[R-G] Afghan talks widen US-UK rift

[Suzanne de Kuyper]

The U.S. military empire strategy is one that depends on the UK spreading
the change of international law to one that will legalize no habeous corpus
across the eurozone, definitively changing international law, world wide.
 See Paye, "Global War on Liberty".  Looks like the former Blair enthusiasm
dragging UK citizens kicking and screaming into illegal wars is over.  Rift
is good, wonderful.
Suzanne de Kuyper



On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Anthony Fenton <fentona at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Oct 11, 2008
>
> http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JJ11Ag03.html
>
> Afghan talks widen US-UK rift
> By Gareth Porter
>
> WASHINGTON - The beginning of political talks between the Afghan
> government and the Taliban, revealed by press accounts this week, is
> likely to deepen the rift that has just erupted in public between the
> United States and Britain over the US commitment to an escalation of
> the war in Afghanistan.
>
> According to a French diplomatic cable leaked to a French magazine
> last week, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government is looking for
> an exit strategy from Afghanistan rather than an endless war, and it
> sees a US escalation of the war as an alternative to a political
> settlement rather than as supporting such an outcome.
>
> The first meetings between the two sides were held in Saudi Arabia in
> the presence of Saudi King Abdullah from September 24 to 27, as
> reported by CNN's Nic Robertson from London on Tuesday. Eleven Taliban
> delegates, two Afghan government officials and a representative of
> independent former mujahideen commander Gulfadin Hekmatyar
> participated in the meetings, according to Robertson.
>
> Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith of the British command in Afghanistan
> enthusiastically welcomed such talks. He was quoted by The Sunday
> Times of London as saying, "We want to change the nature of the debate
> from one where disputes are settled through the barrel of the gun to
> one where it is done through negotiations."
>
> If the Taliban were prepared to talk about a political settlement,
> said Carleton-Smith, "that's precisely the sort of the progress that
> concludes insurgencies like this."
>
> The George W Bush administration, however, was evidently taken by
> surprise by news of the Afghan peace talks and decidedly cool toward
> them. One US official told The Washington Times that it was unclear
> that the meetings in Saudi Arabia presage government peace talks with
> the Taliban. The implication was that the administration would not
> welcome such talks.
>
> A US defense official in Afghanistan told the paper the Bush
> administration was "surprised" it had not been informed about the
> meeting in advance by the Afghan government.
>
> Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on his way to discuss Afghanistan with
> North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense ministers in Budapest, made
> it clear that the Bush administration supports talks only for the
> purposes of attracting individual leaders to leave the Taliban and
> join the government. "What is important is detaching those who are
> reconcilable and who are willing to be part of the future of the
> country from those who are irreconcilable,"he said.
>
> Gates said he drew line at talks with the head of the Taliban, Mullah
> Mohammad Omar.
>
> However, representatives of the Taliban leader are apparently involved
> in the talks, and President Hamid Karzai is committed to going well
> beyond the tactic of appealing to individual Taliban figures.
>
> Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak said in a news conference
> on October 4 that resolution of the conflict required a "political
> settlement with the Taliban". He added that such a settlement would
> come only "after Taliban's acceptance of the Afghan constitution and
> the peaceful rotation of power by democratic means."
>
> The Afghan talks come against the backdrop of a Bush administration
> decision to send 8,000 more US troops to Afghanistan next year, and
> the expressed desire of the US commander, General David D McKiernan,
> for yet another 15,000 combat and support troops. Both Democratic
> candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain have said
> they would increase US troop strength in Afghanistan.
>
> Obama has said he would send troops now scheduled to remain in Iraq
> until next summer to Afghanistan as an urgent priority, whereas McCain
> has not said when or how he would increase the troop level.
>
> Such a US troop increase is exactly what the British fear, however.
> The British ambassador in Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, was
> quoted in a diplomatic cable leaked to the French investigative
> magazine Le Canard Enchaine last week as telling the French deputy
> ambassador that the US presidential candidates "must be dissuaded from
> getting further bogged down in Afghanistan".
>
> In the French diplomatic report of the September 2 conversation,
> Cowper-Coles is reported as saying that an increase in foreign troop
> strength in Afghanistan would only exacerbate the overall political
> problem in Afghanistan.
>
> The report has the ambassador saying that such an increase "would
> identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would
> multiply the targets" for the insurgents.
>
> Cowper-Coles is quoted as saying foreign forces are the "lifeline"of
> the Afghan regime and that additional forces would "slow down and
> complicate a possible emergence from the crisis".
>
> In an obvious reference to the intention to rely on higher levels of
> military force, Cowper-Coles said US strategy in Afghanistan "is
> destined to fail".
>
> Cowper-Coles is reported to have put much of the blame for the
> deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan on the Karzai
> government. "The security situation is getting worse,"the report
> quoted him as saying. "So is corruption, and the government had lost
> all trust."
>
> The report makes it clear that the British want to withdraw all their
> troops from Afghanistan within five to 10 years. Cowper-Coles is said
> to have suggested that the only way to do so is through the emergence
> of what he called an "acceptable dictator".
>
> The British foreign office has denied that the report reflected the
> policy of the government itself. Nevertheless, statements by Brigadier
> Carleton-Smith, the senior British commander in Afghanistan, last
> week, underlined the gulf between US and British views on Afghanistan.
>
> "We're not going to win this war," said Carleton-Smith, according to
> The Sunday Times of London on September 28. Carleton-Smith, commander
> of an air assault brigade, has completed two tours in Afghanistan. He
> suggested that foreign troops would and should leave Afghanistan
> without having defeated the insurgency. "We may leave with there still
> being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency," he said.
>
> Like Cowper-Coles, Carleton-Smith suggested that the real problem for
> the coalition was not military but political. "This struggle is more
> down to the credibility of the Afghan government than the threat from
> the Taliban," he said.
>
> When Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as British prime minister in
> June 2007, British officials concluded that the Taliban were too
> deeply rooted to be defeated militarily, according to a report in The
> Guardian last October. The Brown government decided to pursue a
> strategy of courting "moderate" Taliban leaders and fighters who were
> believed to be motivated more by tribal obligation than jihadi ideology.
>
> That idea was in line with US strategy. Now, however, both Karzai and
> the British have moved beyond that to a policy of negotiating directly
> and officially with the Taliban. For the British it appears to be part
> of an exit strategy that is not shared by Washington.
>
> Defense Secretary Gates responded to Carleton-Smith's remarks Tuesday
> by reiterating the official US view that additional forces are needed
> in Afghanistan and implying that the British's officer's views are
> "defeatist". Gates said there "certainly is no reason to be defeatist
> or to underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run".
>
> Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist
> specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of
> his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road
> to War in Vietnam,was published in 2006.
>
> Inter Press Service
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rad-Green mailing list
> Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>