Ashdown pulls out of Afghan role

Wise decision Lord Ashdown...

Certain quarters are looking for a fall-guy not a fixer. Unless you are prepared to be a nodding donkey, doing as told, but also taking the rap for all the cr@p, steer well clear of this job. It's poison.

Letter

Also suspect that his 'vision' of what needed to be done was not perfectly in accord with Washington!!!

 

Interesting. Lord Ashdown's letter attributes Afghan opposition partly to his nationality, and Britain's role in the country. How does that square with the Afghans reportedly touting Gen Sir John McColl for the job?

 

Who are those who are looking for a fall guy, WC -and just how do You know.

Did they tell You?



What did Paddy give as His reasons for changing His mind? Oh yes . . . .

Unless You are claining that Karzais government is the one looking to place the blame elsewhere?

 

Hackle,

Quite so! I suggest that we have some very clever diplomatic-speak being used to cover up the real reasons behind all this. Gen McColl, although British, will be in place as a NATO appointee - and Kharzai is relatively happy with NATO at present.

More from the Telegraph

And just a short while after a couple of Irishmen were asked to leave the country whilst engaged in Britain's AO in the south. Hmmmm!


Sven,

 

Menzies Campbell was on News 24 just now saying that Karzai had catagorically refused to let Ashdown work in the position. He never mentioned a fall guy

 

What seems to be happening is that some clever chaps from the UK/Ireland were trying to do business with the anti-government forces in Afghanistan and weren't keeping the government in the loop.

Strangely, the Afghan government has the opinion that they should be consulted. ZanuLabour was probably trying to sell them down the river. Funny that they should be upset. Or not

 

It would be interesting to know the origin of the opposition. Is it coming soley from Karzai's office or is someone in Washington not keen on Ashdown and leaning on the afghans?

 

IMO elements of the Afghan 'Government' were very much in the loop, insofar as the the pair involved may allegedly have been making things potentially embarrassing by shining lights under rocks as to who was involved with what.

The Afghan Government (hoho) not wanting someone like the Lord Ashdown on the scene smells of not wanting a 1,000,000 candela light shone under the very same rocks.

That is my personal opinion of course.

 

And YOUR point is?

Once again SVEN, you are treading in waters that YOU have no experience and dangerously little knowledge. Tread carefully.

 

There's been a massive shift in British policy in Afghanistan since the One-with-Faith handed over the reign to the One-without-Eye. It's clearly not been to the Mayor of Kabul's liking, nor - according to whispers within the Washington Beltway - the Whitehouse.

 

I think you'll find that it's more of a quarrying operation.

Whatever the opposition to Ashdown's appointment, this saga has unearthed some interesting comments from Karzai. The propsed "triple-hatted" job is unlikely to garner support in country, whoever the candidate was.

 

My opinion as well, never forget the vast majority of Afghanistans leaders actualy don't know how to do peace.

Paddy not going is bad news for the mission.

 

I surmise the media's use of the term - "super envoy" may not have done Paddy's role much of a favour with President Karzai and his government. Me thinks with Kosovo on the boil again, our Paddy's experiences will be put to much better use.