Afghanistan: air fares, not infantry needed
Daniel Korski 12:31am
The British government’s policy on Afghanistan has a spasmodic, yet regular kind of rhythm to it. The issue pops up at intervals, hovers menacingly over Brown’s premiership until the PM awakes from a period of inaction. He then goes into hyper-drive, promises all manner of things, and reverts to inactive type a few days later only to repeat the routine a some days/weeks/months [cross out as appropriate] afterwards.
This time is no different. While the government, along with our allies, wait around for the US president to make up his mind on an Afghanistan (and, by extension, how his first term will be remembered), the PM has been overflowing with schemes and speeches.
He has offered to host a conference on Afghanistan’s future in London, put 500 more troops on the table – and tried to twist Karzai’s arm by demanding progress against corruption before the new forces deploy. He has sent forth envoys to Europe to persuade our NATO friends to stump up more troops too.
Yet for all this activity, the PM is offering no radically new ideas. There have been a lot of international conferences on Afghanistan since 2001, with limited effects. 500 troops here are there will not really influence Mr. Karzai or the Taleban, who are waiting to see if the U.S. will add 40000 or more. The routine of calling for more European forces is growing wearisomely familiar.
If Mr. Brown wanted to do something really radical, he’d get on a plane to New Delhi, Moscow or Beijing (or all three) and ask the Indians, Russians and Chinese about what they are doing about Afghanistan. All three have influence in Kabul. The U.S. has started to do just that. As my colleague Richard Gowan says, “big power diplomacy, not European infantry, is the best last hope for fixing Afghanistan.” Tony Blair would have been in the air already.
Previous
denverthen
November 18th, 2009 12:54am Report this comment"Tony Blair would have been in the air already."
I can't make out whether this is some sort of bad taste stereotype of Topol or just a bad joke about Tony Blair.
In the end, of course, with Labour's total policy failure first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, the joke is on the UK electorate - and it's not very funny, especially for our badly abused (by Labour) armed forces.
Hang on - I get it now - the author was putting words into Milipede senior's mouth.
strapworld
November 18th, 2009 8:19am Report this commentI think somebody is after a job as a Labour speech writer!!!!
Naomi Muse
November 18th, 2009 9:00am Report this commentBrown is just mopping the floor and moving the chairs around as he herrumphs about issuing more hot air.
Give him not a mention and ignore him -'tis the best thing to do.
He hates being ignored.
The Bellman
November 18th, 2009 10:31am Report this commentYour colleague Richard Gowan no doubt has a personal interest in arguing that 'great power diplomacy' is the answer; but that really is to beg the question.
All 'great power diplomacy' will deliver is more windbaggery, full of aims and aspirations but no sensible suggestions about how those aims will be achieved.
"We need to develop Afghan capacity." Gee, thanks, David Miliband, Secretary of State for Noshitsherlockery. Anyone can tell you WHAT we need - but you clueless cockwafflers need to explain HOW you're going to achieve that aim, and then resource it properly.
So very possibly Tony Blair would already be in the air. He might well be allowed to land. Heck, he might even succeed in getting a meeting with one or more of the decision-makers you suggest. But while he's incommunicado at 30,000 ft, he could give reflect on the following: (a) Russia, India etc know he needs them more than they need him; (b) they might well agree to something, which would no doubt give him the meat of a press conference, full of skin-crawling hand-of-history-on-my-shoulder moments; but (c) that is NOT the same as a coherent strategy; (d) this would be subject to enormous caveats and concessions - on climate change targets, perhaps? - and (e) would be worth not a cup of warm spit if those countries' own interests shifted.
Besides (f) Blair's reputation for, shall we say, 'constructive ambiguity' would leave sufficient grounds for any of them to tell him to get stuffed.
Back to top