Brown says he will negotiate with Taliban

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Will it work?
I would have thought the Taliban won't rest until we pull out
I can't see them wishing to share power
Will the US agree?
I thought Afhghanistan was compared to Iraq going well?

Gordon Brown will announce today that he intends to talk to the Taliban in a bid to end the war in Afghanistan.

In a major shift in UK foreign policy the Prime Minister is expected to tell the Commons today that negotiation is the only way to bring peace to the war torn country.

This year has been the deadliest in Afghanistan since the U.S. led invasion of 2001.

Since January more than 6,200 people have been killed including 40 British soldiers. In all, 86 British soldiers have died during the campaign which was launched to crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban following the September 11 outrage in America.

Brown in Afghanistan: The PM talks to troops at the weekend

The change of tack will be seen as the latest attempt by the prime minister to distance himself from the foreign policy of Tony Blair and his ally George Bush.

In a landmark statement in the Commons he will say that the Cabinet has agreed a three pronged strategy for Afghanistan which will security guaranteed by NATO and the Afghan national army followed by economic and political development in the country.

The third prong of the plan is likely to be most controversial - to engage Taliban leaders in constructive dialogue.


Link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=501391&in_page_id=1770
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
2 Good points there Nige

Save the money and be the prime minister who 'ended the wars'
Although I doubt anyone wil see the cash saved

I think that once we are gone from Iraq the woman out there will be basically put back in to the stone ages by the mad mullahs when they get control as opposed to Saddam who gave them education etc

Surely in the eyes of the Taliban and the general male population of Afghanistan this will be seen as weakness
Washington will claim we have been defeated and the Taliban once back in will fear no one
They will claim we brassed up the Brits and they ran so who else you gonna send?
 
#6
the_boy_syrup said:
2 Good points there Nige

Save the money and be the prime minister who 'ended the wars'
Although I doubt anyone wil see the cash saved

I think that once we are gone from Iraq the woman out there will be basically put back in to the stone ages by the mad mullahs when they get control as opposed to Saddam who gave them education etc

Surely in the eyes of the Taliban and the general male population of Afghanistan this will be seen as weakness
Washington will claim we have been defeated and the Taliban once back in will fear no one
They will claim we brassed up the Brits and they ran so who else you gonna send?
Ghostbusters?? Seriously though Broon has proved time and again that he couldn't give a flying f*ck about the forces, he sees us as an unnecessary drain on the country's coffers. After his (hypocritical) visits to the sandy places he's now going to speak to Terry T and say 'sorry, previous boss's idea you know, we're just gonna leave you to it old chum, try not to set up any more terrorist training camps please, but even if you do we will do feck all about it!'. Something like that anyway :x
 
#7
Totally utterly untrue in the way this is spun by the media. You need "reconciliation" - in other words get the many varied elements of the resistance to come aboard through Afghan negotiated solutions as part of the overall solution to the country. Do some basic research and you'll realise that the Taliban aren't a monolithic bloc, but a very diverse network of small groups with different aims, most of whom can be bought or who will negotiate if it suits them. Remember that we (ISAF / GOA) need to talk at some point, unless you want us to kill every last opponent?
 
#9
The impression I got of this from the papers this morning was that it was more of an attempt at "divide and rule", trying to dislocte the Afgan Taliban from the AQ militants in Pakistan, thus making the destruction of the Afgan Taliban easier by cutting them away from sources of financial and military support. Anything that makes theold Find, Fix, Strike easier has got to be a good thing.

edited for mong typing
 
#10
I understand the press always put their own spin on things Evilgoblin, and this may be that 'divide and rule' thingy you mention. My point though is that I wouldn't trust Brown to open a can of beans that was already open and the thought of him negotiating is as rediculous as Blair being ,middle east envoy.... D'oh! :x
 
#11
The original article is in the daily mail though, so its probably total bollox! :D
 
#12
"Bollox" - think what you want, just a shame that you can't handle the truth really.
 
#13
I'm not Jack Nicholson...... :lol:

As for the Daily Mail - yes i do think much of what they write is inflammatory bollox!
 
#14
Maybe Brown can advise them on their finances and then we can sit back and watch them fall apart.
How about he leads the negociations himself. We can escort him to the room and then slowly back out and leave him to have a chat with the Taliban by himself...? Thats the way he like to negociate (dictate), so what can go wrong? :roll:

Negotiations are obviously the long term aim, but not with the Taliban, with the remenants of what used to be the Taliban. That ceasefire last time didnt exactly work for long did it? Thats why the latest assault had to go in. Wouldnt trust them for a second. They need a comprehensive series of military defeats to show the futility of their cause to the point where they put aside their arms and come ready to discuss peace. We are not at that point yet. Anything less and the conflict will get dragged out even longer. This is shown over and over again throughout history. This might take another year or more but it is achievable in my humble opinion and worth the effort or we will be back again fighting the same battles over and over again.
Talking to them on close to equal terms now, as ever, will come back to bite us in the long run and is a false economy. But thats the Labour way so watch this space.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Look chaps, there is a certain sense to what would appear to be madness.

He wants to shave another 11 billion of the MOD budget, which means that no wars can be fought, either now, or in the future.

So, talk to the IRA, talk to the Taliban, talk to Iran, bail out of Iraq, let the Argies negotiate to get the Falklands back, why do we actually NEED Gibralta, and while we are at it; should anyone decide to invade the UK or attack our interests abroad, then why not NEGOTIATE with the invader to ensure that our public servioes are not harmed and the dispossessed not chucked off benefits.

Makes perfect sense if you ask me.
 
#16
Broon is an utter disgrace, unwilling to fund UKAF at a time of two wars. Don't for a second believe that any negotiation will be from a position of strength. So, Taliban in Kabul by spring. Nice one Jim 30. Not long to wait for the sport stadium stonings and beheadings to begin. Remind me how do you negotiate with fundamentalist nutters?

The Taliban now control most of Afghanistan - and may soon share power, says robert fox


President Karzai of Afghanistan has announced that six years after the Taliban were driven out of power in Kabul, representatives of the hardline Muslim movement are ‘increasingly’ approaching him for talks.

It has been pretty clear that Karzai and his clan have been talking to Taliban leaders for months, possibly more than a year. What his announcement hints at is that some sort of power-sharing deal is in the wind.

Interestingly, after the first reports of the talks had been transmitted by Reuters last week, there was no immediate follow-up from the BBC and the New York Times, both of whom have resident correspondents in Kabul. It suggests that the Afghan president was told to cool it by Washington and London.

Karzai’s announcement of the contacts with the Taliban is a clear warning. It is no longer a case of confidence among Karzai’s

international sponsors wavering; spectacularly, he has lost trust in them and is seeking his own, very Afghan, way out of the predicament.

Despite the best efforts of the Americans and British forces, supported by the Canadians, Australians and Dutch among others, the chances of Karzai’s government continuing in its present form, let alone extending its authority to beyond the capital, are getting less favourable by the day.

The Senlis Council, a European think-tank, said in a report published last week that 54 per cent of Afghan territory is now under Taliban control. This figure is hard to measure in the shifting sands of tribal, militia and criminal loyalties that cover most of the country, but Senlis’s survey methods are sophisticated.

More to the point is the map produced by Senlis showing the spread of violent incidents and terrorist attacks across Afghanistan and Waziristan. They are now radiating right across the territory with dozens north of the Hindu Kush in non-Pashtun areas. Not surprisingly, the largest number of bombings and killings is around Jalalabad in southeast Afghanistan. This is the main gateway from the tribal areas in Pakistan, which are now dominated by Taliban sympathisers and their al-Qaeda allies.

Taliban recruiting and training has shown a sharp increase since Pervez Musharraf ran into difficulties this summer when he sacked his chief justice and sent in his troops against the militants in Islamabad’s Red Mosque, symbol of extremism.

With the return of the exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to contest the upcoming elections in Pakistan - he received a rapturous welcome at Lahore airport yesterday - it is likely that whatever government succeeds Musharraf’s rule will have a strong Islamist complexion. Sharif stands for Islamic nationalism, and is likely to strike a deal with at least some Taliban elements.

Even if the Pakistan army again tries to annul the elections and brings back emergency rule, it too is likely to play to its Islamist wing (harking back to the Islamist

military dictatorship of General Zia al Huq) and cut a deal with some of the Taliban leadership. This must be behind Karzai’s thinking.

America will try to thwart any accommodation with Taliban elements, nationally or locally, in Afghanistan. Its response to the latest violence is to hint that it will send more special forces units across the border to ‘root out’ Taliban and al Qaeda training camps in the tribal areas of Pakistan. This is risky and far from certain to succeed.

In last week’s report, the Senlis Council warned Nato to double the number of its troops in Afghanistan, or risk Kabul falling to Taliban forces by the spring. But Nato is unwilling or unable to produce a fighting force on this scale, despite repeated appeals from its secretariat and the US leadership for the allies to send more troops. Indeed some, like the Netherlands and Canada, are suggesting they may cut back.

It looks as if the Taliban could be back in Kabul well before the spring.
 
#18
At the end of the day to get peace one has to talk, if there is no agreement then there will be no peace, it is as simple as that. The next big question is when and why to start talking, if the other side thinks they are not defeated, they will come to the talks looking to win, if on the other hand they are willing to talk because they see they are losing then you have grounds for peace on your terms.
 
#19
Mmmmm! This is nothing to do with caring for either Afghanistan or our troops. It is just another attempt to improve the image of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party after their recent financial problems.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top