Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
British Envoy says Mission in Afghanistan Is Doomed, According to Leaked Memo
The official version of the US-led campaign in Afghanistan received a blow today with a leaked report that the British Ambassador in Kabul believes that US strategy is wrong and the war is as good as lost.
The potentially explosive views were published by Le Canard Enchaîné, a respected French weekly, which said that they were direct quotations from a diplomatic cable written by François Fitou, the French Deputy Ambassador in Kabul.
Mr Fitou reported to President Sarkozy's office and his own Foreign Ministry that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British Ambassador, believed that "American strategy is destined to fail" in Afghanistan, according to the newspaper.
It published a reproduction of what it said was the coded cable, in which the French diplomat summarised the ambassador's main points from a September 2 meeting.
"The current situation is bad. The security situation is getting worse. So is corruption and the Government has lost all trust. Our public statements should not delude us over the fact that the insurrection, while incapable of winning a military victory, nevertheless has the capacity to make life increasingly difficult, including in the capital.
"The presence - especially the military presence - of the coalition is part of the problem, not the solution. The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them. In doing so, they are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis (which, moreover, will probably be dramatic)."
The French diplomat sent the cable to brief President Sarkozy and Bernard Kouchner, the Foreign Minister, ahead of meetings with Britain and other Nato allies over the Afghan deployment. The French deployment of some 3,000 troops there has become intensely unpopular since 10 soldiers were killed in an ambush near Kabul in August.
The allies have been thrown on the defensive over the past 18 months by the resurgence of the Taleban rebel forces, who have moved close to Kabul, where the Government of President Karzai is struggling to establish its authority.
Sir Sherard, 53, was also quoted as saying that while Britain had no alternative to supporting the United States, the Americans should be told to change strategy.
Reinforcing the military presence against the Taleban insurrection would be counter-productive, he said, according to Le Canard. "It would identify us even more clearly as an occupying force and it would multiply the number of targets (for the insurgents)," he was quoted as saying.
The allied governments should start preparing public opinion to accept that the only realistic solution for Afghanistan was to be ruled by "an acceptable dictator".
"In the short term we should dissuade the American presidential candidates from getting more bogged down in Afghanistan," the ambassador was quoted as saying.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office would not comment directly on the leaked French diplomatic report, but a spokesman said that the remarks did "not accurately reflect" the views of the ambassador or his deputy.
"We are committed to working in support of the Government of Afghanistan in order to deliver solutions to the challenges facing the country through civilian and military efforts," said a spokesman.
He said that Britain would continue to work closely with Kabul and that success in Afghanistan was a "long term" goal.
Although it is understood that the meeting between Sir Sherard and the French envoy to Kabul did take place, the version of events contained in the diplomatic cable is regarded in Whitehall as a "parody" of what was said.
The British side is particularly dismayed that they reportedly support a dictatorship in Afghanistan. Insiders insist these words were never uttered. There is a suspicion that the British position was deliberately "exaggerated" to produce a version that Paris wanted to hear.
- Posted in
14 Comments so far
Show AllAfghanistan cannot be won by more troops as this article says, but can it be won at all? And what comes from this defeat? The taliban will most likely make their way back into power shortly after we leave. The country of Afghanistan is a problem as a whole, and our government knows not what to do with it. Our citizens are not safe with a rogue group like the taliban in charge of such a country. I hear anti-war sentiments all day long, and I agree with them about the Iraq conflict, but in Afghanistan I fear the results of defeat or withdraw.
"Naturally, the common people do not want war . . . but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials
The allied governments should start preparing public opinion to accept that the only realistic solution for Afghanistan was to be ruled by "an acceptable dictator".
Now THAT is called "kickin it old school"
Err..when was the last Afgan Election???? i though Karzi WAS a dictator?
The USA..spreading war and right wing dictatorship across the globe!
How far off are the Death Squads?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
In his book "Democracy in America" Alexis de Tocqueville states that democracy cannot be imposed externally or in any other way without a sufficiant mass of democrats. How many democrats are there in the Middle East? Only a fool tries to change the world to fit his EGO.
Afghanistan is a black hole that will consume all the time, money and blood that is poured into it. The Taliban by whatever name will wait 40 years or 400 years - that much was known going in seven years ago.
Cameiros
Again, and again the English attempt to control the world, now thru their American proxies.
This colonialistic mentality has been going on far too long.
We bring war and destruction to Afghanistan and Iraq for what purpose? Other than a sick habituation to war and exploitation.
Lets kill a couple hundred thousand brown skinned people to try and rip off some oil or minerals, and then fold our hand, when the people finally cannot bear the burden (morality never enters the Anglo/American mind) only to come back 10-20 years later to try the whole thing all over again.
Impoverishing nations, creating ethnic and religious divisions, introducing military warlords and dictators has been the British/American MO going on 400 years now.
Name the continent and their perfidious influence is at hand.
When will these people have had enough?
You expressed my bitter sentiments exactly! When will they have had enough, indeed!
In the US presidential debate the other night I strained my ears and eyes listening and looking for even the slightest gesture of sympathy from Obama for the horrific death and suffering the US has inflicted on the Iraqi and Afghan people. None was forthcoming. The suffering of brown Iraqis and Afghans simply don't exist in the self-absorbed USAn mind.
Much of the world has turned their back on war and aggression - led by europe and latin america, china and japan. The US remains the one large nation still enamored with pursuing it's selfish interests through violence, destruction, or belligerent threats of destruction, inflicted on others peoples it considers inferior. It dearly wishes to drag all others down to it's level of evil.
Never! Its the "White Man's Burden"! (To screw with everyone else and make a few bucks at the same time.)
Seriously, I expect a lot more towards peaceful closure of the wars from Obama than McCain, and part of his tough guy posturing is to minimize excuses for digruntled Republicans to run back to McCain.
Maybe Afghani farmers could get carbon trade money for growing hemp instead of poppies!
And nothing has anything to do at all with the heroin.
Can you say, "Columbia?"
R. Troll wrote:
"Our citizens are not safe with a rogue group like the taliban in charge of such a country."
How many long range bombers does the Talibam Air Force have? Fighter jets? ICBMs? What about it's Navy? Aircraft carriers? Cruise-missile frigates? Ballistic missile subnarines? Does it have nuclear warheads to arm all this equipment with? Does the Taliban have heavy-lift transports for troops and equipment, with midair refueling tankers that can take off from dozens of bases circling the globe?
So please explain - how could a Taliban-led Afghanistan could be a threat to you or me in any way, unless we are foolish enough to travel to Afghanistan with hostile intent?
Same as before. Bin Laden or some other well-heeled (well-sandled?) "true believer" sets up shop in Afghanistan and starts another untouchable terrorist network.
Even so, its an international law enforcement effort that is required, not the Rangers and Marines.
Oh no! Our mission in Afghanistan is doomed! What was our mission again?
"The allied governments should start preparing public opinion to accept that the only realistic solution for Afghanistan was to be ruled by "an acceptable dictator"."
Right!
Yeah but we'll vote for McCain because he uses the word "win" a lot.
I would guess that while the Afghan war is designed to fail- it will fail for a LONG time, because, as always- BLOOD is even more PROFITABLE than OIL, and also works to BUILD FEAR when needed, and make people look like LEADERS when they are merely akin to VANDALS and worse...
Halooooooo Obama supporters!!!
Your candidate supports more troops in Afghanistan.
(But sure, he is saying these things to get elected, and will change policy after he is elected. Really? Did you know I am the Emperor of China?)
Ha ha ha....
American Idiots!