"Can America Trust the Taliban to Prevent Another 9/11?" Topic

"For nearly 20 years, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan has been sustained by a single, vital national interest: the clear and present danger of another September 11–like attack emerging from this region of the world, absent constant efforts to thwart it. To this end, U.S. strategy has been threefold: deploying American and allied forces to Afghanistan to conduct sensitive counterterrorism missions there and in neighboring parts of Pakistan; training and enabling Afghan partner forces to assume the bulk of responsibility for security inside their country; and backing a friendly government in Kabul that has permitted international forces to operate from its territory against Islamist extremism.

This strategy has been costly and unsatisfying—but also reasonably successful. It enabled the United States to eliminate the al Qaeda camps that flourished in Afghanistan under the Taliban prior to its ouster from power in late 2001, and equally important, it has kept that extremist infrastructure from being reestablished. When terrorists attempted to rebuild their networks in the nearby tribal areas of northwest Pakistan in the mid-2000s, the United States was able to smash them there, too, from its Afghan bases. And it was out of Afghanistan that the operation against Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad hideout was launched in May 2011. More recently, the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan again proved its value when an Islamic State (ISIS) affiliate emerged on the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier and attempted to raise the black flag of the caliphate there. It likewise has been pummeled…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I can't imagine anyone even asking this question, since the answer is obvious.

What a stupid article. A better question is can the US trust Saudi Arabia to prevent another 9-11?

Tell the Taliban they get one warning, then we go for their leadership.

Stupid title, so I didn't even bother with the article. The perpetrators of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two of our allies. The Taliban are a backward people in a backward land.

Not only have arealdeadone and USAFpilot got it right, but the jihadists are well-established in a dozen African and Asian nations now. A new "9-11" could come from anywhere, anytime. How much infrastructure does one need, apart from a funding source (again, thanks Saudis)?

The "mission" in Afghanistan is pointless and has been from early days, at least if you define a "point" as keeping America and her allies safe. There is a point for somebody, of course, and Petraeus and Serchuk are in their employ.

The US declared war on the Taliban after 9/11 because they failed to produce OBL, not because they perpetrated the attacks.

So if the question is: "Should the US trust the Taliban to prevent more terrorist attacks from terrorist organizations in Afghanistan by controlling them?" the answer is no because they do not control other people's actions.

The question is whether the Taliban will at this point allow terrorist groups with international ambitions to operate in territory they control, and that question is neither stupid nor obvious.

At the beginning of their movement in the 90s, during the Afghan civil war, the Taliban's focus was on controlling and unifying Afghanistan under their ultra conservative brand of Islam, not exporting terror beyond Afghanistan's borders. When they welcomed bin Laden and his groupies into the country bin Laden seems to have persuaded Omar to broaden his ambitions and assume the "mantel of the Prophet", declaring a caliphate – the implications of which could be seen years later when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi made the same move.

But Omar is long dead. His replacements are dead. The Taliban (not that it's much of a unified group any more) doesn't get along with ISIS. We really don't know at this stage how far the Taliban's ambitions go. This isn't an argument in favor of negotiating with them, let alone trusting them, but dismissing the question is silly.

"Can America Trust the Taliban to Prevent Another 9/11?"

Can America Trust the _______to Prevent Another 9/11? Fill in the blank. The answer is NO, no matter how you fill in the blank. Sure, we have allies, but you ultimate trust no one when it comes to national security. We take whatever actions we deem necessary. That's why it is a dumb question.

I wouldn't even give them one warning, and they should be put on notice that their home bases in Pakistan will be hit too, with a vengeance.

Hahahahaha! What an inane question. Was it rhetorical?

their home bases in Pakistan

And there's the rub – the whole problem since day 1 was not Afghanistan. The problem is and always has been support for Taliban and AQ and other fundamentalist nasties by supposed US allies ala Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.

Even ISIS received massive support from some of these countries as well as Turkey during their initial growth period in the war in Syria.

If this was WWII, USA would have declared war on Germany ally Slovakia whilst selling weapons to the Germans.

Since the start of the War on Terror, US policy could be described only as stupid, illogical and ultimately ineffective.

It's impact is massive and not just in terms of lost treasure and blood. US squandered good will and world leadership role it had achieved in 1991 when USSR imploded. It lost leadership role in Middle East but also Asia due to Middle East distraction averting its focus from China. And it empowered Iran.

US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia: "My government wishes to convey its concern and displeasure with Riyadh's aiding and abetting certain, uh, terrorist elements that could pose a serious and imminent threat abroad, which have been corroborated by our intelligence agencies."

Crown Prince of SA: "I protest in the strongest possible terms to such allegations!"

US Ambassador to SA: "On what grounds? As I've said, multiple intelligence sources have confirmed that…"

Crown Prince: "Oh, did I mention that I had an interesting conversation the other day with our esteemed defense minister, and he told me that he has narrowed down our next major fighter purchase worth $30 USD billion between the Eurofighter and the F-15S? He's close to making a final decision and is due to make the announcement in the next few days. How rude of me to interrupt. Please forgive me. Now what were you saying?"

Ambassador (looking a bit distracted before replying after a pause): "I positively have forgotten what I was about to say."

Fanatik, that about hits the nail on the head!

Ha!Ha!….

Amicalement
Armand

Sounds like an issue of GI Joe I read once. Hama was a master storyteller. Still, with the US being able to sell a lot more F-35s around the world, what's a couple of F-15s? And Saudi doesn't tolerate terrorists, that's why Bin Laden and his crew was exiled to Afghanistan. Read about Wahabism. Saudi royal family don't want any part of it.

By the way a Bangladeshi co-worker who always complains about racist treatment in Australia recently called Saudis "less than human" in a conversation over lunch. Most racist thing I've heard in a while…Interesting…

Fanatik +4 Vorpel I think!

SA certainly doesn't tolerate any dissent about the position of the ruling family… But as far as extremists operating within the Kingdom certainly historically they've tended towards a policy of 'the Nile is a river in Africa'. IIRC a couple of small bomb attacks against westerners post-9/11 were blamed on alcohol smuggling ring vendettas. A number of innocent ex-patriots were lifted and tortured – caused a stink in the UK press at the time, but pretty quickly died away. Basically the religious establishment the House of Saud built to legitimise itself and essentially control Islamic practice in the Kingdom became their own biggest problem, but they are too intertwined for them to do anything meaningful.

Racism isn't just a western thing, but Bangladeshis and others who are migrant workers in the Kingdom may have a real axe to grind….

what's a couple of F-15s?

Not just $30 USD billion F-15 deals. SA is the largest client of the US arms industry by far. Don't bite the hand that feeds your military-industrial-complex: link

The Saudi Royal family does however reserve the right to execute reporters that criticize them. What they "tolerate" is irrelevant. As long as we're arming them our interests only appear to align. Threaten that flow of arms export cashy money and all values become secondary. A true Republican and great American, Dwight D. Eisenhower once warned of the threat our growing military industrial complex posed to our democracy. Well we walked right into it despite his prophetic warning. Fanatik and arealdeadone are quite correct. And USAFpilot is spot on as well, some allies are better than others. Every one of them by design will prioritize their own national interest. Common interest shouldn't be confused with trust. We all agree that "trusting" the various factions and ethnic groups in that region is folly. Operations with no overarching strategic plan has created chaos and allowed room for "small players" like Russia to fill the void left by US missteps.

Read about Wahabism. Saudi royal family don't want any part of it.

The Wahhab-Saud pact is the cornerstone of modern Saudi Arabia. This pact has last over 300 years!

The Saudis gladly export fundamentalism when they can be it through mosques and religious schools or terrorists and militia.

Saudi dollars are one of the main drivers of increased conservatism (fundamentalism) in the whole Islamic world. Even Obama admitted this in an indepth article in the Atlantic a few years ago.

(This doesn't mean the Saudi Royal family are pious Muslims, many are not. But it does mean that Saudi Arabia is ruled as a religious dictatorship with the religious police arresting people for sinful acts such as women driving up to a few years ago.)

Thanks.

Amicalement
Armand