Briton Mervyn Patterson and Irishman Michael Semple are the best hope of gaining peace in Afghanistan. Much of the military offensive is counterproductive in losing hearts and minds.
The corrupt Karsai Government expelled the pair on the grounds that they are 'talking to the Taliban'. That Government is riddled with 'former' Taliban, drug-dealers and crooks. One of Karzai's relatives and two provincial governors are the top heroin dealers.
The 'Taliban' is not a unified coherent group. Support shifts among the tribes who have been warring for two centuries. The best hope of peace is to woo over the uncommitted and those who are weakly committed to the Taliban cause. Many who were delighted to see the Taliban kicked out in 2001, now are ready to welcome them back to avoid 30 years of civil war. It's up to diplomats to persuade them that life is better without the Taliban.
It's not a simple choice. We have been losing ground in this battle for the past year. Patterson and Semple speak the local languages and understand the strong tribal loyalties. Their work has been successful in brokering deals that work.
Our press and politicians pretend that we are too pure to talk to enemies. The same game was played with the IRA. Prime Minister Major said the idea of talking to the IRA make him 'sick to his stomach'. When he said that he was doing a deal with them. Tony Blair consolidated that deal and peace was the prize.
The cost of today's monumentally stupid expulsions will be paid with the lives of Nato soldiers and local civilians.
Thanks for the article, Rwendland. It's an interesting point of view from the USA. Des Browne and the Tories are content to blame France, Germany and Italy for not pulling their weight and operating only in safe areas. This gives Parliament the chance to ventilate and avoid facing the futility of the Helmand mission.(see the recent debates) I am a member of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union and debate this frequently.
Our European partners think the Americans are over-ambitious and unrealistic about the changes that are possible in Afghanistan. they are not willing to follow the gung-ho line of bombing them into democracy. Unfortunately we are still tied to the Bush-Blair line.
It has cost the UK the lives of 86 soldiers. It has no hope of success.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 30, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Thanks for the article, Rwendland. It's an interesting point of view from the USA. Des Browne and the Tories are content to blame France, Germany and Italy for not pulling their weight and operating only in safe areas. This gives Parliament the chance to ventilate and avoid facing the futility of the Helmand mission.(see the recent debates) I am a member of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union and debate this frequently.
Our European partners think the Americans are over-ambitious and unrealistic about the changes that are possible in Afghanistan. they are not willing to follow the gung-ho line of bombing them into democracy. Unfortunately we are still tied to the Bush-Blair line.
It has cost the UK the lives of 86 soldiers. It has no hope of success.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 30, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Seems quite a bit of the press are slowly catching on to idea military action is going nowhere. Interesting article in the Washington Post now (from Council on Foreign Relations), with lots of good links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102401625.html
Not sure what the answer is myself, but swaying village elders seems smart politics to me.
Posted by: Rwendland | December 30, 2007 at 01:03 AM
What is common to both situations is that's it's good sense for Governments to lie in certain circumstances. We cannot allow the howling moronic voice of the tabloid press to stop practical attempts at peace building. It's easy for them to say we should never negotiate with the enemy.
Of course the situations are different in N.I. and Afghanistan. But the principle is the same. It would wrong to suggest that the Karsai Government is not a large part of the problem. The three main drug traffickers are two provincial governors and a relative of Karsai. The task the two expelled diplomats were doing was bribing Afghans who were borderline Taliban. They had $40,000 in cash on them.
While we reject the endemic corruption of the Afghan Government, we are playing their game. A helicopter crashed in March this year. It was carrying a $1,000,000 in cash to bribe tribal elders. It's a dirty game but the only one with a shred of hope of success.
Military action will never achieve that.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 29, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Paul when Major said talking to the IRA made him sick to his stomach, peraps it did. Talking to them as a government is one thing, but with the IRA they (the British) had long established links to the IRA.
Also when the British talked to the IRA they did it on their own behalf, but these two men weren't there on behalf of the Afghan government,(which is the recognised government no matter what) they were UN officials. The Taliban are a local problem with links to AQ, this was not the case with the IRA.
As Trimble said on newsnight, there really is a danger in using the Ulster model in the ME (and imo other places too.)
The IRA were a threat politically to the union, the Taliban with its links to Islamic extremism are completely different they are a threat to western civilization as a whole, and all who want them defeated should be 'speaking' as one voice.
Posted by: Daisy | December 28, 2007 at 02:39 PM