Brown can salvage the diplomatic disgrace of Afghanistan if he acts as he is known to believe, and sets a withdrawal date
Diplomacy, your hour has come. There is no way soldiers will find an exit from Afghanistan. They can deliver defeat or they can deliver bloody stalemate. They cannot deliver victory and every observer knows it. This conflict will end only when the courage being daily demanded of soldiers is also shown by politicians.
Those who said that sending an army to Afghanistan was madness can collect their winnings and go. But diplomacy is a relativist ethic. Its practitioners cannot say, "Do not start from here." They must face the fact that Barack Obama and Gordon Brown are entangled in a mess from which there is no easy release.
Obama made a serious error on coming to power. To honour his pledge to disown Iraq he felt obliged to "adopt" Afghanistan. What had begun as a punitive raid on the Taliban for harbouring Osama bin Laden morphed into a neocon campaign of regime change, counter-insurgency and nation-building. Obama rashly identified himself with this crusade and leapt from the frying pan of Iraq into the fire of the Hindu Kush.
The president now owns Afghanistan. As a result, he and his British ally, Gordon Brown, are sucked into mendacity on the scale of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They talk of "clearing, holding and building" Afghan territory, to make the world safe from terrorist bases. Brown talks of fighting "to prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain". His helpless defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, tells troops they must stay until the Karzai government "can tackle the threat of the Taliban on its own", which he knows is never.
Such explanations insult public intelligence. Terrorism does not need bases. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany. The safety of Britain's streets is secured not by boys dying in poppy fields, but by sound intelligence and domestic policing. We learned last week that MI5's former head, Eliza Manningham-Buller, specifically warned the government that British security would be harmed by intervention abroad. Ministers know this. Why do they lie?
The answer is because they are trapped in an alliance with America, a country also in denial. Brown does not believe in this war. That is why he left the 2006 Helmand expedition with so few helicopters and refused to reinforce it with 2,000 extra troops � though in fairness to Brown, the army did tell him that it could cope with what it had. As a result the force has had to be rescued by the Americans, to the Taliban's glee.
The worm is now turning. Not a week passes without a military and diplomatic source questioning the government's policy, or lack of one. A high-powered British Academy seminar last Friday, attended by senior generals, diplomats and academics, was astonishingly at odds. Some said Britain should stay "for the long haul", others that staying was a terrible mistake. Some said that security would only follow a "hearts and minds" campaign, others that it should precede it. Some wanted democracy, others said forget it. The shambles was revealing.
Washington hardly displays greater coherence. Obama gave his favourite general, David Petraeus, three months to come up with a new Afghan strategy. The advice, to no one's surprise, was for a "surge", with more troops to hold territory and rebuild consent for the Kabul government. Obama appeared to like it.
The strategy was reminiscent of Earl Haig in the Great War: more of what had failed, but with the army still centre stage. Obama's other emissary to the region, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, is said to have despaired at the Petraeus strategy. He experienced Vietnam and could see the same mission creep occurring. Afghanistan offered his president no wins, only losses. In addition, were continued conflict to plunge Pakistan into a full civil war, it would be a disaster of unimaginable consequences.
After 9/11, local intelligence in Afghanistan screamed for America to be patient. An immediate 1,000-strong clerical shura in Kabul declared sympathy with the dead Americans and voted for Bin Laden and al-Qaida to be told to leave the country. Taliban commanders were divided, with the younger bloods wanting Bin Laden's unpopular Arabs to go at once. They had no interest in crossing America, who had trained many of them to fight the Russians and with whom they had just signed a lucrative deal to suppress poppies. Mullah Omar only just overruled them.
That was the moment to turn the Taliban against al-Qaida. Instead George Bush attacked and cemented their alliance, making Bin Laden the region's hero. But as it suited Bush to identify the Taliban with al-Qaida, so it should now suit Obama to do the opposite. The Taliban has never shown any interest in international terrorism, only in ridding their country of foreigners. On this truth should some eventual deal be built.
The idea of establishing a western-style democracy is dead. The dreams of Kabul's NGO groupies, to install technocrats or elevate women or eradicate poppies, have vanished in a morass of corruption and aid extravagance. The best hope is a series of regional deals and compromises, transferring power to warlords or Taliban coalitions, behind which military withdrawal can take place. The west failed to "build a nation" in Kabul, despite tipping billions of dollars into its underworld. Only colonialists build nations, and the will for empire was never present.
For progress to be made down this messy road, the gung-ho militarism of Petraeus and the British army must be countered. The hyping of British casualties is wrong, as it suggests any withdrawal will be defeat. The Canadians, who have suffered terrible losses, have shown their sovereignty by signalling their intention to leave in 2011. Why not Britain?
The denouement will come only from negotiation. For British generals and politicians to talk of fighting in Helmand "for decades" is absurd, not least as neither the British public nor the Taliban believe it. Like the Canadians, they should give a date for withdrawal, to stop wasting British lives and to isolate Obama in his wrong-headed policy.
To imagine that Britain might have leverage may be fanciful. Tony Blair's failure to influence Bush over Iraq was humiliating. The mix of political obsequiousness and diplomatic smugness Washington detected in Britain then is being replicated today over Afghanistan.
But Brown is still prime minister. He could act as he is known to believe and cut loose from the Americans in Helmand. It would take courage, but it would be the right thing to do.
Read More...
[Source: World news: Obama administration | guardian.co.uk]
Amazon is close to finalising a launch date for its ‘Kindle’ electronic book reader in the UK and is in advanced negotiations with a mobile operator for an MVNO, Mobile understands.
Being free of a presidential campaign's constraints has liberated McCain to speak her mind, but the true impetus for her current gay rights activism was the passage of Proposition 8 in California. On election night last November, McCain was understandably consumed with the results of the presidential race and, like many, "assumed that Prop 8 wouldn't pass." The next morning, however, she woke up in an already sour mood made worse by her BGF (best gay friend) Josh "telling me that on top of everything else, Prop 8 passed." Like many others, McCain was swept up in a collective sense of grievance, quickly concluding that making the GOP more gay-friendly would be foremost among her priorities. (For the record, Meghan isn't the only member of the McCain clan to support gay marriage. "My mom was always for gay marriage, but I think me being so vocal about it has made her want to be more vocal about it," she says. "She texted me: 'Gay marriage passed in Maine!!'") [...]
Shortly before McCain sat for this interview, Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he complained about "queers" and declared, "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children." Unprompted, McCain rails against the man her father's presidential campaign touted as an American everyman and made a showpiece in the weeks before the election. "Joe the Plumber -- you can quote me -- is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing." [...]
