they sure know how to invent new areas that are in need of additional funding, the usa government said it would support such a plan with some $500 mil., also notice this is essentially bribery, painting those people as ignorant (believe anyone's ideology) & dishonest (they have supposedly enlisted as fighters because of poverty - offer them money and they will join you, sounds like mercenaries)
a plan to offer vocational training and jobs to Taliban fighters who lay down their weapons.
would be interesting to see (without them knowing it is being recorded ofc) what kind of indoctrination will they be spreading on these trainings (so called afghanisation, i guess they teach how to be a good obedient citizen: they say jump, you say...) and what kind of companies would be involved there
more than a 1/3 increase in troops for 'security & training' reasons, basically whatever they want to do next, more troops are needed
Holbrooke said that this would run "in parallel" to military efforts, stepped up with the deployment of almost 40,000 more international troops to join the 110,000 already in Afghanistan, and the training of Afghan security forces.
a political analyst from afghanistan (2nd video below) interestingly talks about, as he said 3 types of taliban in the country: 'black'/'grey'/'white' talibans, with the 'black' (what he meant as 'bad') being foreigners, coming from outside afghanistan, that are actually some sort of instigators of bloodshed & ideas about suicide bombings (the al-qaida type) - he wasn't able to finish as he got quickly interrupted by the programs host - i would be inclined to think that this was sort of a glimpse at the reality, that this terrorist threat idea was actually imported to afghanistan with the purpose to ignite parts of the country & in effect justify a foreign military intervention
another interesting point is the significant saudi arabia involvement in the negotiating process, since we know the bin ladens come from saudi arabia, they were/are business partners with the usa, have connections with usa government & presidents (remember how bush granted them safe passage via airplane from usa just days after 9/11, when no one could fly in the whole country without special permissions, especially since the prime suspects were already revealed on the 13th, moreover later on bush insisted this family to be exempt from any kind of investigations regarding the subject), until now saudi arabia has been untouched by any western military intervention (afaik mainstream media reports were positive too) - imo it is quite possible that this area is actually the main generator of new emerging terrorist threats in the middle east, sort of a logistics base where training & operations are conceived (a cooperation with the most involved western powers) & implemented by connecting to different militant organizations throughout middle east (and maybe further), sending new trainers & instigators to spread their propaganda with islamistic overtones, as these individuals actually play a role resembling that of an infiltrated agent with a task to complete
this may explain why no effort seems to be enough to stop the 'threat', as if the rebels have tentacles spread all over the world (9/11) & middle east, which logically is unimaginable without a serious & numerous backup in funding/military experience/intelligence sources/personnel/organization/transportation/equipment/armament/connections with other militant organizations - anything this large in scale can only be attributed to the usa & its sources (military, cia,...), a logical assumption even without foreknowledge of any background considering these conflict(s)
one of the connections here with other warnings about the al qaida credibility, like...:
- its name, meaning 'the list'
- sudden rise from obscurity
- sudden 'supernatural' abilities (see the scale of expertize needed as written above)
- convenient culpability
- subsequent laws & regulations passed in the western countries
- reasoning for military interventions/actions that followed & their effects
...is this ability to quickly & covertly shift their headquarters after they complete an operation or before a western counter-attack - now imagine they don't ever shift their HQ in reality, as it is conveniently located away from global attention, within saudi arabia, in no fear of retaliation or media attention - so they don't need to move, just to train more agents & send them where needed to start an uprising or infiltrate groups suitable for this purpose, keep the tensions high and wait for the order (from HQ) to begin creating public disturbance when needed
so SealLion, to resolve the perplexity you mentioned earlier, if we wanted to be thorough, the usa is not contacting the taliban directly - they are either contacting their own agents (working as taliban instigators, not real taliban) or the current afghanistan government, this way the statement would actually be true
again, the same analyst (2nd video below) noted that international negotiations are being conducted as if the afghanistan people caught in the conflict (represented as members of various tribes, lead by councils of tribe elders) aren't important to be included (may be intentional to prolong the current situation, keeping it chaotic & complicated), he suggested to start from the tribes, where each tribe member would apply what elders concluded, which imo may sort out who is actually really causing the trouble there (or at least show who isn't), he also mentioned these tribes actually cannot be called the taliban (makes you wonder if the taliban themselves are actually minor groups creating confusion & enlisting dissatisfied volunteers from those tribes), furthermore international 'signs of good will' by removing taliban leader names from blacklists are according to him practically meaningless as these individuals have no major support in the country (basically a smokescreen action by the international community)
and they keep mentioning how the current afghanistan president has low influence (sway) on his citizens, that he is weak, etc. - which shouldn't be surprising as throughout his years of having an official leading role in afghanistan (from 2001), he had a close connection to the usa (probably closer than a simple friendly relationship, he was their person for the job) - since then there has been a decade of bloodshed without much improvement, so he evidently didn't rise up to the task as the citizens were expecting
parts taken from videos:
Taliban payout could be unpopular
Is 'Afghanisation' possible?
this one is quite informative (skip the american guest though) - i remember saying on one occasion that it would be a better practice to independently report from the actual areas of conflict, including the more direct participants, preferably from the country, instead of just revolving foreign analysts & opinions from some external organizations like the mainstream media, other governments, international panel members, etc.