egafd.com

He didn't have the balls to say this at the time because he knew it would jeopardise his career. 10 years closer to retirement and he's airing his views now.

We always, always, always talk to terrorists.

Essex Lad says,

"We always, always, always talk to terrorists".

Only after lives have been unnecessarily lost.

Yep, another example of mission creep. As I recall the whole purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was to go after Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

After a year or two it was clear that they had generally crossed the border into Pakistan. After 12 years our troops are still there and getting killed.

Why should the Taliban choose to negotiate with the Allies now, when they know that the Allied forces are clearing out in the next year or two?

I think that what's important is that we stop Muslim girls from getting an education, equal rights and that we go back to treating them like livestock.

"I think that what's important is that we stop Muslim girls from getting an education, equal rights and that we go back to treating them like livestock."

I do not know if you have read the link Jonone provided, but you have completely and utterly missed the point. I suspect the point.

The point being made by the UK's top general in Afghanistan is that the Taliban were on the run in 2002 and that would have been a good time to come to a political solution rather than 11 years later when the Taliban know that the Allied forces have had enough after being there for longer than the two world wars put together and are soon pulling out.

That way 12 years military activity might have been avoided and many, many billions saved to provide schooling and education.

PS Meanwhile, how well do you think the interventions in Iraq and Libya, which you supported, have done in providing stability and freedom for the population?

I think Americans call it the 'Monday morning quarterback'.

They'd have been open to talks, sure, but it would have just been about buying time to regroup.

The Taliban are a theocratic police-force who happen to be racist, sexist, bigoted, anti-liberal, immoral, goons, who wouldn't think twice about maiming or killing young girls daring to go to school.

And for the record, I didn't misunderstand Jonone's point. It was never addressed at all. I was just being sarcastic given our past quarrels regarding these matters.

I don't know how you missed it!

And why have you got 2nfro chucked off the forums? He was a nice guy.*







*more sarcasm.

Ah well, if sarcasm is all you have left......apart from correcting the senior military figure in Afghanistan, based on your superior Afghan campaign knowledge*

So if 2002 was the best time to get a political agreement with the Taliban according to the top UK general in Afghanistan, doesn't look rosy for female education in Afghanistan when the Allies pull out their troops, does it?

Particularly when the Taliban who moved across the border into the Swat Valley are now shooting girls who campaign for female education and burning down schools.

Oh by the way, Essex Lad is looking for someone to have very lengthy conversations with. I think you would be the perfect candidate. He's a nice guy. *



* More sarcasm. You are a very bad influence on me, Samuel Slater.

David Johnson wrote:


> Oh by the way, Essex Lad is looking for someone to have very
> lengthy conversations with. I think you would be the perfect
> candidate. He's a nice guy.
>
And we all know what 99% of forumites think of your smartarse replies and air of superiority, don't we?**

**Not sarcastic.

Jonone is grossly misrepresenting what the general said. In fact the statement that "He didn't have the balls to say this at the time because he knew it would jeopardise his career" is a total fabrication - - just pure invention on Jonone's part.

Gen Nick Carter has given a few interviews along the same lines, always emphasising that he's talking with the benefit of hindsight. Nobody thought about speaking to the Taliban 10 years ago, including himself.