[Lobo0311]

So I was watching the news earlier tonite and saw that Obama (I refuse to call him "President) was wanting to sign a propsed act (from what I gathered) that will pay terrorists to change sides. I am posting this here because I was unable to find a better place due to the fact the plces this would be suitable say "Not a political forum". Maybe it's just me, maybe I AM way off base, but doesnt it seem-for lack of a better term- to be an act of LUNACY, to want to try to PAY terrorists to switch sides? I am a Veteran of the Marine Corps, my father is a Vietnam era Veteran of the U.S. Army. It seems to me that the man we have in the oval office has just takken a serious and unforgivable slap at our men and women in uniform let alone the American public by even entertaining the thought.
Oh sure they can SAY anything but do any of us think for a second that any member of ANY terrorist organization will take money and NOT use it to attack US interests either here OR abroad? Maybe I'm naive or maybe I'm overly suspicious, either way after hearing this info I have lost what little faith I had in this administration


WASHINGTON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - The defense bill President Barack Obama will sign into law on Wednesday contains a new provision that would pay Taliban fighters who renounce the insurgency, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said on Tuesday.

The provision establishes a program in Afghanistan similar to one used in Iraq where former fighters were re-integrated into Iraqi society, Levin told Reuters.

Obama plans to sign the bill authorizing Pentagon operations for fiscal 2010 on Wednesday, the White House said.

Reaching out to moderate Taliban members is part of the Obama administration's plan to turn around the eight-year war in Afghanistan. Levin also has advocated trying to convince Taliban fighters to change sides by luring them with jobs and amnesty for past attacks.

Under the legislation, Afghan fighters who renounce the insurgency would be paid for "mainly protection of their towns and villages," Levin said.

It would be "just like the sons of Iraq," he said, referring to the program used in Iraq which military commanders say helped turn around a failing war.

"You got 90,000 Iraqis who switched sides, and are involved in protecting their hometowns against attack and violence."



Now I understand that Former President Bush tried the same thing, but we are still there. After all Obama has said about bringing our troops home I don't see how this would fit in. It seems to me that there is no certainty that they would not use the funds to attack us again, and to take them at their word at this point is sheer INSANITY. I think now we need to look at the priorities of our government.... IMO toes are going to get stepped on there's no two ways about it. They commited heinous acts onthe american public that cannot be forgiven. They flew planes into civilian office buildings PERIOD. If they had only crashed into the Pentagon and/or the White House those are valid military objectives, however they chose to attack normal members of the 9-5 crowd....so be it. They asked for it and they got it, they grossly underestimated the American resolve I don't think we need to get into a pissing contest over there as far as "Our way" vs. "Their way", get the ones that are responsible for 9-11-01 and get out.
This is just my $.02, albeit a bit on the long winded side.

[nathangdad]

it appears to be true.

I feel so gratified knowing we are going to deal with such an honorable and decent group of people who will, I feel, use the buyout money to improve the living conditions of their families while donating a bit of it to candidates favoring democracy. The buyout will get the middle East on a
roll toward progressive thinking.

Oops, I must quit posting in order to throw up!!!!!!

[White Rook]

Our military is underpaid now so why not take the money they would pay Terrorists and give it to our E-4's and below and help them and their families pay bills and stay off food stamps?

The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of a few Terrorists that would SWEAR TO ALLAH that they won't blow up the Infidels anymore.

[RNL]

I am a Viet Nam vet and in no way am I defending Obama, but I was a member of PSYOPs (Psychological Operations) and this is exactly what we did then. Obviously this is just for weapons but there were other poster and leaflets we dropped or gave out to entice the enemy to defect. As an example see this (it is one of several types of posters we produced to entice the VC to come back to the "government"):

[Cyrano]

Apparently the Obamination has never read any Kipling, especially this poem called "Danegeld:"

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say:--
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:--
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the
time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:--

"We never pay anyone Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

[SightNSqueeze]

Quote:       Originally Posted by RNL

I am a Viet Nam vet and in no way am I defending Obama, but I was a member of PSYOPs (Psychological Operations) and this is exactly what we did then. Obviously this is just for weapons but there were other poster and leaflets we dropped or gave out to entice the enemy to defect. As an example see this (it is one of several types of posters we produced to entice the VC to come back to the "government"):

I think this is more in line with what we had going in Iraq than a weapons buy back. In Al-Anbar, essentially western Iraq, the U.S. paid former Sunni insurgents who had been sold a bill of goods earlier by al-Qaeda to "fight the invaders." Eventually, these Sunni militias started having it out with their al-Qaeda handlers, most of whom were not even Iraqis, and decided to jump ship. U.S. intelligence picked up on the problems the two groups were having and waded in with an offer of $300 cash and job training to hunt down and kill al-Qaeda operatives. The plan worked well and al-Qaeda is essentially out of Iraq, and most of the Middle East for that matter. Now they are back in south-Asia and Obama thinks he can duplicate the Iraq plan as it was implemented by the last administration. I won't wish him ill on his attempt, but I think we're dealing with two different dynamics here. Most Iraqis were looking for a peaceful way out and they weren't going to let al-Qaeda stand in the way. That doesn't appear to be the case in Af-Pak.

[blueice]

Hey, perhaps BO could start this at home, with the gangs in Chicago...

[ArkansasHunter]

He sure don't mind spending or wasting tax payers money. Next thing you know he'll spend tax payers money for ear reduction !!!

[Redbeernuts]

He's so smart!!!

[ArkansasHunter]

I'm smarter than he is and that ain't saying much !!!!!

[GlockMeister]

As much as I hate to say this and wish it was strictly an Obama thing, IT ISN'T! Bush and I think Clinton may have also? I know Bush did with insurgents in Iraq for sure. And believe it or not, and like it or not, "they" (whomever "they" be?) say it worked.


Probably like those free Obama cell phones they're handing out. Sure, it works, like the drug dealers that now have another cell phone to make their dope deals with, the terrorists or simply those who hate us and fight our soldiers now have money to buy more and better weapons to fight them with...

Do they really think these guys still aren't and don't get out there and still fight our soldiers? Do they really think that any amount of money will stop them from fighting when their told their wife and children will be beheaded right in front of them if they don't?

[RNL]

SightNSqueeze, all I am saying is that we did similar things in Viet Nam. The poster was just to illustrate one aspect. We also paid VC to return as well as retrain (read that re-educate) them.

[Lobo0311]

The point I was trying to make, is that it's been tried before and didnt work long term it was a short term fix, how many temporary repairs does he think can be made before the whole thing falls apart?

[SightNSqueeze]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Lobo0311

The point I was trying to make, is that it's been tried before and didnt work long term it was a short term fix, how many temporary repairs does he think can be made before the whole thing falls apart?

Lobo 0311, I agree that diplomacy doesn't always work after the shooting starts. But sometimes in war, it takes not just combined arms, but combined effort from all facets of government. Some alert people saw the rift developing between al-Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency and it was wisely capitalized on. As for the money; well, most of these guys would have jumped ship anyway as far as al-Qaeda was concerned. They just needed “somewhere” to jump, and we were it. Also, in a concluding war environment where a civilian construction laborer could earn double the $300 per month offered for militia duty with the Sunni Awakening, we were able to greatly reduce the risk of a new insurgency within the militias by not throwing enormous amounts of cash at each militiaman, but giving him enough to get by with and still hunt down al-Qaeda operatives and hard corps insurgents without getting lured away to a higher paying, full time construction job. Yes there were some insurgent plants within the Sunni Awakening, just like there were in the Iraqi Army and police when they were first reorganized, and yes, it took awhile to root them out, but by the summer of '08, that was pretty much done, and at a lower cost in U.S. and Coalition lives than what the alternative would have been.

I know this might not matter to some, but I think it will make sense to most Americans. Iraqis in the Army, police, and in the Sunni militias can now identify themselves with having had a hand in the defeat of al-Qaeda, renegade Baathists, Maadi holdouts, and even border incursions by Syrians and Iranians. They can say that they did not go down in defeat after the initial invasion of 2003, but picked themselves up and helped create a newer and better country when others were trying to tear it down. Likewise, they will never be able to say that they did it without the efforts of the United States and Multi-National Forces-Iraq. Right now, Iraq is only one of two Arab countries in the Middle East that has the combination of an elected representative government and a potential for economic prosperity. There is no way that the majority of Iraqis will willingly go back to a Saddam-type of despotism or adopt an al-Qaeda-like form of fanaticism.

Now will this same plan work for this administration in its efforts in Afghanistan? Not in its original form as it was implemented by the last administration during the Iraq War; perhaps, not at all. The Afghans wrote the book on being savvy with eachother and with outsiders. Unlike the Iraqis who are no strangers to a strong government, and who can appreciate government from the days of the Mesopotamian civilization, and rule under the Chaldean, Persian, Greek, and to some extent, the Roman Empires, and later the Ottomans and British, the Afghans are a true feudalistic society that dates back to the days of the silk road and the ancient trade routes through China, India, and the south-central Asian interior. I also don’t think there are people high enough in this administration that have enough worldly insight or common sense to know, or at least learn who their enemy is and how to engage him. I can now say with certainty that the Bush Administration was “willing” to learn how to “shift on the fly” and do so with success in Iraq. For now I have a feeling that our military commanders in Afghanistan will have to just stay low until we can again get people in the Oval Office and in the Congress who know how to drive a manual shift …

[Lobo0311]

SNS,

Thank you for your insight, you make a lot of sense. I think you're 100% correct we need people with experience in these matters to make these types of decisions. Somehow I don't think the current administration has what it takes.