Taliban Proposes Formula to End Crisis in Afghanistan

The fugitive Taliban chief, whose name is among the wanted men by the United States, in the formula warned to intensify attacks on foreign troops if the White House sends additional troops to Afghanistan.

(SALEM, Ore.) - In case you don't know, the Taliban in Afghanistan is frequently in contact with the world's richest nations. This group many Americans view as a rag tag band of militants, are taken seriously in international circles.

They send out news releases, and are viewed as a serious adversary in nations like Great Britain where Taliban leaders express their views and demands in news reports.

The latest news is that the Taliban chief has proposed a formula to end crisis in Afghanistan.

China's Xinhua news agency reports that the Taliban's elusive leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, forwarded a formula to end conflicts and bring about peace in his war-torn country.

The Iranian television channel Press TV reported that, "Mullah Omar delivered his plan through Saudi Arabia King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz."

The adamant Taliban chief reportedly stressed a plan for a timetable that would lead to the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.

"Peacekeeping troops from Muslim countries should replace the NATO and U.S. troops to ensure a smooth transition until the Afghans can reach a consensus government," Omar insisted in the formula, according to Xinhua.

Mullah Omar's other demand is about sharing power with the current Afghan regime.

Omar demanded the consolidation of the Taliban fighters into the Afghan army and amnesty for them.

Omar, out of public view since being ousting from power by U.S.-led troops in late 2001, previously conditioned any talks with President Hamid Karzai's government with the pullout of more than 70,000-strong international forces from Afghanistan.

Three months ago, with mediation of Saudi Arabian Kingdom, a meeting was held between Taliban and pro-government figures including some Afghan parliamentarians in Riyadh.

Afghanistan President Karzai reportedly appreciated the talks, and called on Saudi Arabia's leader to play a role in strengthening security in Afghanistan.

Still, the fugitive Taliban chief, whose name is among the wanted men by the United States, in the formula warned to intensify attacks on foreign troops if the White House sends additional troops to Afghanistan.

In many parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban continues to control both territory and the sentiments of people.

The incoming Barack Obama administration will inherit what many consider to be an urgent crisis in Afghanistan. Many believe the U.S. and NATO must increase troop levels there while enlarging the Afghan army.

In reality, the Afghan Army is extremely underpaid and has a high rate of attrition. Many former ANA soldiers join the Taliban and other anti-Coalition militias.

-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor.
Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 in Afghanistan with Oregon troops. Tim recently returned from Iraq where he covered the war there while embedded with an Oregon Guard aviation unit. Serving the community in very real terms, Salem-News.com is the nation's only truly independent high traffic news Website, affiliated with Google News and several other major search engines and news aggregators.
You can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

PS December 30, 2008 3:50 pm (Pacific time)

HR you obviously have no clue what's going on in Afghanistan, so your opinion is right there with other people who have no idea what's going on. And yes I do know what's going on there, and am hoping Obama just pulls us out on a date certain. These people will never know what democracy is, and they do not deserve anymore of our blood. Good riddance. In terms of Iraq, we will be there for decades to come, the country has significant strategic importance, so we will not leave. Watch Obama spin why we have to stay until after the next prez election, but we'll leave in early 2013. Will not happen. Which irritates me to no end. Seems that Thomas Jefferson and you have absolutely nothing in common, why do you quote him all the time? He's a small government guy and you want all that big government support that most people who can't pay their own way want.

Tim King: You know ps, YOU'RE A REAL PAIN. I am shocked that any human being would say the Afghan people are not deserving of something better. For God's sake, they have been at war for over thirty years! In case you haven't figured it out, your point of view is not welcome here. We don't like liars and other people who distort facts and that is what you do. I have been to Afghanistan and Iraq and you have nothing to say about it. Go find another group of journalists to bother, will you?

Henry Ruark December 27, 2008 4:17 pm (Pacific time)

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." -- Thomas Jefferson to P. Dupont, 1816 = "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

Henry Ruark December 27, 2008 11:33 am (Pacific time)

Pooh-baS: Yrs re Taliban is basically inane and far off point. Its total impact is that Taliban group are "bad guys"; as if we did not already know their dangerous character. But even if multiplied ten times, what you cite has no meaning in relation to story covered. The story makes extremely clear the power they now hold, enough to command attention from solid, sensible, rational, responsible and accountable groups, all of whom are clearly identified so we know from whence cometh their stuff. WHO are YOU to speak with any credibility on this issue ? We know you only by continued constantly negative and degrading comments, always in political pander-vein to cut down, injure, insult and in any other way hur those who do not share your personal and peculiar biases. So, sir, you continue to abuse, subvert, denigrate and deny the single sensible S-N requirement for comment here: Good faith, demonstrated by what you choose, how you present it, and what proof you provide other than your own woozy words. Happy New Year and more p/p propagation in reverse, soon, to you, sir !!

Henry Ruark December 27, 2008 8:34 am (Pacific time)

P-shaw: You also wrote: "Ignore the short-term distractors." For that one, sir, in your own words, thank you...best advice for readership here, repeating whole theme of "see with own eyes", then "evaluate with own mind".

Henry Ruark December 26, 2008 6:21 pm (Pacific time)

P.S.: SO one simple question for you, sir: IF you had finger on that Red Button always ready for Obama, would you press it when you knew bombers were poised ? Big words, sir; you now must admit to fullblown killing desires, or back off, looking silly either way you now go. Not that we believe you any more than for any other of your badly stated inanities. Any common fool knows results for whole world of next use of Big One...and do you think we would stop short of that if it came down, as you state it will now, to killing them or being killed here ?

PS December 26, 2008 10:22 am (Pacific time)

ATTENTION: "Taliban ban to keep 40,000 girls from schools in Swat Daily Times-Pakistan ^ | Fri. Dec. 26 2008 | Daud Khattak * Locals say they are helpless, have no option but to accede to Taliban pressure By Daud Khattak PESHAWAR: The future of around 40,000 girls in Swat is at stake following a Taliban ban on education for female students. Shah Duran, the deputy of Swat-based Taliban cleric Fazlullah, has warned the administrations of government and private educational institutions to not enrol girls in schools. The Taliban on Wednesday issued a deadline for January 15 for the ban to be implemented, following which they said they would bomb the buildings of schools allowing girls to study. The Taliban have blown up more than 100 girls’ schools in Swat in the past 14 months. Helpless: Locals say they are helpless and have no other option but to accede to the Taliban’s pressure as the government has failed to provide them with securuty. The destruction of schools and recent threats to teachers and students have forced over 50,000 girls out of schools, the PCE figures said." The Taliban want to make sure women stay in the dark and be submissive. Many of you may recall before they took power(Taliban) many of these women were like ours, enjoying the freedom of pursuing vocational interests. Just remember what Chamberlain did back in the 1930's! Never give in to radical killers. Only one conclusion possible, either they destroy us or we destroy them. Not a difficult answer, especially for future generations of Americans. Ignore the short-term distractors.

Vic December 22, 2008 9:53 pm (Pacific time)

JB...have you ever worked with the spelling "challanged"? It is hard to come across as the possessor of all wisdom when you can't even spell.

Henry Ruark December 22, 2008 3:14 pm (Pacific time)

Mildewski: You wrote: "these uninformed voices spouting off and essentially aiding and abetting our enemies. These enemies are here now, so prepare for a future full of sorrow." You neither name nor document who is "here now" or why they are the "enemy", other than by disagreement with your words. Famous American President, one noted for his proven military prowess, wrote: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." Theodore Roosevelt --------------- Yrs re several noted persons, and to those generally who disagree with your personal definition, is insulting. SO, given choice, wonder which person--you or T/R-- most here will now listen to and learn from ?

Milewski December 22, 2008 11:33 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark you have many questions, that is a good sign of wisdom when you convey quite clearly that you are not experienced enough to put in your nickels worth. Glad you can appreciate that the professionals out there in both military strategy and those who understand the juxtaposition of cultural dynamics with foreign policy are the people who know what they're talking about. Both JB and Harumph are on the right track, but this poster, VIC, appears to have issues that hamper his ability to understand, though I also constantly reassess my own viewpoints, I do not call other people rude and insulting names? Are you a seasoned combat vet Vic? As they say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink it. I will tip some of you all on one thing, war is fluid, strategy and tactics are constantly evolving, so you observers out there should try to consider that dynamic when judging these events overseas.

Henry Ruark December 22, 2008 9:22 am (Pacific time)

To all: I wrote above: "...nor do you review HOW and WHY we got there originally, surely very relevant to WHAT should be done NOW." Suggest any serious reader wishing to understand WHAT, WHY, WHO, WHEN re our armed intervention in Afghanistan first consult Wokipedia, easily accessed here, OR any other reliable history of your own choice. THEN--and ONLY then--you are informed enough to understand what is behind these wildly combative Comments made here by some either UNinformed or maliciously MISinformed. Nothing quite like "see with own eyes" from reliable and trustworthy sources. Open, honest, good faith dialog depends on that approach. DO our friends here wish to consign WPedia to scrapheap as unreliable ? Do they wish to ignore or avoid fact Bush and British action vs Taliban was planned and underway BEFORE 9/11 ? Do they wish to avoid the decades of civil war into which we thrust ourselves ? Do they wish to deny Soviet et al defeat vs desperately determined Afg. insurgents ? IF so, they quarrel with WPedia, not us or S-N. (WPedia used since easily accessed by all. hcr-stuff from usual multiple sources.)

Henry Ruark December 22, 2008 8:17 am (Pacific time)

JB: Me and millions like us join with Vic. Do you have any diagnosis on some others here ? What do you suggest for strong denial of realities brought on for conservatives when their cave collapses of its own bad configurations ??? Interesting to see what you propose, since can check vs own experience in Chicago with three close years spent with leading child psychotherapist. Yes, colleagues got great laugh out of that fact, but meanwhile I learned one hell of a lot, not about kids, either...

just me December 22, 2008 12:04 am (Pacific time)

Maybe we should take the News media out of Afghanistan. Let our troops do the job they are trained to do and stop worrying about the Political Correctness. And the same is for Iraq. We are fighting two Political Correct wars and if we want to win, we have to start doing the job without the media breathing down the soldiers neck.

Henry Ruark December 21, 2008 8:48 pm (Pacific time)

Merry Christmas to both of you gentlemen with strong words re Taliban, but no documented action to back your words. But do note neither of you tells us HOW to DO what YOU state should be done, nor do you review HOW and WHY we got there originally, surely very relevant to WHAT should be done NOW. Shall we send still another 150,000 troops ? HOW find them now? HOW equip them ? WHO will pay ? You ready for more very high-rise taxes to pay for allathat? WHAT do we LOSE AT HOME ? WHAT do we get if we do what you demand ? HOW do we make it stick with what is left of that nation ? HOW do we know that will end all dissidents, opposition, and change character of

JB December 21, 2008 7:39 pm (Pacific time)

Vic seems to have some serious pent up anger issues. I think he should seek some help. I'm there for you Vic, I work with the mentally challanged at work every day. You should call.

Harumph December 21, 2008 3:53 pm (Pacific time)

What "compromise" is there with someone who wants you dead? And will continue to try to kill you and anyone who doesn't conform, until they are dead. As horrifyingly ugly as that image is, it remains the truth for a certain segment of Islamic extremism. It has little to do with religion, and a lot to do with the politics and culture that have been created by those who claim that religion. You asked for a 500 word summary of what to do there: It doesn't take that much. Starting from day 1: 1. Remove the Taliban from political control. 2. Defend the people from the militant factions that want to kill the non conformists 3. Build a domestic military to deal with the internal military factions. 4. Provide the international capabilities the domestic government will lack in pursuing the insurgencies. Those are the military goals. Now, the political ones, the ones you do NOT use the military for. 1. Assist the Afghanis in determining a form of government that respects the humanity and rights of Afghans, and at the same time, is not motivated or empowered to be tyrants themselves. 2. Begin the process of infrastructure building. 3. Teach the people elementary concepts of self governance and how and why they should participate. I'm not sure if that, in your mind, adds up to deposing an immoral and tyrannical regime of monsters and establishing a workable society afterwards, but that's what has to be done.

Vic December 21, 2008 9:35 am (Pacific time)

JB and Harrumph...you doughy alchoholic armchair warriors are really tough! When does your plane leave for Afghanistan so that you can kill all the Afghans? People like you make me sick...you are the worst of the worst, human trash. You are Nazi kill freaks parading as Americans. You do not belong in a civilized world. YOU need to wake up and smell reality...

Milewski December 21, 2008 8:51 am (Pacific time)

Historically it is a common strategy to try to broker a peace agreement when you are losing, and your supplies are diminishing. The North Vietnamese did it, and years after we pulled out of there the NVA leader's had admitted that they were at the end of their rope militarily. So people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry provided propaganda ballast for the murderous agenda of the NVA. Remember millions were later killed throughout S.E. Asia. Talk to some Vietnamese over 50 living in the states to get a first hand account of just what the North Vietnamese were like, not some individual who has no concept nor experience. These people are easy to detect. The Taliban are murderous thugs and will simply resume their ways (it is their ideology, it's ingrained) of slaughtering those who do not follow their dogma. On the bright side, they don't have anymore ancient relics to blow up, remember the giant Budha? I myself am a combat veteran and have left very close friends and my blood in a number of overseas locations, so frankly when we have the kind of people out there voicing opinions based on zip experience and a congress quite similar to the one that existed in the 70's, hell with it, it's not worth it when you have so many thankless critics here at home spouting off and unfortunately they help prop up our enemies with their inane and uninformed verbiage. Just set a date for the current regime to get their act together and leave. These people need to either fight for their own rights or simply go back to being submissive to what they had before we gave them a shot at freedom. I feel the same way about Iraq, it's not worth it, especially when once again you have these uninformed voices spouting off and essentially aiding and abetting our enemies. These enemies are here now, so prepare for a future full of sorrow.

Henry Ruark December 20, 2008 8:49 pm (Pacific time)

JB: Yur voice from behind the tree heard clearly here even if sarcastic. Simple common sense never turns off possible negotiation to cut off further death, destruction, terror and torture and wasting of national treasure. Even kids on school playgrnd learn early on it is sometimes better and wiser to talk than to strike over a head with baseball bat. Between nations, it always costs less,keeps more alive, and most friends and neighbors prefer peace to conflict, blood and death. How will you et al define "winning" --when all Taliban are dead or dying ? How about kids, wives, aunts, uncles, cousins, and even pets ? Do you dare leave anything but scorched earth and corpses ? Is that"winning" ? WHY are we there ? Can you summarize in, say, 500 words or so, making reasonable sense somehow ? Will be awaiting your response, and if you wish to ID self to Editor, while abandoning tree-shadow, he is authorized to supply me your emailer for direct contact, if you have the courage to make it known. What some of us smell is not pita bread, but more militarism already rolling several nations in blood and guts, for what ? "National honor", brought on by lying and deceit and manipulated "intel" in the national interest ? Do you wish to claim that never took place ?? No sarcasm needed here, simple English to which you can so easily reply, or can you ? We'll soon see...

JB December 20, 2008 8:09 pm (Pacific time)

What do you suggest HR? I'm sure the Taliban will let us live in peace if we just leave Afghanistan. They seem like reasonable people. Heck they would let you continue your journalilsm because I'm sure they believe in freedom of speech, religion and so forth. You and people like you need to wake up and smell the pita bread.

Henry Ruark December 20, 2008 6:44 pm (Pacific time)

H-rump" When are YOU leaving as volunteer, sir ? With such sensibilities you might just make a terrific difference, bring on rapid revision of irresistible history, and save some odd millions of lives. Cannot wait to hear about your sign-up situation and know about your travel orders. Meanwhile, might want to visit a few of those families whose youth you will be helping to become heros, so the families can treasure allathose fancy medals all the rest of their lives. Of course, one might take great encouragement from the real American "patriotism" so generously shared in your topnotch remarks...topnotch since obviously off top of something, perhaps even your head. We await further authentic word of your show-up for real active duty, sir. Be sure to bring your own bandages and bulletproof vest; we wouldn't want anything adverse to happen to YOU.

Harumph December 20, 2008 4:15 pm (Pacific time)

Negotiating, talking to, compromising with...anything but utter defeat for the Taliban is simply not an option. Time to get the UN and NATO out of Afghanistan, and then just plain WIN.

[Return to Top]