give that gun to someone (Usama bin Laden and Al Quaeda) who has already shot me (9/11). So, I’m going to shoot you first! If I do that here on the streets of America, it’s called “assault with a deadly weapon,” and I go to jail. If the U.S. does it to Iraq, it’s called “Preemptive Action” and is somehow justified. Again, this seems like hypocrisy to me.

Let's go, toe to toe: Christ and Muhammad

     When it comes down to radical Islam versus my take on Christianity, then my “invisible man” is better than your “invisible man.” Where mine says “Live and let live,” (Matthew 13) yours says “Live and let die.” (Qu’ran, Surah 9:5) At least my “invisible man” doesn’t require me to strap ten pounds of Semtex to my body and blow myself into oblivion to prove my faith in him. Where I might want to share a meal with you, you want to kill me, just because I don’t believe the way you do. Oh wait, even if I did believe in Islam and Allah and all that, you’d still kill me based upon geography and politics! Therefore, my “invisible man” is better!