PDA

View Full Version : "US Strategy in Afghanistan is Doomed to Fail"




skunk
Oct 4, 2008, 05:17 AM
U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will fail, leaked cable says

By Elaine Sciolino
Friday, October 3, 2008

PARIS: A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. Not only that, but the best solution for the country will be the installation of an "acceptable dictator," the British envoy reportedly added.

"The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British envoy is quoted by Jean-François Fitou, the deputy French ambassador to Kabul and the author of the cable, as saying.

The two-page cable - which was sent to the Élysée Palace and the French Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday edition - said that the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to stabilize the country.

"The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution," Cowper-Coles was quoted as saying. "Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis."

Within 5 to 10 years, the only "realistic" way to unite is for it to be "governed by an acceptable dictator," the cable said, adding that "we should think of preparing our public opinion" about such an outcome.

Cowper-Coles, as quoted, was critical of both U.S. presidential candidates, who have vowed in their campaigns to substantially increase U.S. military support to fight the Taliban for Afghanistan if elected president.

In the short run, "it is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan," he is quoted as saying.

On Wednesday, General David McKiernan, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, called on NATO to send more troops and other support as soon as possible to counter the insurgency.

British officials said that the comments attributed to Cowper-Coles were distorted and did not reflect official British policy.

"It's not for us to comment on something that is presented as extracts from a French diplomatic telegram, but the views it quotes are not in any way an accurate representation of the government's approach," said a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office, who, like other French and British officials, spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

The official confirmed, however, that the two men did have a meeting, but said that the British ambassador's comments were taken out of context. The ambassador's deputy was also present at the meeting, according to the French cable.

But Cowper-Coles, a British career foreign service officer who has served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel, is known for his frank talk, and other British officials who know him say that his words rang true.

Fitou, meanwhile, is considered a responsible and precise diplomat who would be unlikely to misreport a conversation, a senior French official said.

It is unclear whether the two men spoke in English or French.

French officials, who said they were deeply embarrassed about what they called a serious leak, criticized the broad diffusion of the cable and have started a leak investigation.

The senior French official described it as a "diplomatic disaster" that could put French soldiers at more risk.

Claude Angeli, an executive editor of Le Canard Enchaîné and the author of the article, defended its publication.

"This is not the first time we have been the target of a leak investigation," he said in a telephone interview. "The cable is authentic and we reported its contents accurately."

The pessimistic British analysis comes as France has increased its troops in Afghanistan amid concern despite a further erosion of popular support for French troops being present there.

At the last NATO summit meeting in April, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that he would send an additional 700 French soldiers to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, bringing the total to about 3,000. He was criticized by the Socialist opposition for being too close to the Bush administration, criticisms that grew louder after the deaths of 10 French soldiers in a Taliban ambush in August.

The attacks were the most for France since the 1983 bombing of a barracks in Beirut killed 58 French paratroopers.

In his cable to Paris, Fitou quoted the British ambassador as saying that the reinforcement of military troops "would have perverse effects: it would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would multiply the targets" for the insurgents.

The cable also quoted the British envoy as saying that despite public statements to the contrary, "the insurgency, although still incapable of a military victory, has the capacity to make life more and more difficult, including in the capital."

Acknowledging that there is no option other than supporting the United States in Afghanistan, the ambassador reportedly added, "But we must tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one."

The U.S. strategy, he is quoted as saying, "is destined to fail."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/03/mideast/afghan.php?page=2

Just how many puppet governments can the US operate the strings of at one time? Isn't it time this charade ended?



t0mat0
Oct 4, 2008, 05:29 AM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/03/mideast/afghan.php?page=2

Just how many puppet governments can the US operate the strings of at one time? Isn't it time this charade ended?

Isn't America's achilles heel in thinking that it/she can fully control them to begin with, or more precisely, be able to mould countries, without having it sow the seed for a whirlwind later on?

For America, i'd imagine there must be some consternation about the $ and the oil market. How much control would there be if the rowdy countries start operating in another currency? To come back to the topic - There have been enough historic lessons that could be drawn about trying to invade/control Afghanistan and other countries. They have a much longer look at timespans. It does seems strange as to why we're in these countries, bar "we kinda mucked around, and now we feel guilty about potentially creating a vacuum by just leaving quickly"...

és:
Oct 4, 2008, 05:42 AM
I've always hated Obama's insistence that Afghanistan is ''the right battlefield''. It's not the right battlefield, it never was. Iraq was even worse.

Nobody is learning from history, here. Afghanistan isn't a place where you can just go in, kill a few people and get 'victory'. There is no victory in a place like Afghanistan, there is no victory against a disorganised group like the Taliban.

SMM
Oct 4, 2008, 05:03 PM
Very interesting read. I have not seen a great deal of this sentiment expressed. Mostly, it has been about insufficient troop levels. Also, with all of the focus on the campaigns, foreign affairs is not getting enough of my attention.

I think es makes some good points about the futility of trying to win a military victory there. The afghanis are ferocious fighters - ask the Russians. We are on their home court, which is a huge advantage to them. They are also very smart. I think it is time to reassess why we are there.

1.) Capture/kill Bin Laden
2.) Capture/kill Al Queda members
3.) Capture/kill the Taliban

These seem to be the major reasons, and we are failing at all of them. So, the questions now become, are these achievable goals, what would it take to guarantee success, and is the reward worth the cost? It does not appear some very knowledgeable people think so.

For the US, withdrawing from Afghanistan would be admitting defeat. I do not think we can bring ourselves to do that right now, regardless of what common sense might dictate. If we end up with four more years of republican rule, it definitely will not happen. In fact, I doubt if anyone would make that call, right now.

iJohnHenry
Oct 4, 2008, 07:43 PM
Pakistan is a "user" state. They play both roles very well.

The U.S., by comparison, is but a child.

Why do Humans always play this rook-pawn crap??

mkrishnan
Oct 4, 2008, 08:06 PM
I've always hated Obama's insistence that Afghanistan is ''the right battlefield''. It's not the right battlefield, it never was. Iraq was even worse.

I think in many ways the evidence is more clear that Afghanistan is like all-expense-paid cruise tickets on the failboat. The "vision" has been seen through there and there just is no emerging evidence of the creation of stability. To continue to spend time in Afghanistan without a dramatic strategic shift is ludicrous. Even with a dramatic shift... to what? Why does anyone believe we can solve their problems given our repeated failures in the various things we have done there in the past 20-30 years?

iSaint
Oct 4, 2008, 08:16 PM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/03/mideast/afghan.php?page=2

Just how many puppet governments can the US operate the strings of at one time? Isn't it time this charade ended?

Don't you think England is helping out on this, as well as other countries?

bobber205
Oct 4, 2008, 08:32 PM
I've always hated Obama's insistence that Afghanistan is ''the right battlefield''. It's not the right battlefield, it never was. Iraq was even worse.

Nobody is learning from history, here. Afghanistan isn't a place where you can just go in, kill a few people and get 'victory'. There is no victory in a place like Afghanistan, there is no victory against a disorganised group like the Taliban.

:confused:

Nobody from Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Lol. No victory is possible? if it's not possible there, what makes you think we should even be TRYING to achieve 'victory' in Iraq?

kainjow
Oct 4, 2008, 08:47 PM
Well opium production has risen since the US invaded. I'd imagine that would be seen as a success to certain groups of people. :confused:

solvs
Oct 6, 2008, 02:03 AM
I'll be honest, I don't know how to deal with Pakistan/Afghanistan, just what I read, and things don't seem to be going very well there:

Top Afghan diplomat abducted in Pakistan (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSISL12731520080922)
Taliban Ready to Make It a ‘Hot Winter’ (http://washingtonindependent.com/6855/taliban-fighting-to-make-a-hot-winter-in-afghanistan)
Pakistan militants threaten more bombs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-24-Pakistan-militants_N.htm)
Pakistan to US after clash: Stay away from border (http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2008/09/26/D93EKO7O1_as_pakistan_us/index.html?source=refresh)
Taliban assassins kill ranking Afghan policewoman (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080928/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan)
Sources: Man blamed for Bhutto killing is dead (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/30/taliban.official.dead/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

What a mess, but it looks like it's more of the same from the administration:

Gates: US reviewing its Afghanistan war strategy (http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=78&sid=1480430)
Bush Administration Reviews Its Afghanistan Policy, Exposing Points of Contention (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/washington/23policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Bush Administration Keeps Secret Damaging NIE on Afghanistan (http://murraywaas.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/24/bush-administration-keeps-secret-damaging-nie-on-afghanistan/)
Afghanistan has seen 'spiral downwards': top US general (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080929/wl_asia_afp/pakistanunrestusnatoafghanistan;_ylt=At9vllLeQhdGbZJqteWoGMKs0NUE)
More troops urgently needed in Afghanistan: top U.S. commander (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/01/us-afghanistan.html)

és:
Oct 6, 2008, 04:21 AM
:confused:

Nobody from Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

I'm not sure if you think I've said that they have, or if you're just not reading what I've written properly but either way, I don't know why you've written that.

Lol. No victory is possible?

No. I think history has shown us, both long and short term, that a war like this in Afghanistan is not winnable.


if it's not possible there, what makes you think we should even be TRYING to achieve 'victory' in Iraq?

I don't and I don't know why you think I do. I'm a long time opponent to the war. I marched against the war and I've slammed it every step of the way - before and during, and I'll sure as **** slam it afterwards.

I don't get what you're trying to say or what your point is.

skunk
Oct 6, 2008, 04:25 AM
Don't you think England is helping out on this, as well as other countries?I have repeatedly and regretfully accepted the UK's share of responsibility for the clusterf*ck that is "western" foreign policy, but the US is certainly the prime mover.

Peterkro
Oct 6, 2008, 04:28 AM
Whilst it's a clusterf*ck for the vast majority of humans for those bastards pushing Chicago school economics it's merely a nice little earner.

BoyBach
Oct 6, 2008, 10:28 AM
In other news, bear excrement found in forest.

arkitect
Oct 6, 2008, 10:41 AM
"Did I not say so?" cried Colonel Dennie. "Here comes the messenger…"
http://www.afghanistan-photos.com/crbst_brydon.jpg

solvs
Oct 8, 2008, 03:49 AM
Pakistan Suicide Bomb Targets Lawmaker's Home, Leaves At Least 15 Dead (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081006/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan)
Pakistan facing bankruptcy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3147266/Pakistan-facing-bankruptcy.html)

And if anyone wants to know the real story of what may have happened at Tora Bora, read this:

Elite Officer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml?source=mostpop_story)