Correspondent: Pay Taliban $20 a day not to fight

By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
Monday, October 12th, 2009 -- 8:59 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

pakistantaliban Correspondent: Pay Taliban $20 a day not to fightA Time magazine national security correspondent says it may be time for the US to send the Taliban a new message: Make money, not war.

Mark Thompson told CNN's John Roberts that some 70 percent of Taliban fighters are "economic Taliban" who are fighting US forces for the $10-a-day paycheck. They may be willing to lay down their arms in exchange for $20 a day -- a relative bargain compared to the cost of fighting the insurgent group.

"US intelligence says the following: They say five percent of the Taliban is hardcore, religiously driven. They will not be pushed off by any promise of money or anything of that nature. Seven out of 10 are 'economic Taliban,' and it's that middle 25 percent that could go one way or the other. What they're basically saying is two out of three can be bought off, or to put it another way, gainfully employed doing something else other than fighting Americans," Thompson said on CNN's American Morning.

Thompson pointed out that although Vice President Joe Biden had mentioned this idea earlier this year, he was not sure "how seriously the idea is being taken inside the councils of the US government."

On Sunday, the Times of London reported that "the Obama administration is considering outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms as it struggles to find a new approach to a war that is fast losing public and congressional support."

Story continues below...

The paper stated:

Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5 percent are committed ideologues while 70 percent fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban. Doubling this to win them over would cost just $300,000 a day, compared with the $165m a day the United States is spending fighting the war.

The tactic was used to good effect in Iraq where the US government put 100,000 Sunni gunmen on its payroll for about $300 a month each.

Thompson acknowledged that convincing the American public that paying -- rather than fighting -- a group linked to the 9/11 attacks could be politically difficult.

"I think what you have to do is you have to sell the American people on the notion of bringing some sort of stability and development to one of the poorest nations in the world," Thompson said. "If you're able to do that, I think Americans are going to sign up in a heartbeat, simply because they acknowledge that the bulk of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan are just driven by economics. If we can pay them $20 a day not to plant explosives, and to engage with us in developing the country, I think that's a pretty good deal for both sides."

This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast Oct. 12, 2009.



Download video via RawReplay.com

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • nader paul kucinich gravel
    Same as in Iraq.
    Bribery.

    Anderson Baldwin Carter Choate
    Clemente Gonzalez Gravel Grayson
    Kaptur Kucinich McKinney Nader
    Paul Perot Sheehan Ventura
  • po
    Paying the fighters off worked in Iraq - it was the part of the great "Surge" no one bothered to talk about. Why shouldn't it work in Afghanistan. To capitalists (especially those living in near bankrupt America), the idea of paying to end a war we likely won't ever "win" should make perfect sense. And if the numbers are correct, it's a bargain.
  • mparker
    If your going to try and sell the "surge" to the American people again, this time in Afghanistan, then you have to also remind them that things didn't get better because we sent more troops to Iraq. We actually pulled them back into the bases and started paying Iraqi's not to attack. We bought security with cash.
  • texasaggie
    If you liked the Iraqi surge, you have to love this. It is the same thing only cheaper. Besides, remember how McCain and the rest of the bloody saliva drippers are so upset with domestic spending because of what it does to our national debt? Here's a way to cut the war bill (that the Republicans put on the national credit card under Bush) to a mere fraction of what it would be otherwise, and on top of that, you get to actually, not rhetorically, support the troops by not sending them into harm's way.
  • jimbo92107
    How about we pay Mark Thompson $20 per day to get his stupid ass off TV?
  • Satan
    Obama will never let that happen, America is there to occupy and to expand the empire and that requires lots of poverty and lots of death to rile people up into a frenzy of revenge so that they'll continue to fight American dipshits thus giving them the reason they need to stay perpetually. They don't have to sell shit to the spinless American public, the American public's to busy watching t.v. to pose any threat whatsoever to whatever act that want to commit no matter how criminal. Just take a look at rawa.org, they've got a pretty good grip on how the U.S. is the main engine in the cycle of violence, not to mention being liars and murderers. Now you want to pay them too?

    How about leave, withdraw all forces and pay them too?
  • mark
    Let's shoot at each other all day then at sundown you put your weapon down and I pay you $20.00
  • overdoneputaforkinit
    Let's say the Taliban each take the $20 and stop fighting. How is this different than before the war, before the shock and awe and all that? Now they are in the drug business AND they get paid a bribe every day by the US taxpayer. I guess they won!
  • falconium
    I recommend the movie "The Man Who Would Be King" as well as the original story by Kipling. Also, read "Caravans" by Michener. for a picture of tribal Afghanistan.

    You will then realize the hopeless futility of doing anything constructive in the region.

    No to McChrystal.
  • chickdante
    Since it cost us $8 bill a year to kill Sunni fighters until December, 2006, paying $30 mil a month to bribe them into killing their fellow Shia instead was a real bargain. Explaining this to the American public would have been embarrasing to the Bush administration. For instance, why didn't they do it earlier?

    So, the Bush administration did what they always did - they lied about it and spun it into something Frank Luntz termed "The Surge." This enabled Republicans like John McCain and others to take credit for it as a spectaculor military "success." Americans love a good story especially when it conveys the myth of American exceptionalism. The feckless media, like CNN and John Roberts, dutifully reported it not as bribery but as a brilliant military stroke by our boy king, George Bush. Defense contrators got their lobbyists on tv news, disguised as retired generals and colonels and experts in all matters military, to back up the claims of the administration. The ratings of the cable and network news channels soared. Defense contrators, like General Electric, who owns NBC, could ill afford to report the news accurately for fear of staunching this flood of new found cash from which GE's PAC could afford to generously pad the campaign coffers of Republican hardliners, like John McCain, to keep the war going. Congress dutifully reciprocated with war supplementals transferring enormous public welfare payments to GE and other defense contractors and ultimately to the Sunni fighters. So, everybody came away a winner. Except, of course, for the taxpayers, the dead, wounded, displaced, exiled, and scarred peoples of Iraq and the 35,000 or so dead and wounded US military. But, other than the meddling egg heads at Johns Hopkins University, who was counting?

    The success of the surge in Iraq was a marvelous train of thought. It provided cover for the casino of wealth that the war has generated for all of its players. It built up a huge head of steam once it left the station and I assume it again will go clickety clack down the same track in Afghanistan.

    Mark Thompson needs to get on board. This is no time for journalism to rear its ugly head again after eight long years of shoveling from the coal car into the roaring engine of war.
  • thx1138a
    (a) The MIC won't allow it ... a pay cut from plus $165m/day to minus $300,000/day
    (b) The CIA won't allow it ... cut off from their largest source of heroin to peddle
    (c) The OIC (Oil Indust Complex) won't allow it ... ending the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP)

    The business of America is business, AND THEY OWN U.S.
  • johnhkennedy
    I'll send my $20. Great idea. Beats sending 500,000 more troops and coming up with some WMD type lies that have to be covered up with Torture.

    SIGN THE PETITION calling for Torture Prosecutions at

    ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

    .
  • davejohns
    Let's try this. They give us Osama either dead or alive and not allow al Queda to operate there, we get out. We will then provide aid in the form of 'American produced products' for the next ten years to help rebuild the country. A billion worth a year should do. Remember, we invaded because they wouldn't give us Osama. Better late than never.
  • canuckkid
    Sounds like a neat idea, but what will the plan be if the Taliban start outbidding the US government for that 70% who are just in it for the money?
blog comments powered by Disqus