H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
US aims in Afghanistan incredibly hard to achieve
* UN official says coalitions political campaign is very weak
LONDON: US goals in Afghanistan will be incredibly hard to achieve because of tough Taliban armed resistance and weaknesses in political reconciliation efforts, a UN official who monitors al Qaeda and the Taliban said.
In a Reuters interview, Richard Barrett added that Britains justification for deploying troops in Afghanistan on grounds of national security was debatable, as it was not clear that a post-war Taliban movement would bring back al Qaeda.
His comments add to a tide of scepticism about the coalition campaign following tougher-than-expected Taliban resistance in the southerly Marjah district, and a slower start to a long-awaited offensive in the Talibans birthplace of Kandahar.
Barrett, coordinator of the UN Taliban-al Qaeda Sanctions Monitoring Committee, predicted a stern Taliban response and suggested a way had to be found to engage the group politically.
However many of them you kill, therell be more coming over the hill, said Barrett.
Youre not dealing with people who you punch hard and they run away. Theyre not going to run away, he added.
The US strategy hinges on pouring forces into southern Afghanistan before starting a gradual withdrawal in July 2011, conditions permitting.
Barrett said the Kandahar push had to be backed by a strong political campaign, but the resources available to US commanders were essentially military, not political.
The Afghans are in charge of the political side and theres still a great weakness there, he said. A June 4 meeting of Afghan tribal elders and religious leaders handed President Hamid Karzai a mandate to open negotiations with the insurgents. But the Taliban dismissed the jirga as a phoney American-inspired show. I dont believe that the strategy is wrong or the objectives are wrong. Its just that the objectives are incredibly hard to achieve, Barrett said.
If the coalition claimed it had evicted the Taliban from Kandahar, it only needed one suicide bombing to demonstrate that it remained.
Also, it would be difficult to determine who was or was not Taliban, and who wont be Taliban tomorrow, Barrett said.
On Britains role, Barrett said its counter-terrorism strategy overall was very good and the Wests post-2001 goal of chasing al Qaeda from Afghanistan and ensuring it was unable to mount Sept 11-style attacks had been achieved.
So why are we still in Afghanistan, the (official) answer is that if we left, the Taliban would come back and al Qaeda would come with them. Thats the bit I think is contentious, he said. reuters
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
* UN official says coalitions political campaign is very weak
LONDON: US goals in Afghanistan will be incredibly hard to achieve because of tough Taliban armed resistance and weaknesses in political reconciliation efforts, a UN official who monitors al Qaeda and the Taliban said.
In a Reuters interview, Richard Barrett added that Britains justification for deploying troops in Afghanistan on grounds of national security was debatable, as it was not clear that a post-war Taliban movement would bring back al Qaeda.
His comments add to a tide of scepticism about the coalition campaign following tougher-than-expected Taliban resistance in the southerly Marjah district, and a slower start to a long-awaited offensive in the Talibans birthplace of Kandahar.
Barrett, coordinator of the UN Taliban-al Qaeda Sanctions Monitoring Committee, predicted a stern Taliban response and suggested a way had to be found to engage the group politically.
However many of them you kill, therell be more coming over the hill, said Barrett.
Youre not dealing with people who you punch hard and they run away. Theyre not going to run away, he added.
The US strategy hinges on pouring forces into southern Afghanistan before starting a gradual withdrawal in July 2011, conditions permitting.
Barrett said the Kandahar push had to be backed by a strong political campaign, but the resources available to US commanders were essentially military, not political.
The Afghans are in charge of the political side and theres still a great weakness there, he said. A June 4 meeting of Afghan tribal elders and religious leaders handed President Hamid Karzai a mandate to open negotiations with the insurgents. But the Taliban dismissed the jirga as a phoney American-inspired show. I dont believe that the strategy is wrong or the objectives are wrong. Its just that the objectives are incredibly hard to achieve, Barrett said.
If the coalition claimed it had evicted the Taliban from Kandahar, it only needed one suicide bombing to demonstrate that it remained.
Also, it would be difficult to determine who was or was not Taliban, and who wont be Taliban tomorrow, Barrett said.
On Britains role, Barrett said its counter-terrorism strategy overall was very good and the Wests post-2001 goal of chasing al Qaeda from Afghanistan and ensuring it was unable to mount Sept 11-style attacks had been achieved.
So why are we still in Afghanistan, the (official) answer is that if we left, the Taliban would come back and al Qaeda would come with them. Thats the bit I think is contentious, he said. reuters
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan