U.S. Marines return from a partnered patrol with Afghan National Army soldiers in Lakari Bazaar, Afghanistan, July 19, 2009. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Gunnery Sgt. James A. BurksFrom The Telegraph:
David Miliband’s speech on Afghanistan at NATO headquarters yesterday sent completely the wrong message to our enemies. The foreign secretary called for a political deal with so-called moderate elements of the Taliban in an effort to split the insurgency:
“First, a political strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reintegration and reconciliation. That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, which draws away conservative Pashtun nationalists - separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally - and gives them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with their government.”
Read more ....
My Comment: Nile Gardiner is right when he mentions that talk about "peace talks" is the wrong message to send to the Taliban right now. The Taliban leadership will view this offer with disdain and contempt, and as further proof that they are winning the war. The sad part of this "new strategy" is that it is this same type of strategy that was applied to Iraq in 2004 and 2006 .... but it only brought more war and misery. In seemed that every discussion about peace only brought more bombings and ethnic/religious cleansing.
It was only when the Americans with their Iraqi allies and coalition forces said enough is enough .... that the surge and the destruction of Al Qaeda and Shiite extremist strongholds changed the strategic balance in the country. I suspect that the same thing will happen in Afghanistan, unless this talk about reconciliation is really a U.S./Britain plan to lay the groundwork to get out of Afghanistan.
On a side note, the Afghan President and some NATO members played up the news that a peace deal with an offshoot of the Taliban was reached. We now know that the price for this Afghan peace deal was approximately £20,000 ($30,000 US). But the problem with this "peace deal" is that there is an expiration date .... i.e. after the Afghan Presidential election.
3 comments:
Sorry, but was it the Surge that stabalised Iraq- or paying previously hostile malitias to swap sides and work for us/the Iraq government?
NATO cannot win against the Taliban- we did not topple them from power after all- they lost power because most of the tribal warlords who made up their forces swapped sides... and now they have swapped back sides again.
That's how it works in Afghanistan.
So when we talk about 'moderate Taliban leaders' thats what we mean- the guys who WERE Taliban, turned on them, helped us and then swapped back 'cos we ignored their nation, focused on Iraq and allowed corrupt officials take over.
The current fighting is to allow a nice face saving excercise for election time (and we can all say how WE have made it a democratic state) and then we will get out of there as fast as possible.
The Taliban "leadership" does not fear our weapons; they do not fear our soldiers; they fear our cash... they fear we will do what we did last time- make those people who fight under their flag swap sides again.
Look at how many British and American soldiers are operating in Helmund province. Got it? Now count how many Afghanini government forces are helping them? (quick tip- hardly any)
The Taliban are not stupid- they know a headline grabbing operation when they see it. There is no long term commitment from NATO in this operation, no attempt to occupy the region for the government in Kabul... the operations in the south and far north of the nation are done to make us all look good.
We should be fighting much dirtier and stop making stupid claims like 'We are bringing freedom and democracy to the region' (no we are not not)- besides Asian democartic states just elect/breed extremist groups (look at Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan- all three democratic and all three breeding how many of the worlds terrorists?)
Just my take... on and by the way- regardless of my rejection of your opinion- this site is one of the best out there. Keep up the awesome work!
UKfan
Thank you UK Fan for your comment.
I think you misunderstood my reference on Iraq .... I am in agreement with you that it is when the U.S. and its allies decided to go "Roman" in Iraq, that the war changed to benefit us and our allies. It was only when peace was thrown out the window for discussion .... and it became a war to the death .... that the dynamics changed.
As for Afghanistan, I will admit that my mood on Afghanistan has changed a considerable amount in the past two years. I blame the Captain's Journal, Long War Journal, and a few other blogs .... plus some Russian officers (my cousin and uncle included) who fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s to educate me on how difficult it is to fight a war in such a country.
Bing West made a comment yesterday that sums it best .... Afghanistan today is what the Wild West was like when the Union Army was at war with the Sioux, the Cheyenne, and the Apache in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s. The enemy always shot at you .... but you could never see them to divert your fire power against them.
It was only when the gloves were taken off .... and the war got bloodier .... that the plains Indians were defeated.
Are we willing to go down that route in Afghanistan .... two years ago I would have said yes .... today .... I am not sure.
I think the problem is how we define 'win'.
This was our biggest problem with the whole 'War on terror'- in a war on terror how would you define 'victory'?
Our involvement in Afghanistan- what is 'victory'?
Is it 'a peaceful stable democreatic nation'?
Or is it- 'Making it so that AQ and other globally based Jihaddist groups would rather cut of their left nut than return there'?
I believe if we go for the latter we can achieve a 'victory' there much more easily than if we go for the former (and indeed I believe the former is impossible).
Our issue is not in our fighting men, nor in our tactics, but in our goals. We keep changing our damn minds.
You are entirely right about the high price in order to 'win' (aka in tersm of pacify and control the population by force of arms)- Alexander of Macedonia proved that- he is often said to be the only man to have completed a conquest of Afganistan- the fact that he spent about five years butchering EVERYONE who opposed him AND their families, until they finally relented is a lesson we must not forget either.
To 'win' like that indeed would be too high a price to pay. If our 'win' is merely placing people in charge who will kill Taliban/AQ members (even if they were former taliban/AQ members)- so that the region is no longer a base for AQ- then guess what? We get a 'win' at a much less draconian cost.
(smiles)
Don't mind me- I am an advocate of 'realpolitik'- cynical, cold, mercenary and pragmatic.
btw- Long War Journal is one I like as well. Ghosts of Alexander is pretty cool as well.
UK dude
Post a Comment