1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Weekend at Camp David- Taliban Edition

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Invisible Fan, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,147
    Likes Received:
    25,187
    In some ways, now is the time to end that war and pretend America has zero responsibility over Afghanistan's future....

    The Times article has a lot more details, but the mention of it has already triggered enough folks.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...negotiation-skills-by-inviting-taliban-2019-9
    • A proposed meeting between President Donald Trump, the Taliban, and Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani at Camp David was axed partly due to disagreements over the political showmanship, a new report says.
    • According to The New York Times, the idea of a meeting on US soil was subject to an argument between Trump and his National Security Council as to whether it should come before or after any concrete progress was made towards peace.
    • Trump wanted to go sooner, The Times reported, so that the optics of making a deal could be part of the negotiation.

    A meeting between President Donald Trump, leaders of the Taliban, and Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani at the presidential retreat in Camp David was called off due to disagreements over political showmanship, a new report claims.

    According to a New York Times article published Sunday, a potential peace agreement was ironed out on September 1 by US special representative to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, which ended in the suggestion of a visit to the US.

    The idea for the Taliban's trip to the presidential resort was reportedly embraced by Trump, but some National Security Council officials were not privy to the fluid developments, The Times reported.

    A point of contention ensued when the Taliban leaders accepted the proposal, but insisted the trip be held after a peace deal was announced.

    Trump, however, believed the Taliban's trip should be held before then, and wanted for it to be a part of the peace process, according to The Times.

    Trump, who dispensed with decades of political norms when he abruptly met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Demilitarized Zone in the Korean Peninsula, reportedly wanted to be perceived as the chief negotiator of peace with the terrorist group.


    Trump intended to hold separate meetings with President Ghani and the Taliban at Camp David, after which the US president would have the prime opportunity to showcase the new relationship, according to The Times.

    Other issues were raised in the days leading up to the Taliban's trip. Afghan officials reportedly said they objected to releasing thousands of Taliban prisoners, which the US had agreed to.

    On Thursday, the potential trip was nixed after Trump was informed of a suicide car bomb in Afghanistan which killed US Army Sgt. 1st Class Elis Angel Barreto Ortiz Ortiz, as well as a Romanian soldier and at least 10 civilians. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

    Trump and his aides came to an agreement that the Camp David trip — which would have been held three days before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks — could not be conducted after the car bomb attack, The Times said.

    "This is off; we can't do this," Trump said to officials, according to the article.

    Afghan officials reportedly seemed unaware of the change because the White House did not make a formal announcement.

    Trump would later announce the cancellation of the trip on his Twitter account: "Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, [the Taliban] admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people."

    "I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations," Trump added. "What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?"

    News of the potential trip, which was first revealed through Trump's tweet, was widely condemned by lawmakers. Democrats and Republicans in Congress denounced the plan, particularly in light of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

    "As we head into the anniversary of 9/11, I do not ever want to see those terrorists step foot in United States soil. Period," Republican Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida, a former US Army special forces soldier, said on Sunday.

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared on several television networks on Sunday to defend the plan and explain the rationale for the criticized trip.

    "In the end, if you're going to negotiate peace, you often have to deal with some pretty bad actors," Pompeo said on ABC News's "This Week."

    "And I know the history, too, at Camp David. Indeed, President Trump reflected on that, we all considered as we were debating how to try and get to the right ultimate outcome."

    "It was a place where we thought we could convince all the leaders of Afghanistan, President Ghani and his team, as well as the Taliban, we could convince them to begin to head in the direction that would create better conditions," Pompeo added. "It's why the president was willing to go down that direction."​
     
    #1 Invisible Fan, Sep 9, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
    KingCheetah likes this.
  2. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,795
    Likes Received:
    53,587
  3. RayRay10

    RayRay10 Houstonian

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,629
    Likes Received:
    11,030
    This is why you have secrets and classified information. Why Trump felt the need to tweet anything out about this failed attempt is beyond me.
     
    FranchiseBlade and Amiga like this.
  4. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,829
    Likes Received:
    16,682
    Deal Maker!
     
  5. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,618
    Likes Received:
    33,557
    Simply felt himself not at the forefront of the news cycle for a nanosecond. Seriously. Hurricane, NFL starting... he was feeling ignored.
     
    RayRay10 and No Worries like this.
  6. HTM

    HTM Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    6,464
    Likes Received:
    4,706
    I'm getting a Vietnam 2.0 feeling. Some sort of peace will be negotiated in the near future which will theoretically safe guard some Afghanis institutions the U.S. helped create and the U.S. will withdrawal and within 5 years we will be watching Saigon 1975 2.0 on our televisions.

    I don't see how this can end "well" - it will only end in the Taliban reestablishing total control at some point.

    Save as many folks as you can, cut your losses and run.

    Western Powers cannot impose rulers/representative government on Afghanistan. It doesn't work. We've seen it tried many times before. It always has ended in disaster. Stop trying.

    Seriously throwing money into a flaming barrel.
     
    RayRay10 and dachuda86 like this.
  7. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,059
    Likes Received:
    13,408
    We're going to abandon those poor bastards again. I remember when we started the war there was a lot of talk about how we abandoned the country in 1989 and that left the extremists to run wild. And we said not this time, we wouldn't leave them before the work is done. Now it looks like the work can't get done and we'll leave and the extremists will be ascendant again. Now imo, our original sin was not abandoning Afghanistan, but was in ever "helping" them in the first place. That blew back on us when we left, and now it'll blow back on us again when we leave again. This time, fellow voters, let us not think we can "fix" Afghanistan after they attack us.

    Walking out on negotiations if such standard Trump negotiating fare that you can set your watch by it. He thinks it'll discombobulate his counter-party, embarrass them for being stilted, and make them more desperate for a deal. But he has to make it clear that he walked out on them; otherwise, the Taliban might say they canceled it and ruin the whole gambit.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  8. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    53,785
    Likes Received:
    111,475
    Either install a permanent military base in Afghanistan and closely control it's elections and laws/constitution or get the hell out.

    You cannot half ass Afghanistan. You are in or you are out.

    Personally I think they would be far smarter to set up a permanent base in Iraq, encourage investment in Iraq and provide police protection in exchange for having a permanent foot hold. As someone married to an Iraqi, it is something that would likely be supported in Iraq if handled properly. The area is full of moderates and people that have some degree of education and social norms. Afghanistan is not a similar situation.
     
    biff17, mdrowe00 and RayRay10 like this.
  9. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost not wrong
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,267
    Likes Received:
    16,710
    I'm trying to imagine the Republican response to Obama negotiating a peace treaty with the Taliban at Camp David in the shadow of the anniversary of 9/11.

    It basically causes my brain to 404.
     
  10. pirc1

    pirc1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,971
    Likes Received:
    1,700
    Why is that? Why would Taliban able to beat US supported government? Do they have more funding? Better equipment? More popular support? I just want to know Why.
     
  11. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    123,879
    Likes Received:
    32,769
    It is just shocking watching this administration bumble around like idiots.

    DD
     
    Rashmon likes this.
  12. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,059
    Likes Received:
    13,408
    Maybe because the government won't be supported by the US anymore.
     
  13. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,883
    Likes Received:
    47,583
  14. pirc1

    pirc1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,971
    Likes Received:
    1,700
    Yes, but Taliban is not supported by any major government either. Why cannot Afghanistan government beat Taliban on their own? US will supply military equipment to the Afghanistan government I am sure, as well as train their military officers here in the US.
     
  15. HTM

    HTM Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    6,464
    Likes Received:
    4,706
    A U.S. lead NATO coalition has spent trillions of dollars over the last 18 years to defeat the Taliban and develop a safe/secure Afghanistan. They have been totally unsuccessful. The war has been going badly for the U.S. and her allies for years now. Truth be told, if you're a student of history, you'd know setting up a pro-western government never had a chance. The Taliban currently controls wide swaths of the country.

    If the U.S./NATO pulls out, like the U.S. did in Vietnam, the Afghan National Security Forces will crumble and the Taliban will take control of the country in a short period of time. The ARVN (South Vietnamese Army) was supplied/trained by the U.S. for years and was quickly overwhelmed by the north.

    The problem is the Taliban is made up of committed religious extremists (Vietnam you had committed Communists) who will stop at nothing to throw out the U.S. ("liberate their country from Ferangi") and once they are gone, overthrow the government the U.S. established. Opposing them, is an unpopular and corrupt political institution propped up by Western governments. (like the South Vietnamese government)

    It's gonna be a disaster but it's going to result in the same thing if we leave tomorrow or leave in 20 years. We have not been able to and are not going to be able to set up a well thought of/un-corrupt pro-Western/pro-Democratic government for a myriad of reasons. We are just continuing to burning money. We should do what we can to extract the most at risk and then wash our hands of it.
     
    B-Bob, RayRay10 and pirc1 like this.
  16. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,795
    Likes Received:
    53,587
     
    B-Bob likes this.
  17. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    7,993
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    This peace plan would’ve been successful if Jared had been in charge.
     
    foh and JuanValdez like this.
  18. RayRay10

    RayRay10 Houstonian

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,629
    Likes Received:
    11,030
    This is about the best summation of what’s going on there that I’ve seen.

    Afghanistan isn’t really a country, rather an area of land that no one else wanted. Tribes have set themselves up in certain areas and power must go through the tribes. You can’t set up a Western style government unless the tribes approve and you’ll never get approval from all of them. The Taliban has been able to gain power with money and resources and have numerous tribal leaders on their side.

    The point of being there was to get Bin Laden. We got him and we should have gotten out. There is no strategic value for continuing to be there (we can send drones in anytime we want) and we’re just wasting money at this point. Let the Taliban have it and move on.
     
    mdrowe00 likes this.
  19. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,795
    Likes Received:
    53,587
    trump supporter and one america news network host... defending trump's plan to meet with the taliban by claiming Reagan met with. Never mind the taliban wasn't started until well after Reagan left office. The picture the trump defender tweeted is Reagan meeting with Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviets.

    trumpidiocy abounds...

     
  20. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,710
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Thec we whole idea of not meeting with people so we won't legitimize them is stupid and dead.

    We don't don't have any reason to remain in Afghanistan.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now