i think it's very important to avoiding using the word “taliban” and instead talk about the particular commanders, tribal militias, or organized forces in play. for example, we have the quetta shura with mullah omar, the peshawar shura, hekmatyar/hezb-i-islami, and beitullah mesud – all of which frequently get labeled as “taliban”, in spite of the fact that they sometimes fight and are decidedly not a coherent entity with centralized command-and-control, finance, or ideological operations.

attemps to disarm various factions and tribes have had various degrees of success – there was DDR and DIAG and a few other ones. however, these were never wholeheartedly backed by the US, and in fact were undermined by all the talk of creating rearmed-but-unaccountable tribal militias (lashkars) based on the anbar awakening model. ugh… talk about a footshoot.

duh, of course fighters putting down their weapons sounds great, but who is going to provide security for them if they do? who will protect them from the various warlords, goons, fanatics, and government employees that operate with near-impunity in their home valleys?

till the US embassy/army/etc stops worrying as much about poppy farmers and starts worrying about physical, economic, and environmental security of the afghan people, we won't win. we may “win”, but we won't win.

the ball's in our court, yall…