Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato

#1
Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato
Telegraph Online
Link
Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

Western ministers have been stunned. "Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban," said one Western official who met the minister recently.

The remarks were made on the eve of Nato's critical summit in Latvia. Lt Gen David Richards, the British general and Nato's force commander in Afghanistan, and the Dutch ambassador Daan Everts, its chief diplomat there, have spent five days in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, urging the Pakistani military to do more to reign in the Taliban. But they have received mixed messages.
 
#2
Well, it is an option, might save some persons life and end the tragedy that the U.S. have gotten us into.

I'm not saying that we are not doing a sterling job - but really, has history taught us anything at all?
 
#4
Riiight. I think such helpful 'advice' has more to do with the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan have never gotten on and is playing more to their internal religious whack-jobs in the north west of country, not to mention all the foreigners camped out there either.
 
#6
Some interesting comments from Pakistan's Lieutenant-General Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2471865.html

“Bring 50,000 more troops and fight for 10 to 15 years more and you won’t resolve it. The British with their history in Afghanistan should have known that better than anyone else.”

“It is no longer an insurgency but a war of Pashtun resistance exactly on the model of the first Anglo-Afghan war.”

“Then too [in 1839-42] initially there were celebrations. The British built their cantonment and brought their wives and sweethearts from Delhi and didn’t realise that in the meantime the Afghans were getting organised to rise up. This is exactly what Afghans are doing today and what they did against the Soviets.”

“The British should have known better. No country in the world has a better understanding of the Afghan psyche and very little has changed there in the past couple of centuries.”

Aurakzai said that Nato had failed to achieve any of its objectives. “Why did the coalition come to Afghanistan? To find Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the Taliban; for democracy, reconstruction and development, and [to] leave a stable Afghanistan which wouldn’t be vulnerable to terrorists.

“All very noble, but tell me which one of those objectives have been achieved? I went to Kabul in September and they are all living in a big bunker with no control over Afghanistan. There’s no law and order. The insurgency has become far worse . . . is that a success?”
 
#7
razorman said:
Some interesting comments from Pakistan's Lieutenant-General Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai:


“The British should have known better. No country in the world has a better understanding of the Afghan psyche and very little has changed there in the past couple of centuries.”
Exactly right, What has changed? What have we achieved? Nothing!
 
#8
razorman said:
Some interesting comments from Pakistan's Lieutenant-General Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2471865.html

“Bring 50,000 more troops and fight for 10 to 15 years more and you won’t resolve it. The British with their history in Afghanistan should have known that better than anyone else.”

“It is no longer an insurgency but a war of Pashtun resistance exactly on the model of the first Anglo-Afghan war.”

“Then too [in 1839-42] initially there were celebrations. The British built their cantonment and brought their wives and sweethearts from Delhi and didn’t realise that in the meantime the Afghans were getting organised to rise up.
So not exactly on the model of the 1st Afghan war at all then; don't think my memsahib would have appreciated it. No doubt there will be some sort of accommodation with the Taliban in time. However, let's not fall into the media trap of expecting all conflict to be resolved in time to suit their deadlines. Sometimes, these things actually take more than the blink of a soundbite. Some wars are worth fighting, even if they take a long time and, brace yourselves for this, even if the outcome is only some way towards your desired endstate.
 
#9
Random_Task said:
Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato
Telegraph Online
Link
Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

Western ministers have been stunned. "Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban," said one Western official who met the minister recently.

The remarks were made on the eve of Nato's critical summit in Latvia. Lt Gen David Richards, the British general and Nato's force commander in Afghanistan, and the Dutch ambassador Daan Everts, its chief diplomat there, have spent five days in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, urging the Pakistani military to do more to reign in the Taliban. But they have received mixed messages.
When you think about it when all western troops have eventually gone home they 'Pakistan' still have to live with their neighbours, so it is far better for them- in the long run to think about their own situation and maintain a degree of seperation from the occupying forces to maintain a chance of long term negotiations with the Taliban.

So I understand where they are coming from.
 
#10
A friend of mine recently came back from a fact finding visit to Kabul. He was quite startled by the lack of clear strategy by NATO. In some ways he was more positive having seen what was happening on the ground but the lack of progress in some areas was startling. Some NATO countries simply are not pulling their weight. There is tension at the heart of the NATO operation and real problems at the heart of the Karzai Govt. The biggest problem of all is what to do with the drugs industry. Have to say, without a clearer strategy and a clear out in the current Govt I think we are running the train into the sand.
 
#12
.and there was me thinking we were kicked out and reduced down to just about one survivor, because we'd stopped paying off the locals and insulted them in various ways into the bargain.

The 1st Afghan War isn't a good model at all, no doubt LG Aurakzai has his own reasons for using it , and none of them designed to give comfort.

Personally, I'm more inclined to think that the 2nd Afghan War is a better model.

..and we withdrew then too.

http://www.garenewing.co.uk/angloafghanwar/waroffice/medals.php
 
#13
nigegilb said:
A friend of mine recently came back from a fact finding visit to Kabul. He was quite startled by the lack of clear strategy by NATO. In some ways he was more positive having seen what was happening on the ground but the lack of progress in some areas was startling. Some NATO countries simply are not pulling their weight. There is tension at the heart of the NATO operation and real problems at the heart of the Karzai Govt. The biggest problem of all is what to do with the drugs industry. Have to say, without a clearer strategy and a clear out in the current Govt I think we are running the train into the sand.
So was this friend military, politician or just looking for a holiday home. If the first two, can we know his name??

Who on earth goes to AFG on a fact finding mission - a merce... cough security company man???
 
#14
Dewi_Sant said:
It would be an insult to all of the fallen heroes to withdraw now!

That facile nonsense has been trotted out so many times by craven politicians of all flavours in support of involvements in conflicts, usually when it is all going wrong for them. That makes such a statement, of itself, invariably a gross insult to those who have fallen.

Nobody sticks with a conflict to honour casulaties. You are either on the way in, there to stay or trying to find the way out. In the latter instance it is hopefully a managed withdrawal on the back of having restored stability rather than a hopeless scramble leaving a terrible mess behind.

If that is the best reason put forward to justify continued involvement in any conflict then we are in trouble.
 
#15
Sven, non-military,unsurprisingly there are lots of non-military westerners in Kabul all doing different things. There are a lot of committed people trying to help Afg get back on its feet, problem is democracy in Afg is a facade designed to impress the West. I have come to the opinion that we are shovelling sh!t up hill. I am not saying Afg is not worth the effort, just that I cannot see a military solution and I cannot see a quick way of eradicating poppy production without causing further diifculties. In short, I cannot see a way out and I think Blair is pushing us in way too deep.
 
#16
nigegilb said:
Sven, non-military,unsurprisingly there are lots of non-military westerners in Kabul all doing different things. There are a lot of committed people trying to help Afg get back on its feet, problem is democracy in Afg is a facade designed to impress the West. I have come to the opinion that we are shovelling sh!t up hill. I am not saying Afg is not worth the effort, just that I cannot see a military solution and I cannot see a quick way of eradicating poppy production without causing further diifculties. In short, I cannot see a way out and I think Blair is pushing us in way too deep.
I agree with Your analysis apart - perhaps unsurprisingly - the point in bold. I actually think that this government and all others involved are not doing enough to help the ordinary people and should be putting much more money into the rebuilding.

And of course investing much more in the military forces (ours and all other contributing countries) in the country.
 
#17
Sven, my answer is part in anticipation of what I expect Blair to do with the troops that will eventually be released from duties in Iraq. Afg will happily suck up any amount of troops we can throw at it.

It is a very hard question, but it has to be asked, is Afghanistan really worth it? We have lots of other security problems to deal with and I sense that our military is not in good shape. Philosophically I understand your desire to reach out and do more, my head and my little understanding of history is telling me something different. Before we plunge in further, maybe it is right to have a deep breath. As a country, have we not done enough to try and sort the World's problems in recent years? I am sick of seeing our European partners take the phone off the hook.
 
#18
"The British with their history in Afghanistan should have known that better than anyone else.”

Yes, well, thanks for reminding us but sadly he does have a point. Every occupying force from Alexander the Great onwards has come to grief.

The full story of the retreat from Kabul in 1842 was suppressed until 1854 when the full story came out, especially the role of Major-General William G.K. Elphinstone. According to one writer of the day he was rather too elderly, unwell and equipped with "the leadership qualities of a sheep." (Nominations open for current holder of that title)

It was all going t!ts up so our man Elphinstone orders a retreat to Jalalabad under promises of safe passage. 16,000 British & Indian soldiers, their servants, families and camp followers set out.

Seven days later, Jalalabad sentry spots a wounded bloke on a knackered horse: Dr. William Brydon, Assistant Regimental Surgeon and, barring 20 taken for ransom, sole survivor of the retreat.

Second Anglo-Afghan War in 1878 not such a disaster but not a victory either. Eventually manged to install someone who was not hostile to the British Empire but not going to be part of it.

Which is once again pretty much where many think it will end up nowdays: holding on through a period of ugly conflict until we get the least bad option into overall power.
 
#19
Blogg said:
Dewi_Sant said:
It would be an insult to all of the fallen heroes to withdraw now!

That facile nonsense has been trotted out so many times by craven politicians of all flavours in support of involvements in conflicts, usually when it is all going wrong for them. That makes such a statement, of itself, invariably a gross insult to those who have fallen.

Nobody sticks with a conflict to honour casulaties. You are either on the way in, there to stay or trying to find the way out. In the latter instance it is hopefully a managed withdrawal on the back of having restored stability rather than a hopeless scramble leaving a terrible mess behind.

If that is the best reason put forward to justify continued involvement in any conflict then we are in trouble.
That’s your opinion and your entitled to it. But I'm sure the lads that have lost mates out there may have something to say about that. I tend to think they would be pi55ed if the government were to pull us out.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads