British diplomat feels Afghan war being lost

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that if there was complete veracity to this claim, and that Pakistan's military command and liaison had precision coordinates that they didn't conduct a strike themselves or operate in any other manner to remove their target?

Are we completely confident on the sources sowing the seeds of such doubts?

Valid point - but similarly, Mark Mazetti (along with others) and his entire series of articles quoting 'anonymous sources' bashing the ISI, culminating in pointing the finger at Gen. Kiyani, would carry little credibility either.

Why should the fantastic story painted by the West to further its aims (as you imply the Pakistani press has done) automatically be considered credible, and the Pakistani charges not?

Pakistanis are accused of indulging in conspiracism for running with the Pakistani story, yet that is exactly what 'analysts' and 'experts' on the US media have been parroting on every show I have tuned into.

 

[pkpatriotic]

Heeding the lessons of another war
By Maleeha Lodhi and Anatol Lieven
Forty years ago, the United States began to mount raids into Cambodia and to undermine the government of King Sihanouk in order to cut Vietcong supply lines.

As a result, America's war with Vietnamese Communism spread into Cambodia, leading to the triumph of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. But these horrors occurred after the U.S. itself had quit Vietnam and after the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam had collapsed. Washington's widening of the war benefited neither America nor its local allies.

The U.S. is now making the same mistake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If continued, ground incursions by U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the Taliban and Al Qaeda risk drastically undermining the Pakistani state, society and army.

Many Pakistanis are berating their new civilian government and the military for being too supine in their response to the American actions. There have also been public calls for NATO supply lines through Pakistan to be cut, which could cripple the Western military effort in Afghanistan. The latest dreadful terrorist attack in Islamabad illustrates the danger of a wider conflagration and the price Pakistan is paying for its role as a U.S. ally.

The dangers involved in Pakistan are greater even than in Cambodia, where the disasters were contained in one country. The current war has already been driven into the Pakistani heartland. If turmoil increases in Pakistan then the forces of extremism will be strengthened, in the region and the world. Thus the long term implications of "losing" Afghanistan pale into insignificance when set against the risk of "losing" Pakistan.

Nor would undermining Pakistan, whether intentionally or not, in any way help the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan. Pakistan has six times Afghanistan's population and is a nuclear state. The Pashtun population of Pakistan is greater than that of Afghanistan, and provides a large number of Pakistani soldiers. Far from saving Afghanistan, present U.S. strategy toward Pakistan will only risk sinking Afghanistan itself in a whirlpool of regional anarchy.

Instead of this approach, the U.S. and NATO should adopt a radically new strategy for Afghanistan that relies more on soft power. The approach should be based on the recognition that Afghanistan cannot be transformed along Western lines and that the U.S. cannot maintain an open-ended presence in that country without destabilizing the entire region.

Afghanistan must sooner or later be left to the Afghans themselves to run. Local actors should take the lead in carrying out counter-insurgency, as Western forces and an overwhelming reliance on military force are liable only to multiply enemies.

The terrible effects of bombardment on the civilian population have become a potent factor behind the will of many Afghans to resist what they see as an alien military occupation.

The next U.S. administration therefore should announce a return to America's original objective, that of hunting international terrorist networks and preventing them from creating safe havens in Afghanistan. This should in fact be America's only core objective. The attempt of the West to "transform" Afghanistan is already meeting the same fate as the Soviet attempt to do so. It is strengthening the insurgency, by creating the impression of a threat to the Islamic way of life and local tradition.

Instead of continuing with what is in effect a purely Western approach, Washington should initiate serious regional talks on Afghanistan's future.

The United States and the West need to remember that however long their forces stay in Afghanistan, sooner or later they will leave, while Afghanistan's neighbors will always remain. Tragically, their policies have in the past generally been directed against each other, with disastrous results for the people of Afghanistan.

The United States should instead seek to shape a regional concert that will stand some chance of at least containing Afghanistan's problems in the long term. None of this will be easy; but a continuation of present U.S. strategy promises only widening turmoil in the region, or at best war without end.

Maleeha Lodhi is a fellow at Harvard and former Pakistani ambassador to Washington and London. Anatol Lieven is a professor at King's College London and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation.

 

[HAIDER]

LONDON, Oct 3: Britain’s ambassador to Afghanistan is understood to have said that the campaign against the Taliban militants would fail and that the best hope was to instal an acceptable dictator in Kabul.

According to a report published in The Times, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, “a Foreign Office heavyweight with a reputation for blunt speaking”, is said to have delivered his bleak assessment of the seven-year Nato campaign in Afghanistan during a briefing with a French diplomat, according to French leaks.

However, sources in Whitehall said the account was a parody of the British ambassador’s remarks.

The Times report said François Fitou, the deputy French ambassador to Kabul, told President Sarkozy’s office and the foreign ministry in a coded cable that Sir Sherard believed that “the current situation is bad; the security situation is getting worse; so is corruption and the government has lost all trust”.

According to Mr Fitou, Sir Sherard told him on September 2 that the Nato-led military operation was making things worse. “The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them . . . They are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis, which will probably be dramatic,” the ambassador was quoted as saying.

Britain had 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”, he was quoted as saying.

“In the short term we should dissuade the American presidential candidates from getting more bogged down in Afghanistan . . . The American strategy is doomed to fail.”

The foreign and Commonwealth office said that the cable did not accurately reflect the views of the ambassador. It is understood that the meeting between Sir Sherard and the French envoy did take place, but that the French account of it is regarded in Whitehall as a gross distortion.

The French foreign ministry did not deny the existence of the cable but it deplored its publication by Le Canard Enchaîné, the investigative weekly. “I am not alarmed because I know that this is not the official British position,” a spokesman told The Times.

Claude Angeli, the veteran Canard journalist who reported the cable, said that he had a copy of the two-page decoded text, which was partly printed in facsimile in his newspaper. “It is quite explosive,” he told The Times.

“What I did not say is that our French diplomats quite agree with the British.” Mr Angeli also reported that the French had been told that Britain aimed to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan by 2010.

The pessimistic view in the cable is common among French diplomats and military officers who are concerned by President Sarkozy’s strong support for the Nato operation in Afghanistan and his recent reinforcement of the French contingent. There was suspicion in Whitehall that the British position was exaggerated for French purposes.

Sir Sherard, 53, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was sent to Kabul last year to beef up Britain’s role in the campaign to secure the government of President Karzai and combat the resurgent Taliban. In an interview last year, he said that Britain could expect to stay in Afghanistan for decades.

According to the French cable, he said the only realistic outlook for Afghanistan would be the installation of “an acceptable dictator” within five or 10 years and that public opinion should be primed for this.

British insiders said that the ambassador never uttered these words. “The trouble with the British ambassador is that he is always at the high end of gloom and doom when in fact it’s not that bad,” a diplomatic source said.
French cable says UK envoy sees Nato defeat in Afghanistan -DAWN - Top Stories; October 04, 2008

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

they talk as if they could have won anyway... pathetic... you can't defeat an ideology especially when it's favoured by an isolated ethnic group that just happens to be the majority. it's best to have a hands off policy and leave people alone.

foreign occupation is never accepted by afghans, unless you cough up the right amount of money. of course, all of this is useless when you rely on airstrikes (which end up killing civilians) to wipe out a few militants. hands off policy is best I always say, no one listens... first Vietnam and now this...

 

[was]

Afghanistan victory impossible: UK chief

Sunday, 05 Oct, 2008 | 11:10 AM PST |
Britain has approximately 7,800 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, most of whom are in Helmand-AP photo

LONDON: Decisive military victory in Afghanistan is impossible and the Taliban may well be part of a long-term solution for the country, a senior British commander in Afghanistan was quoted as saying on Sunday.


Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour in Afghanistan, told the Sunday Times that people should 'lower their expectations' about how the conflict will end.
He also said Britons should prepare for a possible deal with the Taliban.

'We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army,' he told the newspaper.

Carleton-Smith said his forces had 'taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008' but said it would be 'unrealistic and probably incredible' to think that the multinational forces in Afghanistan could rid the country of armed bands.

“We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency... I don't think we should expect that when we go there won't be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world,” he said.

The brigadier added: 'If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.

'That shouldn't make people uncomfortable.'

Britain has 7,800 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and US-led operations. (AFP)

 

[RabzonKhan]

War in Afghanistan 'cannot be won', British commander warns

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won, Britain's most senior military commander in the country has warned.

Caroline Gammell
05 Oct 2008

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect "a decisive military victory" and that he believed groups of insurgents would still be at large after troops left.

He said it was time to "lower our expectations" and focus on reducing the conflict to a level which could be managed by the Afghan army.

Brig Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan, said talking to the Taliban could be an important part of that process.

He insisted his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008" as winter and the colder weather approached.

But he told a Sunday newspaper: "We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.

"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency... I don't think we should expect when we go, there won't be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world.

"That would be unrealistic."

Brig Carleton-Smith said the aim was to move towards a non-violent means of resolving the conflict.

"We want to change the nature of the debate from one where disputes are settled through the barrel of a gun to one where it is done through negotiations," he said.

"If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."

"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman defended the brigadier's comments and said the aim was to provide a secure infrastructure for the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army.

"We have always said there is no military solution in Afghanistan. Insurgencies are ultimately solved at the political level, not by military means alone," the spokesman said.

"We fully support President Karzai's efforts to bring disaffected Afghans into society's mainstream with his proviso that they renounce violence and accept Afghanistan's constitution."

 

[Spring Onion]

Page last updated at 04:30 GMT, Sunday, 5 October 2008 05:30 UK


Afghan victory hopes played down

Brig Carleton-Smith said the war in Afghanistan cannot be won
The UK's commander in Helmand has said Britain should not expect a "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan.

Brig Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.

He said this could involve discussing security with the Taleban.

When international troops eventually leave Afghanistan, there may still be a "low but steady" level of rural insurgency, he conceded.

He said it was unrealistic to expect that multinational forces would be able to wipe out armed bands of insurgents in the country.

The BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul says Brig Carleton-Smith's comments echo a view commonly-held, if rarely aired, by British military and diplomatic officials in Afghanistan.

Many believe certain legitimate elements of the Taleban represent the positions of the Afghan people and so should be a part of the country's future, says our correspondent.

'Taken the sting out'

Brig Carleton-Smith is the Commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan.

If the Taleban were prepared to... talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies

Brig Mark Carleton-Smith



He paid tribute to his forces and told the newspaper they had "taken the sting out of the Taleban for 2008".

But he stated: "We're not going to win this war.

"It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army."

Brig Carleton-Smith said the goal was to change how debates were resolved in the country so that violence was not the first option considered.

He said: "If the Taleban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.

"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

Since the start of operations in Afghanistan in 2001, 120 UK military personnel have been killed.


BBC NEWS | UK | Afghan victory hopes played down

 

[Spring Onion]

Page last updated at 12:06 GMT, Sunday, 5 October 2008 13:06 UK


'Managing' the Afghan insurgency




By almost all accounts, the fight against the Taleban is not going well
In seven stark words, Brigadier Mark Carleton Smith - a man known for bold statements - summed up Britain's military campaign in Afghanistan.
"We're not going to win this war," he said during an interview with a British newspaper, the Sunday Times.

The UK's most senior commander added that we should not expect a "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan.

Perhaps what's so surprising about these remarks is that they have been so long in coming.

They may have been blunt and uncompromising - but reflect what many diplomats and military officials have being saying privately in the Afghan capital Kabul.

By almost all accounts, the fight against the Taleban and other anti-government forces, such as al-Qaeda, is not going well.

The training of the Afghan army is progressing, but the prevailing view is that it will be a number of years before they can fight on their own two feet

The number of insurgent attacks is increasing and the fighting is spreading across Afghanistan, particularly in the south and the east of the country.

US President George W Bush has said he will commit more troops to tackle the deteriorating security situation. In the face of this bleak outlook, however, Brigadier Carleton-Smith says that the international community must, essentially, downgrade what it hopes to achieve in Afghanistan.

The insurgency must be reduced to a "manageable" level in order that the Afghan army can take the lead.

And then there's the Taleban.

As with in past insurgencies, Brigadier Carleton-Smith, suggests that some political accommodation will need to be reached with the movement.

Many Afghan officials and diplomats believe elements of the Taleban represent the positions of the Afghan people, and so should be a part of the country's future

The training of the Afghan army is progressing, but the prevailing view is that it will be still a number of years before they can fight on their own two feet. That, ultimately, there can be no military solution to this conflict only a political one.

Yes, the military will play its part, killing, squeezing and harassing the Taleban and other anti-government forces, and attempting to provide security across the country.

Many Afghan officials and diplomats, however, believe certain elements of the Taleban represent the positions of the Afghan people and so should be a part of the country's future.

This is particularly the case in the south of the country, where Pashtun nationalism - which often feeds into the Taleban movement - is often passionately supported.

The Afghan government says that it is willing to reconcile with any members of the Taleban who recognise the legitimacy of their authority.

But the process, if it is to be followed, will be fraught with difficulties.

The big question is: who in the Taleban can you cut a deal with?

Will its senior leaders be willing to negotiate or are they too enmeshed with al-Qaeda to make any compromises?

And all of this is presuming that the Taleban want to talk. From their point of view, the strengthening insurgency and the destabilisation that comes with it may be just what they want.


BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'Managing' the Afghan insurgency

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Brig. Carleton-Smith is correct, and has echoed the point that Pakistan has been making for years now, but I still see no resolution to the conflict unless Mullah Umer and the Haqqanis can be convinced to negotiate a political settlement and give up the violent insurgency to participate in a political process.

 

[Kasrkin]

There is a fat chance of that happening with loserz like Karzai and his band of thugs/drug smugglers/war lords/human right abusers running the "government". Like a BBC article said: Its suits them to keep the insurgency and therefore anti-Pakistani feelings alive along with a constant supply of western aid which they can all eat up and nothing reaches to the normal Afghans who therefore turn to the Taliban and Drug money (both of whom the government of Afghanistan supports in many ways also.)

So its a nice little circle going on, no suprise the British commanders can see the situation is hopeless.

MUST READ:
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Arming the Taleban

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fat chance perhaps of the majority of the Taliban, especially Mullah Umer and Hekmetyar, agreeing to laying down arms while NATO continues to occupy, but there is in this statement by the Brig. also a hint perhaps of what future strategy in Afghanistan may look like.

Strengthen the ANA and make Afghan institutions relatively self sustaining and strong, and then pull out, barring aid and logistical support (perhaps even air support). The Taliban will then perhaps find it palatable to enter into political negotiations with a primarily Afghan government and Afghan military, minus the poisoning US presence.

It would be a long term plan, since the size of the ANA reportedly needs to be doubled, and a lot more work needs to go into the GoA for it to make its authority more widely respected and acknowledged. In the mean time NATO will continue to target the Taliban and AQ leadership and cadres in order to weaken it, as the Brig. mentions they have done recently.

In the end, a weak Taliban and relatively strong ANA, and no US/NATO - negotiations possible?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is a fat chance of that happening with loserz like Karzai and his band of thugs/drug smugglers/war lords/human right abusers running the "government". Like a BBC article said: Its suits them to keep the insurgency and therefore anti-Pakistani feelings alive along with a constant supply of western aid which they can all eat up and nothing reaches to the normal Afghans who therefore turn to the Taliban and Drug money (both of whom the government of Afghanistan supports in many ways also.)

So its a nice little circle going on, no suprise the British commanders can see the situation is hopeless.

MUST READ:
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Arming the Taleban

Interesting comment by the GoA official in that article, still blaming Pakistan despite all the evidence that the weapons and finances are primarily from the North and Iran.

 

[Kasrkin]

Hey, what you call 'interesting' I call predictable. I dont think this is a suitable long term plan, more like a long-long term plan. Because have you ever seen the ANA? First of all there is nothing 'National' about the Afghan National Army. Secondly, they are...well how can I say this politely? They are Afghans. You should see their British and American trainers talking about them...undisciplined, uneducated, pitiful and primitive rabble of thugs and opportunists. Not to mention they have no basic education like the Iraqis did and certainly no honour and military tradition. Maybe they have rowdy nationalism, but thats hardly ever enough to win a war. Unlike the Iraqis they have no economy too, you can say their economy is in the negative; which means if you take away their drugs they will be poorer than they are now.

You know how long it took the US and UK to manage Iraq (and yes almost all NATO countries are gutt-less chickens) and how much money they pumped into it, I'll be suprised if they manage to do the job in Afghanistan with twice that time and money.

 

[Neo]

War in Afghanistan 'cannot be won', British commander warns

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won, Britain's most senior military commander in the country has warned.

Caroline Gammell
05 Oct 2008

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect "a decisive military victory" and that he believed groups of insurgents would still be at large after troops left.

He said it was time to "lower our expectations" and focus on reducing the conflict to a level which could be managed by the Afghan army.

Brig Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan, said talking to the Taliban could be an important part of that process.

He insisted his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008" as winter and the colder weather approached.

But he told a Sunday newspaper: "We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.

"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency... I don't think we should expect when we go, there won't be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world.

"That would be unrealistic."

Brig Carleton-Smith said the aim was to move towards a non-violent means of resolving the conflict.

"We want to change the nature of the debate from one where disputes are settled through the barrel of a gun to one where it is done through negotiations," he said.

"If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."

"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman defended the brigadier's comments and said the aim was to provide a secure infrastructure for the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army.

"We have always said there is no military solution in Afghanistan. Insurgencies are ultimately solved at the political level, not by military means alone," the spokesman said.

"We fully support President Karzai's efforts to bring disaffected Afghans into society's mainstream with his proviso that they renounce violence and accept Afghanistan's constitution."

Afghan war can’t be won: Britain​

* UK commander in Afghanistan says talks with Taliban might be ‘precisely the sort of progress’ needed to end insurgency
* Afghan Defence minister calls statement disappointing
* Taliban say there would be no negotiations with ‘invaders’​

LONDON: The top British commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban cannot be won, the Sunday Times reported.

It quoted Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith as saying in an interview that if the Taliban were willing to talk, then that might be ‘precisely the sort of progress’ needed to end the insurgency.

“We’re not going to win this war. It’s about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan Army,” he said.

He said his forces had ‘taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008’ but that troops may well leave Afghanistan with there still being a low level of insurgency.

Disappointment: But Afghanistan’s defence minister expressed his disappointment on Sunday at the commander’s statements, maintaining the insurgency had to be defeated.

“I think this is the personal opinion of that commander,” Abdul Rahim Wardak told reporters. “The main objective of the Afghan government and the whole international community is that we have to defeat this war of terror and be successful,” he said.

Wardak said success also depended on how British forces were approaching the problems they faced in Helmand but did not say whether their current strategy was the right one.

Asked if the commander’s comments came as a disappointment, Wardak said, “Yes, it is disappointing, for sure.”

At the White House, spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Carleton-Smith’s comments reflected a need for the United States, NATO and the Afghan Army to work together to support Afghanistan. “It’s going to take all of us ... working together on the political, economic and security fronts to win in Afghanistan. I’m sure that’s what the brigadier meant by his comment,” he said.

The Pentagon declined comment and referred to an October 1 briefing in which US Gen David McKiernan, the head of NATO forces in Afghanistan, said he was “more convinced than ever that the Taliban will not prevail”.

But another top US commander, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen said in September that he was not convinced the US was winning in Afghanistan.

NATO commanders and diplomats have been saying for some time that the Taliban insurgency cannot be defeated by military means alone and that negotiations with the Taliban will ultimately be needed to bring an end to the conflict.

Negotiations: But a spokesman for the Taliban said on Sunday there would be no negotiations with foreigners and repeated calls made by Taliban commanders for the unconditional withdrawal of the more than 70,000 international troops from Afghanistan.

“They should know that Taliban will never hold talks with the invaders,” Taliban spokesman Qari Muhammad Yousuf told the Pakistan-based Afghan news agency, AIP. “What we had said in the past, we also say once again, that foreign forces should leave without any condition,” he said. reuters

 

[Evil Flare]

Well the only regime that put peace in Afghanistan & Totlly collapse Drug Trade is TALEBAN

So nice to hear abt negotiations