Taliban peace deal was bought for £20,000

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by singha61, Jul 28, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Daily Telegraph
    A peace deal between the Taliban and the Afghan government announced by Hamid Karzai has been dismissed as a sham amid claims militants were paid to lay down their weapons.
    By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor
    Published: 6:44PM BST 28 Jul 2009
    Diplomats said they believed officials had "bought" a temporary truce until next month's presidential election for £20,000.

    One senior Western diplomat said he feared it was part of a plot to manipulate the vote in Badghis province in north-west Afghanistan.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5926667/Taliban-peace-deal-was-bought-for-20000.html
     
  2. I don't see why it's labled a "sham", we (the Brits) bought off the tribes for years and as I understand it the sceptics buy off the tribes round the Khyber pass now so they can get their ice cream supplies through.

    There is however one problem with trying to buy off the tribes: they won't stay bought.

    The Pashtoon have a saying: "You can't buy a Pashtoon, only rent him."
     
  3. 20,000 quid versus one or more dead/wounded squaddies? Sounds like a deal to me. The cost of training, equipping, deploying and maintaining a soldier plus the cost to gov't and insurance for a dead father/brother/sister/mother?
     
  4. So I've heard...

    Anyway, there is a warlord/tribal leader I've heard of that decided not to continue with the Taliban and now provides protection for the coalition forces, althought he's not doing it out of the kindness of his heart, he also has "expenses".
     
  5. And?

    The system served us well for many years during the Raj.
     
  6. 20k = 1/3 of a Javelin round = salary of 1 Pte (Level 3) for a year.

    Not a bad deal really.
     
  7. I'm definitely not taking you lot haggling in the bazaar. While you may THINK that 20k is a good deal, you should maintain that you can only afford 10k.

    It's people like you who cause rampant inflation. ;)
     
  8. I'd much rather my taxes went on paying off the tribes than fighting them and killing soldiers in the process. I can't imagine it's a long term solution, but I don't see a problem with it as a tactic/strategy.
     

  9. I just coughed coke through my nose.



    But yeah, that is I great deal ;)
     
  10. 20 g's for a months peace.

    Hmmmm.

    Cost of war per month = $3,000,000,000,0001

    divide by $20,000

    dum, de, dum,

    Errr, that's a lot of months to buy peace for

    I'd say about 150 years worth.

    Not a bad plan to chat with Terry methinks.
     
  11. Some will take the money and keep fighting some will take the money and stop. Paying people to not fight is a good thing as long as everyone understands that it is just a tactic to split and reduce the enemys numbers not a strategy that will win the war all by itself.
     
  12. I would tend to agree, if we can achieve our objectives through economic and diplomatic means then so long as the bill is not too big then its a viable tactic. We already give billions in developent loans and aid. The trick is to get the balance right and make sure they are not taking us for (too much of) a ride. If all it takes is for the yanks to print of another roll of green paper to bring peace then they should crack on and everybody can go home happy. They are creating money by the truckload every hour so sure they can spare a bit more.
     
  13. All possible means.

    Must be becoming difficult for the government (UK) to progress any "delicate" initiative with what is becoming near instant scrutiny.

    Maybe we should avoid the outright extortion method and channel funds through public projects, but engaging with the Taliban to agree priorities - they would possibly put health centres and hospitals near the top of the wish list as well?

    Either way, the resources committed by HMG from DfID should maybe come under the microscope in relation to their mission and resourcing? As stated previously, and generally agreed all round, there will never be a purely mil victory in Afghanistan. Therefore, the resourcing and role of DfID and similar, is as critical a debate as the one on helicopters.
     
  14. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Sounds pretty good to me. Just so long as they don't use the money to build nuclear submarines and stuff, I'm happy.

    I doubt any schools are going to get built, but hey, who cares.
     
  15. Yeah the cost of maintaining ''allegience'' is no doubt cheaper than fighting a war, to say nothing of the human cost of fighting one. If the west have a greater amount of reserves than the Taliban for the purposes of paying these people, we can starve them of fighters, in addition to which we turn whatever porpotion of their forces against them. I don't expect Taliban will be too keen on that one.