In their rush to distance themselves from Tony Blair and the alliance with the Bush administration, Gordon Brown’s new government has already demonstrated a talent for undermining the war on terror. David Miliband, on his first visit to Pakistan, praised Pervez Musharraf for the Waziristan accord that has allowed al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup:
Differences between British and American strategy in dealing with Taliban militants emerged yesterday during the Foreign Secretary’s first visit to Pakistan.
David Miliband, the newly-appointed Foreign Secretary, emphasised that a purely military solution to violence in Pakistan’s tribal areas would not alone quash the insurgency. …
Pakistani officials underscored the difference in approach between the two allies by stating that Britain understood that political agreements were also needed to bring peace.
Well, perhaps they should ask themselves if retreating from their own territory in Waziristan bought Pakistan any relief? All it did was allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to focus their attention on Afghanistan, an inconvenient fact that Hamid Karzai points out every chance he gets. Now that the Islamists in the frontier have grown strong enough, they have begun conducting operations in Pakistan’s cities, such as the Red Mosque showdown that coincidentally resulted in violence across the nation when it ended in a military strike.
Miliband joins other British diplomats who have voiced opposition to the American strategy of fighting the war in Afghanistan as though it were a war. British NATO commanders got replaced after conducting a series of truces with the Taliban as they established control in Afghan communities last year. American commanders put an immediate end to the truces and drove the Taliban back across the border, and then kneecapped their “spring offensive” by acting like a military at war rather than a group of UN peacekeepers.
Even the British reported it as a success:
The Telegraph includes a video presentation that should be seen as a companion to the article. In it, the narrator says that “the effect on the Taliban has been dramatic,” and it certainly was in this case. The commander who died in this engagement was Mullah Najibullah, a commander in the original Taliban who eluded us in 2001. He had been an official in Mullah Omar’s government in Afghanistan prior to getting ejected in the American invasion after 9/11.
The Pakistani foreign office liked the British approach better. Their representative said that “Even if it failed it bought peace for a period.” The peace of terrorist oppression might appeal to the Pakistanis, and possibly to the Brown government, but it won’t to Americans or Afghans. I’m missing Tony Blair even more than I feared.
Neville would be PROUD! Can we get a photo op of “Peace in our time!”?
underlying all things european, including the UK, is the acceptance of a new reality. radical islam is capable of taking over europe when it wants and how it wants. the hope out of brussels is europe will morph into a semi secular islamic state with some sharia over the next twenty years or so. what they are most afraid of is resistance, a resistance that tilts europe back into its dark past.
the UK is very worried. they would rather live on their knees than die on their feet. france today basically said they would give nuclear tech to any arab country that wants it. they are simply hoping to be eaten last…..
Appeasement never works, period. The Brits supposedly learned that 70 years ago – guess all that generation is gone and the boomet/pacificists are now in charge. Like the mullahs in Londonistan will become quiet? Give me a break.
This is what you get when you try to attain peace directly. Real peace can only be achieved indirectly – through victory. Peace is a derivative of other conditions, not obtainable as a first order objective.
Ed, logistically would Musharraf have enough troops to pacify the NW Territories? I’ve read the terrain is a nightmare where Taliban could fight on for years. Also, do you think Musharraf has the political will to take the fight there. Historically the area has always been uncontrollable for the Paki Governments. I don’t see any easy solution to this problem, other than carpet bomb it with nukes- probably not a good idea.
The minister was distancing himself from US remarks earlier indicating that the US was considering unilateraly attacking terrorists on Pakistani soil.The minister also said that military action alone would not defeat militant islamacism. Saying that economic delvelopment and bilateral efforts were needed along with political and military arrangements to properly combat terrorism in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is hardly appeasement. It is a statement of fact. If you disagree with the minister and think that there is a simple military solution to the problems in Pakistan… then put your money where your mouth is and campaign for war with Pakistan. That is what you are advocating.
I think the only thing that the British balked on was the Pakistani request for landmines to close the frontier with Afghanistan.
As much as it pains me Ed I have to agree with you on this one.
THURS JULY 27 Castigating Conservative Cruelty and Credibility
It’s like this. I just don’t feel like blogging today. What you see here is what you get. It’s a …
“Saying that economic delvelopment and bilateral efforts were needed along with political and military arrangements to properly combat terrorism in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is hardly appeasement.”
it’s not appeasement it’s idiocy, the kind we continue to see every day by more and more people. just making that statement indicates a clear lack of understanding about what radical islam is.
“David Miliband, the newly-appointed Foreign Secretary, emphasised that a purely military solution to violence in Pakistan’s tribal areas would not alone quash the insurgency.”
In essence, this is true. You need a strong military or police presence along with the construction of civil infrastructure and political alliances. All this takes time. It takes several years to build the necessary public and private infrastructures that will eventually defeat insurgencies. That’s something most “diplomats” seem to forget and makes me wonder just how these “diplomats” got their jobs as they don’t seem to understand how societies are formed and evolve.
Societies don’t just appear overnight and it takes a long time to change a society’s behavior. Think about how much time elapsed between the emancipation of the black slaves and the civil rights act that finally gave them the guaranteed right to fully integrate into American society, for example.
If diplomats can’t understand the processes involved in changing the behavior of a society, how can they form a working policy on how to deal with that society and use it in a way that is beneficial to everyone? Frankly, I don’t think they can, at least not effectively and in a manner that minimizes violence.
Besides, the British government should be the last ones to criticize our anti-insurgency policies. After all, it took almost forty years to end their own insurgency problem in Northern Ireland, know as The Troubles.
The only neotiations that ever bring about a lasting and permanent change between warring interests are the type of negotiations that were conducted on the quarterdeck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Diplomats do not create peace, they are the street cleaners who tidy up after the parade has passed.
“Diplomats do not create peace, they are the street cleaners who tidy up after the parade has passed.
That’s good!
What gets said in public is not necessarily what is communicated behind closed doors, especially in that part of the world. This could be part of a well thought out plan. The Brits show up, mouth some meaningless niceties for the cameras and then go inside and encourage Pervez to get a move on, try to get things under control or those crazy war loving Americans are going to do it for him. Who knows? Just my spin on things.
This just makes me sick .
Appeaser’s all. I guess they’ll learn when it’s their head being cut off.
Enie Menie Miney Mo;
Which tethered goat has got to go?
Brother…between the weakness on display on part of our European pals or that of our Democrat’s, it’s getting progressively harder to distinguish which goat is going be the centerpiece of the next slaughter.
Before complaining about the new Brit government, remember it was Blair’s army that made all those truces in Afghanistan last year. The Pakis followed the Brit lead because it was politically expedient.
Behind closed doors? See above. The Brits think this is the way to go.
“Behind closed doors? See above. The Brits think this is the way to go.”
Pretty depressing epitaph, you think? 40 years of domestic terrorism, the Brits endure and Blair brokers a lasting peace.
But post 7/7 Britain has given up on itself. America needs to start openly asking if we can count on the UK as an ally in the war on terror.
But there’s an even more frightening result from all this. Take a good, long look at the UK in 2007. This is where the Democrats want us to be in five years.
In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. If the Brits weren’t ready the turn the page after the bombings, they’re just going to need a little more convincing. I hope they have their epiphany sooner than later, and also hope that the price isn’t too high.
blah…blah…blah…blah
There is a reason why the US is not a British Commonwealth.
The only time the Europeans really need us is when they are about to go extinct. Remember WW1 and WW2?
If they don’t get their Muslim mess under control, I expect we will be re-doing Normandy again in 20 years or so.
Yes, forty years it took for ‘us brits’ to try and solve ‘the troubles’ a violent time in history in northern ireland.
It was also called ‘the cause’ which americans supported, funded ,politically cheer led. The I.R.A were only put on a terrorist list following 9\11. Funny that ,american money and blind eye to shipment of arms and explosives caused deaths to irish and british citizens.
No ‘shoulder to shoulder’ it has been a big deal here,america has never been our closest allie when the irish vote was needed.
If the u.s was saving us dim witted british why wait for pearl harbour.
Study your own history and learn from your mistakes.
Massive errors were made in N. Ireland one of them was our allie wining and dining terrorists, allowing fund-raising against repeated government calls that this money was blowing children up- see NORAID.
Refusing british calls for extradition of wanted terrorists.
Here in the U.K the ease some Americans had in causing ‘deaths to Brit’s’ has always led us to question why our troops are in anyway supporting the U.S.
Honestly, on 9/11 one of the first questions put to tony blair was, ‘do you think they will now view it as terrorism’?
Again it was an ugly dirty time and blame all round,but forgive us for not seeing your nation as friends .
If anyone simplistically says ‘Brits out of ireland’ i will piss myself laughing and show a lack of insight to the history.I am an irish catholic in the the u.k and these terrorists were never representing me and my family.
Call it Good Cop… Bad Cop…
Call it Push Marketing or Pull Marketing…
The tactic appears to be something understood by those who shoot gophers for fun. First you squeal a little to get the little feller to stand up and then you drill them.
I think everyone with an ounce of common sense realizes these Islamic radicals do not want to assimilate with the rest of the world. Tactically you should show best efforts in dealing with them and then … let’s roll…
Sorry to add on,
One of the reasons for ‘solving’ the irish problem was realising there was not a military solution to it, a sectarion divide with an occupying force. May sound familiar