British forces should buy off potential Taleban recruits with “bags of gold”, according to a new army field manual published yesterday.Army commanders should also talk to insurgent leaders with “blood on their hands” in order to hasten the end of the conflict in Afghanistan.
The edicts, which are contained in rewritten counter-insurgency guidelines, will be taught to all new army officers. They mark a strategic rethink after three years in which British and Nato forces have failed to defeat the Taleban.
The manual is also a recognition that the Army’s previous doctrine for success against insurgents, which was based on the experience in Northern Ireland, is now out of date.
The new instructions came on the day that Gordon Brown went farther than before in setting out Britain’s exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister stated explicitly last night that he wanted troops to begin handing over districts to Afghan authorities during next year — a general election year in Britain.
So much for Great Britain, after HUNDREDS of years of colonies, and rule in muslim lands actually having a clue.
Jizya and negotiations will only postpone. IF IT EVEN 'WORKED'
8 comments:
"So much for Great Britain, after HUNDREDS of years of colonies, and rule in muslim lands actually having a clue."
So Obama has a clue then?
Brown's a busted flush. Whatever he says now is just for electioneering purposes. On the other hand the majority of Brits despair at the weekly flight to Brize Norton with coffins.
The majority want Britain out and with anti British comments like this from our American friends why not?
Get on with it America if you have a clue.
Ray, get off it. Obama is not exactly a charm to most of us around here.
I expect Obama will invent some compromise, and vote PRESENT on Afpak. It will be a fortunate 2012 if AfPak can wait until some comprehensible Repub is available for us in 2012 to deal with the mess left by then
Obama's only clue is what is on top of the Emperor of Japan's SHOE, which is so happy to closely examine
I think if anyone has a clue it's the British Army after years of experience of fighting insurgents they know that it doesn't work in Afghanistan.
The reason it doesn't work is that Afghanistan has NEVER been led by a central government and a different strategy is needed.
Tribal leadership in the regions is what they do and working with them is a way. It's not jitzya or dhimmitude. The majority of taleban are farmers sons who are not fighting as jihadists but fighting foreign invading troops.
Seperate them out from the foreign, non Afghan taleban, get some kind of understanding with them and it MIGHT be a way forward. It's worth a try because as sure as hell nothing else will work as the Russians found to their cost.
The situation in Afghanistan is unique and needs a different approach.
If the Germans, French, Italians and other Nato members were to pull their weight then maybe our boys (UK & US) wouldn't have to lose their lives or their limbs.
As I understand it the Canadians and the Danish are pulling their weight.
think tribally and we could still win.
that means make ourselves a tribe, align with the sensiblities of the tribes in afghanistan, backing thier tribal beliefs over taliban beliefs which actually are foriegn and contradictory to many of the local tribal beliefs.
Ray, every situation is wildly different. That's why Basra was a DISASTER for the Brits despite experience. Or take WW1 and the long experience fighting. Even Haig in 1918 was out of his gourd.
Experience can be a guide and OUGHT TO BE, but talent and relentless dedication to killing the enemy is superior.
That's why Sherman succeeded and McLellan failed.
We need to KILL the Taliban, and by relentlessly doing so, joining up will be an evident poor choice.
Epa,
Ray is right about this point: "The reason it doesn't work is that Afghanistan has NEVER been led by a central government and a different strategy is needed."
Don't you think?
"We need to KILL the Taliban, and by relentlessly doing so, joining up will be an evident poor choice"
Yes we do but that's the problem with that sort of warfare. The Taleban are getting killed but the more we kill the more recruits they get and in the meantime they kill our boys with their IED's.
You would have thought we could deal with IED's more effectively. Simple agricultural devices against the sophisticated weapons of the West.
We don't need a central govt.
Just boots on the ground, A-10's overhead, B-52's at 50,000 feet in silence, and a relentless approach.
We entered in 2001 to destroy that nation's ability to support a system which can reach out around the world and knock off thousands having coffee at their desks
If we keep killing recruits we will eventually KILL OFF THE LOT.
But not one at a time. And not with $20,000,000 drones firing $200,000 missiles at what we hope is dinner for Hekmatyar enjoying some kebab a few times a month
It would be nice to leave a working nation behind, but a bunch of tribes who want nothing more to do with the islamic arabs because they are destroying the ancient tribal system by their very presence WILL DO. We have to make the Taliban a hated name because wherever they go we kill until they are all killed.
The Sherman School of Excellence in Foreign Policy - 101
However, not only are we too 'civilized' to do this, we are too civilized to WIN ANYTHING.
And THAT is the real problem
Post a Comment