Levin: ‘Should we have been in any peace negotiations with the Taliban?’

[Chosen Daughter]

Levin: ‘Should we have been in any peace negotiations with the Taliban?’
Carmel Kookogey · September 12, 2019

Wednesday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin told listeners why the anniversary of the deadly terror attacks of 9/11 reminds us that this kind of attack must not happen again on American soil.

“The attack on the United States 18 years ago was the most violent attack, the most deadly attack on the continental United States in American history. It was done by terrorists. Osama bin Laden organized it. Al Qaeda executed it. But none of it would have been possible but for the safe harbor, protection, and support bin Laden and al Qaeda got from the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is why we are in Afghanistan. And by the way, it’s thousands and thousands of miles away. What are we doing in a war thousands and thousands of miles away? And yet, they struck us. In the heart of our biggest city. They struck the Pentagon. They would’ve struck the White House or the Capitol building but for the heroes, the civilian heroes, that brought a third plane down in the middle of Pennsylvania. That’s why we’re in Afghanistan. ‘Well, we’ve been there 18 years.’ Should we have been there 12 months, three years, eight years? I don’t even understand the point. We have 14,000 soldiers there, and they have prevented another 9/11.”

Listen:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=post;board=7.0

[Chosen Daughter]

For the record my answer is no.

[kevindavis007]

Hell No..

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The wisdom of negotiating is entirely dependent upon the terms of the negotiation, and the terms of whatever deal you are trying to strike.  A flat-out bar on negotiations of any kind seems to put very little value on the lives of the troops who have to back up that kind of chest-thumping.

The fact of the matter is that there are large swaths of Afghanistan that are under the effective control of the Taliban, and have been for a long time.  Levin's argument that we've denied them a safe haven is false -- they've had effective safe havens for most of the time we've been there.

[skeeter]

I don't think its productive, but its probably an attempt to try every available option before pulling out. The Taliban aren't going anywhere, and obviously they cannot be entirely eliminated.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't think its productive, but its probably an attempt to try every available option before pulling out. The Taliban aren't going anywhere, and obviously they cannot be entirely eliminated.

The Taliban is closely intertwined with the Pashtun, who constitute over 40% of the population.  And yup, they're not going anywhere.  The goal has to be trying to distance Pashtun nationalism from the religious goals of the Taliban.  As of now, they're pretty closely intertwined, but one reason for engaging in negotiations is to determine how possible it is to separate those two ideas by changing conditions politically, and on the ground.

[skeeter]

The Taliban is closely intertwined with the Pashtun, who constitute over 40% of the population.  And yup, they're not going anywhere.  The goal has to be trying to distance Pashtun nationalism from the religious goals of the Taliban.  As of now, they're pretty closely intertwined, but one reason for engaging in negotiations is to determine how possible it is to separate those two ideas by changing conditions politically, and on the ground.

Obviously you have a much better idea of whats going on over there. IMO there's no negotiating with terrorists but the Taliban are the closest thing to a political opposition party that Afghanistan has. We either talk to them, or stay over there for the next millennium trying to eliminate them.

[TomSea]

I don't think its productive, but its probably an attempt to try every available option before pulling out. The Taliban aren't going anywhere, and obviously they cannot be entirely eliminated.

Yes, that's probably the way I see it. One has to try, more about this here:

'Astonishing': Taliban responds to Trump's peace talks withdrawal
A spokesman tells Al Jazeera that without an agreement the Taliban is not obliged to give safe passage to US troops.
12 Sep 2019

...

"It was astonishing for us because we had already concluded the peace agreement with the American
negotiating team," Suhail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesman, told Al Jazeera in Qatar's capital Doha.

...

Since talks began, discussions focused on four key issues: a Taliban guarantee it will not allow foreign armed groups and fighters to use Afghanistan as a launchpad to conduct attacks outside the country; the complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces; an intra-Afghan dialogue; and a permanent ceasefire.

...

He said the Taliban's agreement with the US was to offer them safe passage in the withdrawal of troops - something they would stand by if a deal is signed.

More at: https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2019/09/taliban-respond-trump-peace-talks-withdrawal-190912103207588.html

We'll see how those saying no look when the first casualties come in. I note, almost every night, Levin is backing Trump; so again, it's kind of a hilarious to now see one of the heavy Trump critics bring this out, without Trumjp, their way would have ISIS still strong in all likelihood or it would have taken longer to get to this point. 

 I don't get any recording at the link but I found this covering it:

https://villaricanews.com/2019/09/12/mark-levin-9-11-anniversary-is-a-reminder-of-why-us-should-never-invite-taliban-here/

[skeeter]

Yes, that's probably the way I see it. One has to try, more about this here:

They shouldn't be "astonished" given the reason the administration called off the talks.

[verga]

I would feel better about any negotiations with them if it was from a position of strength. Right now the Taliban has nothing to lose. If we have them beaten to a point taht they can't recover then fine lets "talk" but until then no.

[TomSea]

I'd ask Retired General Mattis, he's certainly discussed negotiating with them.

There have already been negotiations with ISIS of sorts in Syria, for example, if hostilities cease, civilians and ISIS groups can flee. This may not sound ideal.

If one wants to go full John-Rambo on people, have at it, but there is a pragmatic dimension here.

What if we were talking about a situation where innocent civilians, children and older people might be spared?

[skeeter]

I would feel better about any negotiations with them if it was from a position of strength. Right now the Taliban has nothing to lose. If we have them beaten to a point taht they can't recover then fine lets "talk" but until then no.

If there's one thing we should've learned over all these years its there's no beating a guerrilla type force in their own country and who has access to a safe haven.

[TomSea]

If there's one thing we should've learned over all these years its there's no beating a guerrilla type force in their own country and who has access to a safe haven.

Also, to keep it short, some negotiations have taken place to allow civilians to flee. Those are somewhat peace negotiations too.

There is a pragmatic dimension here.

[Chosen Daughter]

If we want our troops out pull them out.  You can't make deals with the devil.  It is up to their own region to support an Afghanistan free from extremism.  In hind sight I would say we have not accomplished much.  The fact that the Taliban is in control of such large area's says the Democratically elected government of Afghanistan has failed to change.  And maybe it is a pipe dream to think that these people want change.  They aren't apparently willing to make the change themselves.

Why should we let Terrorists step foot in our country?  They have already proven that attacks do and will continue. 

[Fishrrman]

My answer is no as well.

The only "negotiations" with them should be with... bullets.