Taliban promises it will keep AQ out if foreign troops leave.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BuggerAll, Nov 18, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Book Reviewer Kit Reviewer

    There have been a number of reports recently that the Taliban have promised to keep AQ out of Afghanistan if NATO goes home. They have also promised to be peaceful once all foreign troops leave the country.

    One of our aims in Afghanistan is to deny it as a base to AQ. It was the 'casus belli' for action in 2001.

    So that begs a few questions. Could the Taliban keep AQ out? Would they keep AQ out? If they can and do should that be enough NATO and the rest of the world to leave them to it.

    I don't know the answer to the first, I would not trust them on the second or anything else and although keeping AQ out is an issue I think there are much wider issues now,. such as the future of Afghanistan and its people who have demonstrated at the ballot box and else where that on the whole they want nothing to do with the Taliban.
  2. Brilliant.When do we leave?
  3. Any links to these reports ? If the taliban have resorted to offering concessions to ISAF then maybe they are suffering heavier losses than imagined. Whilst the taliban are area based ie:Afghanistan/Pakistan, AQ is just a well funded mobile wooden spoon whose influence outweighs its numbers and will pop up in any sympathetic country (which they have done)for the sake of a few million in backhanders, in order to stir up some shit. If the taliban got back into power in Afg and needed some dosh then AQ are a good source, so IMHO they would let them back in. Once ISAF leave AFG, I sincerely doubt they would go back in should AQ reappear. Whatever happens, its only a matter of time before the whole place goes to shit again.
  4. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Book Reviewer Kit Reviewer

    Sorry, techno mong moment, I thought I'd put a link in the post. I'm afraid I can't find it now but it has been mentioned quite a few times over the last few days an the back of some western reporter interviewing beardy types in the back of beyond.
  5. BBC carried it yesterday.
    BBC News - Afghan rebel group offers truce terms
    A leading Afghan insurgent group has told the BBC it would agree to a ceasefire if US-led coalition forces stayed in their main bases.

    Hezb-e-Islami, viewed as the country's most important rebel group after the Taliban, said they had already held talks with the Americans.

    Habib-ur-Rahman, son of Hezb-e-Islami chief Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, said his father was willing to stop fighting.

    The Taliban this week rejected talks while Western forces remain.

    Hezb-e-Islami and the Taliban share common enemies - the central government and foreign forces - but there have been deadly clashes between the uneasy allies over control of local villages and taxes.

    Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is regarded as one of the three main insurgent leaders, along with Mullah Omar (Quetta Shura Taliban) and Sirajuddin Haqqani (Haqqani network Taliban).

    During an hour-long exclusive interview with the BBC, Mr Hekmatyar's son, Habib-ur-Rahman, said: "We have held talks with the Afghan government and the Americans.

    Continue reading the main story
    Start Quote
    If they remain in their bases, then we will not attack them”
    End Quote

    Hezb-e-Islami spokesman

    Taliban chief says no Nato talks
    Talks with Taliban 'over-hyped'
    "We have prepared a formula, and discussed it with the parliament and the foreign powers," said Mr Rahman.

    "All Afghan groups agree that war is not the solution. But the Americans are sending 30,000 more troops in.

    "They say 'we will suppress our opponents and then evolve a new strategy for Afghanistan'."

    Mr Rahman said this was counter-productive. But he also said he believed the Americans would return to the negotiating table soon.

    "They will return as they know they cannot stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. The main thing for the war to end is for the Americans to leave," he said.

    Mr Rahman said Hezb-e-Islami had proposed a "very rational plan" for "a dignified withdrawal".

    The Hezb-e-Islami's proposals envisage the US led coalition forces pulling back into their main bases like Bagram in Kabul, and Kandahar.
    A timetable will then be evolved with the Afghan government for free and fair elections within two years.
    All opposition (insurgent) groups will also participate in this. A parliament will then be elected and the Americans can then leave the country

    He added that a ceasefire was also possible while US troops remained in Afghanistan.

    "If they remain in their bases, then we will not attack them," he said.

    Mr Rahman also claimed that al-Qaeda was "not an issue" in Afghanistan, as the war was being waged by Afghans: "There is not a single Arab among them; most of the Arabs have left for Iraq."

    Mr Rahman said he had only read about Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts in the media, adding that he did not believe the al-Qaeda chief was in Afghanistan.

    He also denied that Pakistan had provided a helping hand to the militants.

    "In fact, Pakistan has been helping out the coalition forces by detaining and arresting the mujahideen," he said.

    Earlier this week, Taliban leader Mullah Omar said there was no prospect of peace talks between the militants and the Afghan government.

    He said "rumours of negotiation" were a ploy by Western powers to "cover up" their military defeat in Afghanistan.
  6. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Book Reviewer Kit Reviewer

    Cheers Hector. I was beginning to wonder if I'd been having a 'senior moment'.
  7. they've got bloody good PR people those pesky buggers.

    i don't believe a word, they just want to feck with our heads.
  8. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Book Reviewer Kit Reviewer

    They are trying to provoke the response that vaaaanman gave.
  9. Honest and trustworthy chaps - should we take them at their word? I'm sure if we asked them nicely they would supervise some free and fair elections as well. Possibly be talked into allowing religous and personal freedoms. I'm sure the Pakistanis would be glad to see the Taliban leaving in their droves to return to a free Afghanistan.

    If they allowed pigs at all - I am sure we would see a few flying too.

    Perhaps these announcements along with other appeals for cash and desperately hopeless suicide attacks on SF bases are an indication that the taliban are becoming more fragmented and isolated from the Afghan populace. But that wouldn't make good news for the BBC and other liberal media outlets would it?
  10. It's a bit early for April fools is it not?

    Seriously, were all fully aware about the 'Talks' in progress but many will have a cynical attitude towards this due to Karzai's history of dialogue and corruption?
  11. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Book Reviewer Kit Reviewer

    According to Gen Sir David the Taliban are taking a hammering so maybe there is something in what you say. Interesting how little these remarks are being reported compared to how wide the coverage was and how badly misrepresented he was when he pointed out that they cannot be defeated by military force alone.
  12. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Yeah, but he's easily led that boy.
  13. I wonder if they similarly will take part in elections and stand by the decisions taken. I wonder if they will become peaceful advocates of Afghans.
  14. Didn't they have the option back in 2001?