Taliban without al Qaeda? Don’t bet on it

is just another excuse for a senseless war, and your quotes do nothing to disprove that. The facts remain that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, on the opposite side of the world, and the US has full surveillance of the whole world including Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is in dozens of countries, and surely they could find a "safe haven" somewhere with better communications, financing and facilities.

Senseless wars are actually counter-productive, as the 2008 RAND research report indicated.

A recent RAND research effort investigates how terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory. These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts. . . .Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.

What is a "safe haven" anyhow, when you're talking about guys with box-cutters and home-made bombs? The term needs definition.

This is an old worn out talking point. It is based on fear mongering. This post has Neocon ideology all over it. Maybe you should start writing a column over at the Weekly Standard.

Hillbillies! You have got to be kidding!

Using the logic of our Afghanistan effort if we plan on making every poor, backward out of touch country in the world immune from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda type groups then we will have to reinstitute conscription because we will need permanent presence in those countries of four or five million troops.

Hamburg, Germany?

Say a lighter footprint is used in Astan which lures AQ back to the country. We would then be able to engage with them as we have a free hand in Astan and our hands are tied in Pakistan?

Well, then what happens if al Qaeda decides they need a more diverse and dynamic global footprint and franchise out to different locals even perhaps under different brand names? As an example a significant number of the nations in Africa already are suitable grounds for expansion including the usual suspects in the Middle East and south Asia. Unlike IRA or Basque terrorists who were somewhat geographically constrained thus lacking the strategic element of space al Qaeda and like groups have about 25% of the population of the world in which it can swim.

These are interesting questions brought up by the commenters. What is our overall strategy and purpose for Afghanistan? Along with the President's upcoming decision, I would like to see us be able to articulate that mission better so that we all can rally behind it.

I do think a legitimate reason can be stated from the perspective of already being there. The U.S. would truly be leaving a nation behind and from a foreign policy standpoint that could have very bad implications.

www.hooahnews.com

It is of course probable that Al Quaeda will use a resurrection of Taliban power to reinstate their camps and recruitment in Afghanistan, but do not assume that this is the only place they will be. Al Quaeda seems to attempting to spread further out across Asia and Africa as well. I am not saying that it is not worth it to deny Al Quaeda Afghanistan, simply that we should also remember Nigeria and the Philippines as well in our thinking.
As for the matter of the bombing, it is very possible Pakistani ISI and military were involved. However, it is equally possible that it was an operation solely conducted by the Taliban or Al Quaeda. Much like Bhutto's assassination there are many people who would have done it, and deciding it was one group or another too quickly will blind you*.

*That mistake led an administration into a relatively pointless war not too long ago...

"This persistent lie about Al Qaeda's aims in the region underpins the entire case for escalation, just the way the domino theory underpinned consistent troop buildup in Vietnam. And yet nobody in the media, up to and including Chris Matthews today, has bothered to challenge this basic falsehood. Nobody has asked the question, "If Al Qaeda is so desperate to find a safe haven, why haven't they returned to Afghanistan now, when the Taliban controls large swaths of the country?" It's not like they aren't under as much threat from drone attacks in Pakistan as they would be in Afghanistan.

There are also the points to be made, that the Taliban was ejected from the country the last time they gave Al Qaeda safe harbor and wouldn't appear likely to do so again, and that this Taliban is a home-grown movement with little influence from foreign fighters, and that the whole idea of "safe havens" in a world where terror attacks have been planned from inside Spain, Germany, Britain and even the United States is a false one. But accepting this argument on its own terms, and putting aside these points, it's still undermined by the facts.

Will anyone present these basic facts to the "serious foreign policy" dittoheads when they go on and on with a demonstrably false argument about safe havens and how we must send as many troops as possible into danger or we'll all be killed in our beds?"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/as-sure-as-god-made-little-green-apples.html

Pakistan wants a non-India-friendly Afghanistan. Have them find for us the elements of the Taliban with whom we can negotiate a withdrawal in return for their agreement not to harbor people who attack us or our friends.

Pakistan is the only power so far that's demonstrated that it can militarily suppress these radical forces in their own country, and our absence will cool down their recruitment efforts. Who will the recruits fight -- Muslim Pakistan?

We also have a very persuasive way to deter violations of any agreement with the "tamed" Taliban -- funding an insurgency in their fragmented society. It was clear that the Afghans weren't happy with Taliban religious extremism, and would be very vulnerable to being undermined internally -- once we get our foreign Crusader asses out..