Britain's top commander in Afghanistan says the war will not end in victory, the latest indication of soul-searching as Canada's allies grapple with how to handle the rising power of the Taliban insurgency.
Wasn't some spineless twit like this responsible for the first British routing in Afghanistan?
The blunt statement from Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith - "We're not going to win this war" - came just days after a leaked diplomatic cable hinted that the British ambassador in Kabul has a similarly dark forecast. The brigadier suggested that a negotiated settlement will be necessary.
Blunt? He's smoking a blunt?
Speaking to the Sunday Times, Brig. Carleton-Smith said a "decisive military victory" is not feasible and that NATO should lower its expectations about the outcome of the war. "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."
"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable," he said.
No, people should be comfortable talking to a bunch of murderous bandits who want to force their stupid beliefs on their fellow citizens. Right. Thanks for that advice. Twit.
That places Britain, with at least 3,500 troops standing alongside Canada's forces in southern Afghanistan, in direct conflict with U.S. leaders, who continue to argue strenuously that the war can only be won by substantially defeating the Taliban. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his ministers have endorsed that view, although most other NATO nations have favored negotiations.
It places one General, not Britain in conflict. I would bet my hardly earned cash that 98% of the 3,500 British troops would like to prove General Negotiations wrong.
Brig. Carleton-Smith's words are the most explicit expression yet of a view that has become
dominant in many member nations of NATO's International Security Assistance Force.
You know this how?
That view effectively isolates the United States, the biggest donor of money and troops to the war. Starting later this month, the U.S. Afghanistan strategy will be designed by General David Petreus, who devised the "surge" of extra troops in Iraq last year and who has become the head of U.S. Central Command in order to shift the country's priorities toward the Afghan war.
The British proved you can beat insurgencies in Malaysia.
Prime Minister Harper has previously sided with the Americans on such questions, refusing any suggestion of direct negotiations with the Taliban and ridiculing politicians who have suggested a political solution. Conservatives gave NDP Leader Jack Layton the nickname "Taliban Jack" for lobbying in favour of negotiations in recent years, and the moniker became popular among Canadian troops as a derisive shorthand for politicians who don't support the war.
During last week's election debate, however, Mr. Harper avoided discussing the possibility of a victory and suggested that Canada's goals now involve empowering Afghan forces rather than totally defeating the Taliban: "If we are to truly pacify that country and see its evolution, we have to train the Afghan army and police so that they are credibly able to take greater responsibility for their own security."
Well we all know who the staff at the Glob and Mule will vote for.
Negotiations should consist of the following.
Wasn't some spineless twit like this responsible for the first British routing in Afghanistan?
The blunt statement from Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith - "We're not going to win this war" - came just days after a leaked diplomatic cable hinted that the British ambassador in Kabul has a similarly dark forecast. The brigadier suggested that a negotiated settlement will be necessary.
Blunt? He's smoking a blunt?
Speaking to the Sunday Times, Brig. Carleton-Smith said a "decisive military victory" is not feasible and that NATO should lower its expectations about the outcome of the war. "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."
"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable," he said.
No, people should be comfortable talking to a bunch of murderous bandits who want to force their stupid beliefs on their fellow citizens. Right. Thanks for that advice. Twit.
That places Britain, with at least 3,500 troops standing alongside Canada's forces in southern Afghanistan, in direct conflict with U.S. leaders, who continue to argue strenuously that the war can only be won by substantially defeating the Taliban. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his ministers have endorsed that view, although most other NATO nations have favored negotiations.
It places one General, not Britain in conflict. I would bet my hardly earned cash that 98% of the 3,500 British troops would like to prove General Negotiations wrong.
Brig. Carleton-Smith's words are the most explicit expression yet of a view that has become
dominant in many member nations of NATO's International Security Assistance Force.
You know this how?
That view effectively isolates the United States, the biggest donor of money and troops to the war. Starting later this month, the U.S. Afghanistan strategy will be designed by General David Petreus, who devised the "surge" of extra troops in Iraq last year and who has become the head of U.S. Central Command in order to shift the country's priorities toward the Afghan war.
The British proved you can beat insurgencies in Malaysia.
Prime Minister Harper has previously sided with the Americans on such questions, refusing any suggestion of direct negotiations with the Taliban and ridiculing politicians who have suggested a political solution. Conservatives gave NDP Leader Jack Layton the nickname "Taliban Jack" for lobbying in favour of negotiations in recent years, and the moniker became popular among Canadian troops as a derisive shorthand for politicians who don't support the war.
During last week's election debate, however, Mr. Harper avoided discussing the possibility of a victory and suggested that Canada's goals now involve empowering Afghan forces rather than totally defeating the Taliban: "If we are to truly pacify that country and see its evolution, we have to train the Afghan army and police so that they are credibly able to take greater responsibility for their own security."
Well we all know who the staff at the Glob and Mule will vote for.
Negotiations should consist of the following.
a) Do you surrender?
b) No? Okay. Blam!
c) Clean up stain.
No comments:
Post a Comment