« Previous · Home · Next »
UK to Negotiate with the Taliban?
By Charlie
***UPDATE: Nope, the Brits say they are for "political reconciliation" not a cease-fire or peace treaty. Akin to what has been working in Iraq, bringing former enemies onto our side, I see no reason why this type of tactic would not work in Afghanistan. Perhaps the initial story was simply what the media wanted to be true...
Here's the text:
London, 12 Dec. (AKI) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says his country is not negotiating with hostile Taliban elements in Afghanistan.In a speech in the House of Commons on Wednesday, Brown said Britain and it allies were isolating and eliminating Taliban leaders, but "not negotiating" with them.
However Brown supported Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other leaders in their bid for "political reconciliation" with former insurgents that rejected violence, as already 5,000 of them had done that.
Well, its one way to end the war on terror. Over at the Tank, Steve Schippert writes "Expect al-Qaeda's propaganda machine, relentless in engaging the Information War, to bat this out of the park in short order. Recall that bin Laden's latest message to Europe was a reminder of Russia's futile struggle in Afghanistan. This, for him and for furthering his message in the region, serves to help bin Laden bolster the parallel."
Here is the news on this:
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.
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.
Can wars be fought and won anymore?
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1436
Comments
Can wars be fought and won anymore?
Yes. But we don't seem to have the stomach for it anymore... which I think is your point... and suggest the answer may really be, No.
Once we in the west understand that negotiation and deception are part of the war, then yes it can be won.
Because just because the Taliban sign a "peace" compact, does not mean they will honor it. NATO would, though...
All the British soldiers have to be happy about that......
/sarc
I wonder what message this sends to the Brits that have been busted their asses over there...
Brown stood up in Parliament today and said this report was a load of rubbish. Indeed MoD have ordered extra Sea Kings with carbon rotors (able to operate better in hot and dusty conditions), more anti mine proofed vehicles and many of the troops meant for Iraq are now heading for Afghanistan where BRITISH troops have provided the bulk of the troops fighting with the Afghan Army to kic Taliban Boy out of Helmond Province. The Tali tried a suicide attack in Sangin today and lost a dozen of their top bodies. We are in for the long haul!
dave t
Good to know, also, I just now noticed that the article has been pulled......
Can wars be fought and won anymore?
Yes. There have been wusses in every war and since time immemorial. They rise up, tuck tail, and ask others to do the same. Eventually, they are exposed as idiots, and the sheeple ask the sheep dogs to save them. That's when the war is eventually won.
Talk about deja vu. I seem to recall this was the British strategy in Afghanistan during the 1800's. Fight, get bogged down in a conflcit that will never end, buy off tribal Chieftan and head back to India.
Brown is under pressure to deliver Britain out of Iraq for sure. As well he should be.
On Sunday, 12/16/07, Ron Paul broke campaign fundraising records set by two prominent Democrats -- surpassing John Kerry's 2004 record of 5.7 million, as well as Hillary Clinton's [disputed] record of 6.2 million in a single day. If the GOP wises up, they will realize Ron Paul's viability against the Democrats -- or , more importantly, his superiority to the hollow, pre-packaged choices being offered by both parties. The GOP may just have to view Dr. Paul as a "necessary evil". That's what I have had to do with my vote for the last eight years.
RP08
thejaykob@hotmail.com
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
Is that the same Gordon Brown who's just told the House of Commons "Our aim is to... eradicate the Taliban insurgency and to isolate the leadership. We are not negotiating with the leadership and I don't propose to do so"?