David Miliband: The army alone cannot defeat this Taliban insurgency
We need to co-opt those ready to give up violence and renounce al-Qa'ida
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Nobody I talked to in Afghanistan last week wants a return to Taliban rule. Afghans cherish the opportunity to live a life of their own choosing and the chance to govern themselves.
But Afghans fear an enduring stalemate. The Taliban are too weak to fight Afghan and coalition forces in a conventional confrontation while Afghan institutions are not yet sufficiently rooted to drive out the Taliban's guerrilla warfare.
It is in this context that we welcome President Obama's decision to deploy a further 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. The threat of terrorist attack on our soil remains real. Al-Qa'ida is still hiding on these borders, co-opting the Taliban and tribesmen. The US commitment, alongside us and 40 other nations, is a signal of their long term determination
Our armed forces, diplomats and aid workers, operating in extraordinarily difficult terrain, continue to make a huge difference. Their unflinching courage and professionalism is a credit to this country. Over the past year in Helmand, they've helped double the number of districts under Afghan government control. Opium cultivation is down, the legal Afghan economy is growing, and many more people have access to basic healthcare and schools.
But as we have long argued, there is no purely military solution to the insurgency. Unless it is aligned with a clear political and economic strategy, military might will only force the Taliban further underground, or encourage them to play a waiting game.
Defeating the insurgency means understanding it, and being clearer about the forms it takes. The insurgency is not drawn from a single organisation, nor is it fighting for a single cause. There are ideological Taliban, ten-dollar-a- day Taliban, fighters from beyond the region, criminals, narco-traffickers, warlords and wannabe power-brokers. And all of them rely on the acquiesence of some ordinary citizens, who despite dreading the Taliban's return, doubt the capacity of the state to protect them, so hedge their bets.
Our strategy is to help the Afghan government divide the insurgency, and co-opt those prepared to renounce al-Qa'ida, give up violence, and accept the Afghan constitution. This means countering insurgents in different ways.
If we want ordinary Afghans to deny the Taliban support and sanctuary, we need to give them confidence in their state. We must build the capacity – especially the national army, the police and the judiciary – and help the government provide for its people.
When it comes to those who have aligned themselves with the Taliban not for safety and lack of choice, but rather for power and influence, we need incentives and sanctions. They need to know that if they renounce violence and accept the rule of law, there are legitimate opportunities for them. And if they do not accept the constitution, they will be pursued relentlessly by military forces.
Then of course there are the more extreme elements of the insurgency; the hard-line ideologues determined to reject the authority of the legitimate state, prepared to fight to the end. There are the small numbers of foreign fighters. For both these groups, the only response is confrontation by the coalition and the Afghan forces. There has, in the last year, been attrition in these groups' ranks on both sides of the border.
On Wednesday I went to the Khyber Pass. The ease with which insurgents can move across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is a massive problem. American determination to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together is a great step forward. With intimate connections between the insurgency in Kunar and the militancy in Waziristan, between the criminals, spoilers and terrorists in Lashkar Gah and Quetta, in Peshawar and Nangahar, Afghanistan can never be safe unless the Pakistani militancy is addressed.
Out of the loss of life to terrorism in Pakistan, the danger of spreading talebanisation, the summary executions and the school demolitions, is emerging a growing acceptance within Pakistan's elite that violent extremism is the greatest threat the country faces. We need to support the democratically elected government and its military forces in rooting out the extremism on its soil and developing a joint approach with the Afghan authorities.
Afghanistan is a test of the resolve of Nato and the broader international alliance. More troops will never be enough to enforce stability across the country. But by pressuring those who refuse to cooperate with the Afghan state, and protecting those who do, military force can directly support a political solution.
This is the only way to build a safe and secure Afghanistan. And it is the best way to ensure that the Taliban do not return to power, and that the country cannot, once again, become a haven for those who seek to do us harm.
The writer is the Foreign Secretary
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
fighters from beyond the region,
criminals,
narco-traffickers,
warlords and wannabe power-brokers
And all of them rely on the acquiesence of some ordinary citizens,
who Doubt the capacity of the state to protect them, so hedge their bets
ALL THOSE CAN BE BOUGHTWITH AMERIKAN MONEY
'Nobody I talked to in Afghanistan last week wants a return to Taliban rule'. says Miliband. Of course they didn't. You never got to meet a proper cross section of Afgans on your trip did you? Just those people selected by the government and their cronies for you to meet in some nice secure area. What did you expect these people to say - the truth - that most Afgans want an end to the violence the USA and Britain are inflicting on the country? Not likely to hear that were you?
'Afghans cherish the opportunity to live a life of their own choosing and the chance to govern themselves.' says Miliband. Yep. Which means the USA and Bristish must get out this foriegn country now and allow the corrupt government we have helped put in place face the will of the people. The Afgans are fighting against the US and Britain precisely because they want an opportunity to live a life of their own choosing rather than have the US imposing its political and military will over who runs te country and how the country is governed.
'But Afghans fear an enduring stalemate' says Miliband. They should do. They can see what's happened in Iraq, counted the 100 of thousands dead and totally decimated infrastructure and economy of that country. They have every reason to fear a prolonged occupation of USA and British military forces waging a war that is killing increasing numbers of innocent men, women and children (civilians!).
'The Taliban are too weak to fight Afghan and coalition forces in a conventional confrontation while Afghan institutions are not yet sufficiently rooted to drive out the Taliban's guerrilla warfare' says Miliband. DUUH! Since when have village tribesmen waged conventional war in Afganistan? Guerilla style warfare is their forte as the many previous occupiers - the Russians being the latest of a long line of examples in case you forgotten - found out to their cost. The US spent billions supporting, training and equiping the mountain tribes to fight the Russian occupier. Called them freedom fighters. Funny, when we decide to invade a country these very same people become terrorists that need to be wiped off the map.
'It is in this context that we welcome President Obama's decision to deploy a further 17,000 troops to Afghanistan.' Bullshit. In this context the decision to escalate the occupation ranks as down right stupid. This country has never had effective central government and escalating the voilence will have only one sure fire result. An ever increasing conmitment by the tribes to kick this oppresssor out. No foriegn occupation of this country has ever succeeded. This one won't either (read up on your history - you might learn just a few things that can help frame you deficient thinking processes and decision making).
'The threat of terrorist attack on our soil remains real.'.says Miliband. It should do. When you go to war against another country, you're asking for it. Our intervention their makes a terrorist attack on our soil more likely. They have a justifiable cause to want to strike back at a country engaged in occupying their country that is killing lots of civilians. Violence begets more voilence.
One could go on word by word, sentence by sentence with the absurdity of the case Miliband makes, and the picture he is trying to paint. Worse still, he's responsible for spending billions of pounds of tax payers money on this evil folly.
If you want to really help the Afgans, pull out the troops, give them the billons of pounds we're spending on killing people and let them build the hospitals, schools and economy you claim to want. It will be a lot more effective than this war war war, kill kill killl policy the USA and U.K appears blindly committed to.
Since the people who strut corridors of power in the banana republic, acknowledge that a 'win' by an invader is impossible once the soft underbelly of an army of occupation has been intelligently targeted by those invaded - and especially by this particular population with their well known characteristics, what on earth is a bankrupt banana republic that claims it cannot afford a decent education system at home, DOing there as an invader? Get out out! Now! Before being made to look an even greater posturing fool as a poodle of big oil.
Did you write this yourself, or did the FO cobble it together? We'll never know, as the flow of information necessary for a healthy democracy is not in the public interest, is it?
Just a few day ago this very paper, that you are gracing with you presence this morning, published a most pessimistic report on the state of affairs in Afghanistan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w
Did you learn any history at school, Mr Milipede? Like the chunk about "the Great Game" - rivalry between Russia and the Raj? The Afghans did not especially welcome our efforts to colonise their country when we were a world power, in fact they won three wars with Britain, the last being after WWI.
But, what we really need to know is: what are we doing there now?
OK, the Taliban are an odious bunch, but not a lot worse that than the 'Chicago Boys' were in Chile (1973), or United Fruit were in Central America circa 1928 (Santa Marta Massacre).
Are we there out of a "moral duty"? Are we there to promote the ""the forward march of democracy"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2
This takes us back to Mr Straw and those Cabinet minutes, which brings us to the, er, 'heart' of new labour: it's nothing more that a tool of United Fruit's contemporaries. The world, even Afghanistan, most be opened up for corporate profit.
That's the bottom line, isn't it Mr Milipede? Democracy gets in the way, doesn't it?
' Defeating the insurgency means understanding it...' ' ...There are ideological Taliban, ten-dollar-a- day Taliban, fighters from beyond the region, criminals, narco-traffickers, warlords and wannabe power-brokers'
The impression I get from reading these statements is that the milipede seems to think that the Taliban was responsible for the opium production in Afghanistan . Why would narco-traffickers fight to reinstall the Taliban that outlawed the growing of opium ? But then perhaps I don't have milipede's 'understanding'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w
Does he read the news ever ? Or just make his own up to fit the agenda ...
I'm sure if the Taliban are making a profit from opium , which they may well be , they have their own traffickers , making sure they receive maximum moneys .
The ONLY thing that has worked in Afghanistan from the time of the then Prince Regent Ashoka, a few centuries before Christ, to the time of the Mughal Babar to the Sikh Ranjit Sikh is overpowering and ruthless force that enforces law and order on a fiercely independent and volatile tribal people. Afghans will appreciate it and respect them if the Americans and the NATO forces smash the Taliban quickly and then get out. A long drawn war in Afghanistan is not in the interest of the Afghan people. Half measures and muddled strategies don't, won't and can't work here. Remember Jalalabad.
I know you weren't in place when this all started in 2001 but a lot of brainless people should be investigated.....
We know the CIA use drug money for their black ops and so forth! and the 400 billion est drug trade per annum eventually ends up in a bank!! it seems apparent to me that we are more like protectors of the drug trade rather than trying to eradicate it (which will never happen). Remember britain created opium addicts in 1800`s to facilitate trade with china, this is nothing new. Drugs and hemp are illegal because billionares want to stay billionares.
THERE IS A LOT OF PAIN IN AMERyQKHA
NO PAIN NO GAIN AS THEY SAY IN GRINGO DINGO LINGO
A Li BABA SEZ WHERE THERE IS PAIN THERE IS PROFIT