More American War in Iraq?

The Taliban didn't exist until the mid 90's, and they were never recognized by the US govt as the legitimate leaders of Afghanistan. They started in the south of Afghanistan during the civil war. I did some reading up on them while I was stationed in Kandahar.

Then why were the Taliban invited to Texas to discuss a pipeline across Afghanistan?

The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. And from the mid-1980's onwards the Taliban had at least "connections" to United States CIA. Karzai had been together with one or two of the five in the local/regional administration of Tarinkot.

But I hnestly think, you should burn the books you've read: there's a lot of evidence about the Taliban's history ... before 1980.

I respect your opinion on a lot of historical issues, this is not one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Their origins run back to the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the Taliban as a political force didn't exist until the civil war that took place in the 90's.

Did I use the term "political force"?
However, Karzai made no secret about being an advisor to the Taliban administration.
Source

They have part of their leadership back. The Taliban were regrouping before these five were returned. Afghanistan was already "in trouble."

I remember us helping supply the mujahideen to keep those Russians away..

This is why I am oft found murmuring about our feet interfering in other places.

You seem to be conflating both Mujahideen and The Resistance with The Taliban.

If Karzai made no secret about being an advisor to the Taliban, the quote you've provided from your linked article doesn't suggest that. It says that he was an advisor and diplomat for the resistance. The resistance movement during the Soviet occupation is not synonymous with the Taliban. Members of the Taliban, formed by Omar in 1991, undoubtedly were among those called the Mujahideen and part of the resistance movement but they weren't the only ones and they didn't exercise control over it.

The Afghan resistance movement began in the late 70's and was initially directed against the pro-Soviet DRA, when Soviet troops were sent to support the DRA and occupy the nation, the resistance obviously focused on them and the Soviet's War in Afghanistan (1979-1989) was on.

Initially, the resistance movement that began against the DRA and extended to the occupy Soviets (1979-1989), was led by local warlords and confined to their geographical locales but in 1981 the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen was formed by the joining of the following individual Mujahideen groups:

Hezb-e Islami Khalis - led by Mohammad Yunus Khalis (Supporter but not member of Taliban)
Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (Opponent of Taliban. Eventually fled to Iran to escape them)
Jamiat-i-Islami - led by Burhanuddin Rabbani (Opponent of the Taliban and was eventually assassinated by them)
Shura-e Nazar - led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, (Opponent of the Taliban. Eventually assassinated by al-Qaeda, supporting the Taliban in advance of the anticipated attack by the US)
Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan - led by Abdul Rasul Sayyaf (Claims he was opponent of Taliban, but there is evidence of ties with al-Qaeda. May have assisted in assassination of Massoud.)
National Islamic Front for Afghanistan - led by Ahmed Gailani (Opposed the Taliban)
Afghanistan National Liberation Front - led by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi (Spent the period of the Taliban rule in exile)
Revolutionary Islamic Movement - led by Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi (Supporter of the Taliban. Many of his students were original members)

You'll note the absence of the Taliban and Mohammed Omar, as an originating group or as a leader from this list.

The following might have better supported the statement that Karzai worked with or for the Taliban



It fair to say that Karzai, at one point, had some favorable regard for or ties with the Taliban



From what I have read on the web there is not unanimity among sources regarding when the Taliban formed but the majority agree with the Wikipedia article Baldimo cited that the group was established after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan (1989) and indicate sometime in the early 1990s. A number of these sources though write of the origin as the "emergence" of the Taliban, which could imply prior existence as a relatively unknown group.

What seems to be clear though is that the Taliban was not recognized as a major force during the period of Soviet occupation. They were not among the originating members of the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen; and their purported founder Mullah Mohammed Omar, did not lead any of the groups. While two of the originating leaders can be described as having been Taliban supporters, at one time or another, the rest were opponents, with two being assassinated as a result. Even the two supporters are not said to have even been actual members of the Taliban, whether early on or more recently.


Source,
Source,
Source,
Source,
Source,
Source

I do know a bit the Mujahideen .... the historic Mujahideen.

I haven't been there like many of you. Perhaps I'm really confused that both parties use the same language of legitimacy – Islam, jihad, and mujahideen. And thus think simplifying that one just followed the other.
That might have been a skin-deep view.

Talib in Arabic means a seeker--it is a cognate for a student. Mullah Omar and is contemporaries were educated in madrassas in Waziristan and Pakistan. The plural of talib is taliban--literally, in this case, "the students." The Taliban at the end of the Soviet occupation, and especially in the wake of their withdrawal focused on the Marxist Afghan army, and seized much of their heavy equipment, especially self-propelled artillery. They used that to defeat the other groups vying for power in Afghanistan, which lead to the formation of the so-called Northern Alliance, which, however, was formed too late to prevent the seizure of power by the Taliban.

Mullah Omar was not yet 20 years old when the Russians invaded. His generation were educated in the madrassas, and "radicalized" by the Russian occupation. I'm frankly surprised that no one is finding this rather straight forward history of the organization online--i read about as long ago as the 1990s, before they became the government of Afghanistan.

Oh Jesus . . . mujahidin is a term which has been in use for over a thousand years.

I first learned about them in the late 90's or early 2000's, prior to 9-11 when they were going around the country blowing up old Buddhist artifacts and statues. It really was a crime what they did.

They were the taliban, the students in the madrassas of Waziristan and Pakistan, who studied to be Islamic clerics, leaders of the communities from which they came in southeast Afghanistan. Ethnically, they are Pashtun, and they are fanatical religious bigots, who considered the destruction of "pagan" artifacts to be their duty.

You're conflating Saddam's supporters and henchmen who helped organize the Sunni insurgency with foreign jihadists with Shiite militias--whom we're considering assisting along with Iran--with ISIS in a simplistic generalization of "our enemies" in your attempt to justify your assertion that "the enemy have learned that if they can survive the initial onslaught they can continue the fight, and if that fight drags on for years with America bleeding and Americans sickening, then when the opportunity to restore themselves to power arises (as it almost always will) the US will be in less of a position (in terms of national will) to intervene (See current Iraq)."

No comparison, not even close to the war crimes that the USA perpetrated upon the Afghans and the Iraqis.

Well yes, I think it's quite obvious that I have combined Saddam's henchmen, Shia and Sunni insurgents and foreign jihadists under the heading of enemy, mainly because that's exactly what I said I was doing.

I don't see anything simplistic about it. It's not a particular complicated concept. Saddam's henchman who helped organize the Sunni insurgency, foreign jihadists, and Shia militias have all, at one time or another, been engaged in killing Americans and Iraqis and therefore worthy of consideration as the enemy. That we may now be considering assisting some Shia militias to fight ISIS doesn't mean they or others weren't killing Americans previously.

Part of this thread has been devoted to the question of working with one enemy against another, so that's hardly a newly introduced concept.

My point was and is that whomever meets your apparently exacting requirements for being called the enemy, they have learned that they didn't need to vanquish us in battle to win. They only needed to bleed us and remain in a position that will allow them to resurface and wipe free our gains after the constant bleeding made us leave.

You were bent on challenging the point by arguing that the enemy in Iraq was Saddam and his regime and that they didn't survive. In fact, some did survive and they joined the ranks of an expanded enemy. It sure wasn't Saddam and the Republican Guard who were knocking off thousands of American soldiers, so obviously there was still an "enemy" after Shock & Awe, and we left them behind.

The lesson is not likely to be lost on the jihadists who make up the ISIS army either, except they have Iran to contend with. I don't think the trick will work with the Revolutionary Guards as they are far less likely to let any of them survive in Iraq than we are. Not because they are superior to American military forces, but because they are less likely than us to be overly concerned about collateral Sunni civilian casualties and the Iranian people are not in a position to influence their government if the bleeding of the Guards is prolonged.

Clearly demonstrating the thinking that caused this massive cockup in the first place.

Sunni militants 'capture key Iraq border crossings'

10000 fighters continue to kick Maliki's Army in the ass.

Well, try to contain your enthusiasm for another perceived Obama mess up, never mind the chaos and upheaval and loss of life.