British diplomat feels Afghan war being lost

[Cheetah786]

A French newspaper has published what appears to be a diplomatic cable saying Britain's ambassador to Kabul thinks the West is losing the battle for Afghanistan.

The coded cable reproduced Wednesday in Le Canard Enchaîné seems to be from France's deputy ambassador to Afghanistan, François Fitou, describing a conversation he had with the British ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles.

It says Cowper-Coles believes the West's war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan is being lost and the coalition that includes Canada's Armed Forces should leave an "acceptable dictator" in charge of the country within five to 10 years.

"We have no alternative to supporting the United States in Afghanistan, but we should tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one," the cable paraphrases the ambassador as saying.

A spokesman at the British Foreign Office quickly replied to the publication of the cable, saying: "The views quoted are not an accurate representation of our views."

Fitou sent the message to brief French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, the newspaper said.

The French newspaper, a satirical and investigative weekly, has a history of printing material from leaks that prove embarrassing for the subjects.

The cable, written in French, paraphrases the 53-year-old British ambassador as saying:

The security situation is bad and getting worse.
The Afghan people have lost all trust in their current government, partly because of corruption.
The presence of foreign troops in the country is part of the problem, propping up the current regime and thus slowing progress toward Afghans putting a more effective government in place.
Sending more military reinforcements to Afghanistan would have a "perverse effect" on the country's stability and future, sending the message that an occupying force is in control of the country and widening the number of targets for insurgents to attack.
France has about 3,000 troops in Afghanistan, while Britain has about 8,400 troops in the country.

Canada's military mission includes about 2,500 personnel, most of them located in the volatile Kandahar region.

British diplomat feels Afghan war being lost: report

 

[Neo]

Well hes not the only one, its a lost war already. People wil leventually come to realise that in time..

 

[Flintlock]

The US and Pakistan shouldn't have interfered with the Taliban in the first place. Infact, the Ruskies shouldn't have started it.

Afghans want a repressive regime, let them have it! None of our business.

 

[pkpatriotic]

Military sees window to adjust Afghanistan plan
Reviews under way, to be ready for the next president, are intended to accelerate a new strategy.
By Gordon Lubold
October 1, 2008 edition

Washington - The US military is working to put a new strategy in place for Afghanistan and Pakistan that could allow it to expand airfields, preposition military forces and equipment, and prepare for a more robust effort soon against Islamist extremists in the region.

Frustrated for years by a lack of direction from the White House on Afghanistan, many defense officials say time is of the essence in developing a new way forward and having it ready to implement as soon as a new president is seated and can agree to it.

The military sees this period – as one administration is ending and another is set to begin – as an opportunity to offer the next president an Afghanistan strategy less shaped by lofty democratic ideals and more by what Pentagon strategists believe can actually be achieved there.

The aim for now is to put the pieces in place so that a new strategy can be "turned on" as soon as possible.

"The worst thing for us would be a gap in administrations, a period of indecision," says one senior military officer who spoke on background because the plans are still under development. "You can put the wheels in motion."

Seven years into the war in Afghanistan, President Bush has directed a comprehensive review of US policy there and in neighboring Pakistan, a US ally attempting to confront its own terrorist insurgency. He has demanded an accelerated timetable for an assessment over the next few weeks, prompting some critics to wonder why the hurry now that the Bush administration is drawing to a close.

Input from many quarters

The overall review is led by Lt. Gen. Doug Lute, Mr. Bush's so-called war czar. General Lute's recommendations to the president will include views from Central Command, as well as the Joint Staff at the Pentagon and Gen. David McKiernan, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, defense officials say. Another piece to the review will be led by Gen. David Petraeus, former top US commander in Iraq who is now headed to US Central Command in Tampa, Fla. But his recommendations may not surface until next year under a new president.

Those inside and outside the military who saw the Bush White House as too intently focused on Iraq, hope the next administration will put fresh eyes on Afghanistan.

Now there is "more confidence that changing strategies can change outcomes," says John Nagl, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington. The US military has "an opportunity to fundamentally rethink our Afghanistan strategy."

Limited by commitments in Iraq

Improved security in Iraq allows the US military more flexibility in addressing deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan, where the eastern sector, which is under American control, has seen a 40 percent increase in violence this year over last.

But as the military plans a new approach to the Afghanistan conflict, it remains hamstrung by its commitments in Iraq. Some 152,000 troops are there now, and defense officials acknowledge the military can't do much more in Afghanistan until additional troops return from Iraq.

Even as these reviews take place, the Pentagon is poised to send as many as four new brigades to Afghanistan, including one that will deploy in January. The other brigades probably wouldn't deploy until a new administration is in place and, military officials warn, until a broader strategy is set into which they would fit.

What about diplomacy and trade?

In recognition that the military alone cannot resolve the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has pushed for more input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, and Agriculture.

There is also emerging recognition of the limits of what the military – and the US more broadly – can achieve in Afghanistan. For all the similarities between Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of the insurgencies that have plagued those countries, the two are very different.

Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has never had a strong central government. As a result, the US must manage its expectations of what it can achieve there, say some government officials.

"We've got to be a lot more humble than we've been," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama in a hearing last week. The challenge of getting people in a poor, vast, tribe-dominated country to pay heed to "some bureaucrat in Kabul" is daunting, he said.

The senator's words prompted Defense Secretary Robert Gates to respond that the US government must "listen better" to Afghan leaders. "The history of Afghanistan has been that if the Afghan people see a foreigner that they believe is trying to help them, it works out OK; if they see a foreigner that they regard as an occupier, it hasn't ever worked."

QUOTE:
Americans and its millitary recognised their failure in Afghanistan and reconsidering the strategies in this regard as indicated in the artical mentioned hereunder:

I still have serious concerns on the american approach of double standards, as their actual intentions are absolutely different (as they are more concern to target Pakistan and engaged to destablizing her peace and economy, especially with the collaboration of India) then the plan they have chanted and propagandized against WOT.

As far as WOT concern, its obviously thinkable that, now its proved serveral times during last 7 years of such so-called war that they still have strong connection with their generated pet Al-qaida and taliban too, so against whom they are on war???........but yes they are behind the few afghani & pakistani patriotic elements who really dont like to see these american bastards, to perform for so-called WOT. Otherwise they are using both alquida & taliban for terror in Pakistan. Dont we reaelize that, Pakistan suffered by with major terroristic attacks and faced heavy losses of innocnet citizen's lives in this whole duration of seven years of WOT rather then Afghanistan where the actually WOT is being imposed???

They propegated of war just to get stand to depute their forces on that area to established a strong base camp for multi-oriented strategical and economical objectives (will mentioned with details later) in the region.
In my view, this is an broad based multi-oriented strategy actually owned and planned by the consurtuium of three countries i.e, USA-Isreal-India to capture the whole resources and rule on the region in partnership. EEC is also recognised that and as such they are not efficient anymore for such WOT, while it being observed that the each of individual member of EEC just allocate their forces into social developments work rather to reduce the win the favor of peoples of region.

American army ab becharey new amrican president ko zalil keraye gi

 

[Goodperson]

The US and Pakistan shouldn't have interfered with the Taliban in the first place. Infact, the Ruskies shouldn't have started it.

Afghans want a repressive regime, let them have it! None of our business.

When Ruskies left, NA gained Supremacy was toppled by Taliban with Pakistan support, Taliban gave sanctuary to AQ and Laden and rest is history.

 

[Kharian_Beast]

When Ruskies left, NA gained Supremacy was toppled by Taliban with Pakistan support, Taliban gave sanctuary to AQ and Laden and rest is history.

Pakistan is experiencing blowback for that and maybe the government deserves this. Meddling in foreign politics should be none of our business. But India should experience blowback as well for turning the NA against Pakistan/Taliban in the first place. India's fingers are well dirty yet you only hear whining from their side about Pakistan supporting terrorism.

 

[Goodperson]

Pakistan is experiencing blowback for that and maybe the government deserves this. Meddling in foreign politics should be none of our business. But India should experience blowback as well for turning the NA against Pakistan/Taliban in the first place. India's fingers are well dirty yet you only hear whining from their side about Pakistan supporting terrorism.

Please do not bring India here, India was already experiencing terrorism for years and is still facing, In comparison Pakistan is facing terrorism only now.

But this can be discussed in other thread.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Pakistan is experiencing blowback for that and maybe the government deserves this. Meddling in foreign politics should be none of our business. But India should experience blowback as well for turning the NA against Pakistan/Taliban in the first place. India's fingers are well dirty yet you only hear whining from their side about Pakistan supporting terrorism.

India did face blowback from Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists.

 

[Vanguard_786]

Pakistan is experiencing blowback for that and maybe the government deserves this. Meddling in foreign politics should be none of our business. But India should experience blowback as well for turning the NA against Pakistan/Taliban in the first place. India's fingers are well dirty yet you only hear whining from their side about Pakistan supporting terrorism.

Yes , India does meddle in foreign politics especially in Pak and Afghanistan. So does the US who meddles in many countries.
However India does it covertly and with a purpose. Indians generally do not talk about it becuase we do not sensationalise it unlike rogue Pakistani generals with false bravado.
Thats why the world does not put a finger at India's meddling but Pakistan finds itself being labeled a terrorist sponsoring state.
Tact and diplomacy go hand and hand with covert operations. This is the Art of War by Sun Tzu.

 

[pkpatriotic]

Yes , India does meddle in foreign politics especially in Pak and Afghanistan. So does the US who meddles in many countries.
However India does it covertly and with a purpose.
Thats why the world does not put a finger at India's meddling but Pakistan finds itself being labeled a terrorist sponsoring state.
Tact and diplomacy go hand and hand with covert operations. This is the Art of War by Sun Tzu.

I must thanks and appreciate your courage to tell us a bitter but facts of tacts.

You looks really 'VANGUARD'

 

[DarkStar]

It's a misconception that the Taliban invited and gave sanctuary to bin ladin. He was already there before the taliban captured jalalabad. He was invited into the country by former mujahideen after the US pressurised Sudan to throw him out. Now some of those former mujahideen are in the current AFghan govt. setup. The number of times that Bin Ladin has been hailed as an Afghan hero in their current parliament is uncounted for. Even northern alliance members admire him privately (although what there is to admire i cannot see).

I second what Flintlock wrote earlier, if the AFghanis want to be repressed, then let it be so.

 

[Munir]

The problem is simple.

The more the Americans act as hostile forces the more opponents they will get. The more local support the opponents wil get.

The longer the Americans stay the more chance they wil be seen as occupational forces.

You cannot win a war by occupation.

 

[Task Force Black]

Taken this Monday.

Mullah Mohammed Omar, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar & Jalaluddin Haqqani have taken up residency on the Pakistani side of the border.

This situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[bernard]

Pakistan is experiencing blowback for that and maybe the government deserves this. Meddling in foreign politics should be none of our business. But India should experience blowback as well for turning the NA against Pakistan/Taliban in the first place. India's fingers are well dirty yet you only hear whining from their side about Pakistan supporting terrorism.

India's involvement in afghanstan is limited because it doesn't even have any borders with afghanistan they cant change much in afghanistan. case with pakistan is entirely different and is not worth mentioning.

 

[BATMAN]

Mullah Mohammed Omar, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar & Jalaluddin Haqqani have taken up residency on the Pakistani side of the border.

This situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

Didn't you forgot to mention OBL!
Since when Gulbadian and Haqqani became enemies of Northern Alliance?
What charges are they facing?
Why would they need to hide? Are they not Afghanis?
Shouldn't those commanding their respective troops (in their absence) be considered as more immediate threat to the govt. of Northern Alliance.

I think by mistake you are considering whole Afghanistan inside Pakistan border! It could be a good news if two brotherly nations unite together to make one country! After all millions of Afghan brothers are still living in Pakistan.

How long do you expect present (non-democratic) govt. of Northern Alliance to last in Kabul? Why Pashtoons does not hold ministeries, despite the fact that Afghanistan belongs only to them?