Surge in doubt

The best news of the day was that President Barack Obama has demanded that American defence chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge.

As regular readers to this blog will know, I have long been banging on against Obama's promise of an Afghan Surge. I raised it in the Commons on Tuesday. The answer from the Foreign Secretary did not convince the House that he believes in a surge either.

Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Does he recall that we had a military surge in Helmand province, as a result of which the number of British deaths increased from seven in 2006 to 143 now? Will not any military surge by NATO be met by an even bigger surge by the Taliban?

David Miliband: It depends. If my hon. Friend is saying that a military surge must be accompanied by a political and an economic surge if it is to succeed, he is right.  That is the essence of what we are trying to do. Before we went there, Helmand was ungoverned space—certainly, it was not governed by the Kabul authorities. Although my hon. Friend is right to point to the high number of deaths on the British side, it is also right to say that, for the first time, more than half the province is being properly governed—not by us, but by Governor Mangal. That must be a step forward.

There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of  17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

It is reported that the president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.

Obama promised an extra 7,000-10,000 troops during the election campaign but the military has inflated its demands. Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama’s “Vietnam quagmire”.

The United States has been pushing Britain to send several thousand more troops.  Gordon Brown is set to receive a full briefing this week.

I will try to help his thinking with a new EDM tomorrow reminding him of the result of our last surge. There is only one practical way forward. Only no Government will talk publicly about the deal that is being prepared. It is the only way to reduce the bloodshed. 

Bomb ban

The dulcet tones of Shirley Williams were heard on the radio at lunchtime with an incredible message.

Shirley is Gordon's Brown's most successful 'Goat'. Her departure from the Labour Party in the 80s to Social Democrats hurt his many friends. She said that the  old dream of nuclear disarmament can become a reality. Even Kissinger is now in favour. The Obama administration is looking for a quick deal between the US and Russia to more than halve their nuclear weapons stockpiles, reversing the Bush White House's refusal to be bound by international treaties.

Diplomats and officials say they are optimistic Washington and Moscow can quickly agree to cut warheads to about 1,000. Old treaties are up for renewal. New thinking in Washington and Moscow can reverse the wasteful peril of the nuclear build-up. Britain and France will follow by cutting our prestige vanity nukes.

Hillary Clinton wants to launch a new initiative with the Russians, who are keen to revive the arms control agenda that languished under George Bush.

There are reports that Barack Obama  quietly sent Henry Kissinger to Moscow last month to test the waters. If that is true anything is possible. 

It's taken half a century of campaigning, but we may soon ban the bomb.

 

Comments

[Graham Marlowe]

You would know them better than I, Paul. Let's just hope that Gordon Brown backs DM over Hutton. Surely people should see that if the Russian army, at the height of their strength couldn't "win" in Afghanistan, than we certainly can't now.

[Paul Flynn]

There is an interesting rift building up between David Miliband and John Hutton, the Dove and the Hawk. Happily the Dove has the brain.

[Graham Marlowe]

I heard on R4 News at 1800 that John "Greed Is Good" Hutton has demanded more NATO troops for Afghanisatn.....

I agree with Tony that Mr Darling's "public enquiry" is probably announced so late so that RBS can help themselves to the money WE gave them, to pay themselves their bonuses: You honestly get the feeling that Brown and co are far too in awe and scared of the City and business in general to give a straightforward "no" to them: at least Mr Obama has that courage.

I think though, that if New Labour DO allow these monsterous bonuses to be paid out, it will just be yet one more black mark in the ledgefr and they will be punished even more at the general election.

[Tony]

Just a couple of things to comment on:
Darling announces a public enquiry into bank bonuses - I wonder how long it will take to report - lonh enough for the banks to be able to award the current round of bonuses ? We have (as taxpayers) a controlling stake in these banks so what is stopping Darling just preventing the bonus payments ? (maybe not for the retail banking ones but certainly the investment ones ) Or just does he not have the nerve for it ?

Secondly Obama says 'I screwed up' but does Gordon Brown admit anything ? Like, regulatory frameworks, debt across the board and running budget deficits ? Not hardly but it seems to me that people are having a hard time with this 'not my fault' - Cameron will continue to bang on about this and until Gordon Brown admits at least something then I think electorate will end up distrusting anything he says.

Cameron says he is responsible for everything , thats not true obviously, but he does bear a large measure of responsibility for the current UK economic situation and he should say so - but I doubt he will

And finally if you think sub-prime was bad wait until we see the effects of Alt-A debt ..