| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"Officials say the new tactics are to identify 'Talibs who are sick of fighting' and persuade them to rejoin their tribes and benefit from the human rights laws and state structures being set up in the country." Good luck with that, but it is certain to come up against the objection that such things are "un-Islamic." But that is territory that neither the British nor any other Western powers wishes to venture into.
"Britain switches tactics to undermine the Taliban," by Richard Norton-Taylor in The Guardian, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Britain has launched a "reconciliation" drive to undermine support for the Taliban after Whitehall strategists concluded that a decisive military victory in Afghanistan cannot be won, the Guardian has learned.In a significant shift in tactics, senior British officials have stopped talking about winning a war. "We do not use the word 'win'," one said. "We can't kill our way out of this problem."
The admission came as Des Browne, the defence secretary, announced a larger than expected 1,400 increase in British troops deployed in southern Afghanistan, with extra armour, artillery, and aircraft. It brings the total number there to 7,700, more than there are in Iraq.
Officials say the new tactics are to identify "Talibs who are sick of fighting" and persuade them to rejoin their tribes and benefit from the human rights laws and state structures being set up in the country. Captured fighters may also be offered alternatives to incarceration, while more deals will be sought with tribal elders.
They hope increasingly to damage the Taliban without relying on a shooting war, a tactic which has often proved counter-productive in the past, notably when Nato air strikes kill civilians. "We are convinced most people do not support the Taliban and want to take a route through it," said one source. British officials distinguish the Taliban from al-Qaida, describing it as a "more fluid" organisation.
Contrasting the Taliban with al-Qaida, a one said: "Al-Qaida's operations are more sophisticated than the Taliban and al-Qaida is very choosy about who they work with."
An official familiar with British policy on Afghanistan described the difference this way: "The Taliban is not a homogenous group. It is a mixture of characters - criminals, drug dealers, people out of work. There is a wide variety of different people. The Taliban pays them to carry out these attacks so there are ways to tackle the problem, to split off the disillusioned."
Posted by Robert at February 27, 2007 8:16 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Would that the Bush Administration stopped using the word "win" and spoke of "containment." Would that those who talk of how this "war on terror" will take "a generation or two to win" (Cheney) or "20-30 years" (Blair) would come to understand that the Jihad goes on forever, has no end, cannot end, but can be contained by depriving the Camp of Islam of major weaponry, of its unearned and quite undeserved oil trillions, by intelligent exploitation of the divisions, ethnic (Arab and non-Arab), sectarian (chiefly Sunni and Shii'a), and economic (oil-rich Muslims and the others), that divide or could divide, and demoralize, and thereby weaken the Camp of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 27, 2007 8:36 AM
In this year we are celebrating the 200th year of the banning of slavery by Britain. As Britain ruled the seas at the time, Britain's ban on slavery affected the entire world.
The policy of interdiction of slaver ships was left in the hands of the Royal navy. Now the navy was quite capable of interdicting slave ships but the task was made more complicated, as many of these ships were flying flags of nations that were at peace with Britain. Any attempt to stop, board and confiscate these ships, would have led to war with the nation whose flag was on the slave ship.
The Royal navy then hit on another tactic ie to bribe African chiefs who were selling captured prisoners as slaves, not to do so. They made it economically worthwhile for African chiefs not to do such trading. There was ofcourse the caveat, that once they accepted the King's shilling, they couldnt carry on business as usual. In those days, there was a very stiff penalty if you accepted the King's shilling and then reneged on your promise - like losing one's position as chief or worse.
This is the tactic that is going to be applied in Afghanistan, and it could have some success, provided the caveat mentioned is applied.
Posted by: DP111
at February 27, 2007 8:41 AM
Hugh,you forgot about the traditional source of income,OPIUM
POPPY NO-GOOD pt1
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/02/poppy-no-good_01.html
POPPY NO-GOOD pt2
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/02/p0ppy-no-good-pt2.html
POPPY NO-GOOD pt3
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/02/poppy-no-good.html
at February 27, 2007 9:51 AM
it is a sad day when we begin to delete words from our vocabulary.. Looks like we are starting with simple words such as "win", soon we will just get up in the morning and stretch and yawn, look out the window and say alllahhhh akbaaarrrr..
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 27, 2007 10:03 AM
Personally I think the war In Afganistan is woefully reported in all Western MSM.
What I want to know is are the MSM correct when they represent those resisting Allied forces as “The Taliban”
Is it like when a newspaper gives you a healdline “Al-Qaeda attack foiled in London?” Assuming all Western-terrorism is caused by this shadowy organisation – would that were true.
Are the forces resisting allied occupation really “Taliban “ or are they Muslim extremists in general? It would help if politicians and media could get real on this issue – the alternative is perhaps a bottomless political and military quagmire.
There is no doubt there are splendid individuals in the Afgan Police and Military who can be counted on as real allies. It is just grossly oversimplified to believe there is single homogenous organisation called “The Taliban.”
Rather like the Civil War in Lebanon, there are probably factions and factions within factions.
Rather like the war in Vietnam there is probably a virtually limitless pool of potential new recruits.
I wish the MSM would properly report these issues.
Anyone know any good websites on the war in Afganistan?
at February 27, 2007 10:14 AM
Taliban and Muslim extremists are one in the same....just like the thousand or so named terrorist groups....all are the same...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 27, 2007 10:38 AM
exsgtbrown
Is the war therefore unwinable?
Is this a bottomless political and military quagmire?
When Allied forces were committed to Afganistan we were told that the Northern Alliance could be counted on as loyal allies.
Is this still the case?
Before Allied intervention, various factions were fighting each other.
What are the ideologies of these factions?
Is it the Sunni-Shite split or something else?
What is the ideology of the Northern Alliance?
At the moment it seems the fate awaiting Allied forces will be the same as the Soviets.
Our politicians who don't realise this are simply indulging in wishful thinking.
The original goal was sound; turn Afganistan into a democratic state which cannot be used as a launch-pad for terrorism.
However, without an understanding of the grassroots belief-system, such a project was always naive.
at February 27, 2007 10:52 AM
For us infidels in the House of War, the important object is to win, and no intelligent recourse to achieve that end should be discounted.
We will probably have to tear down most every last mosque in the West. Not yet, but we will.
Posted by: dgene at February 27, 2007 11:42 AM
Let's see........
The British army perfers American air power for cover as their air force bombs them....
Now the British army has decided it is defeated and will not fight any more.
With allies like this what on earth is America propping England up for as they are a greater problem than the Taliban.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 27, 2007 12:15 PM
"However, without an understanding of the grassroots belief-system, such a project was always naive."
....not permitting the military to take out the targets is naive....all this trying to be friends in areas where you have no friends is naive....Believing Islam is a Peaceful and tolerant entity is naive...we have some to continue to bury their heads in the sand, but we are adapting and making slow progress....where we once were naive, we are now identifying the threat....and it is Islam,,, where ever you find it....
at February 27, 2007 12:16 PM
Lame Cherry-
Strange that when one looks for information on friendly fire incidents, the RAF would seem to be glaringly under-represented. I don't suppose for one minute that noting this will make a dent in that little fantasy that is "The World According to Lame Cherry".
As to the notion you express that the British Army has "Decided it is defeated", I'd like very much to know where you think you read that?; Because it's as sure as night follows day that you didn't read the discussion article from The Guardian if you think that's where it came from.
"With allies like this what on earth is America propping England up for as they are a greater problem than the Taliban."
What a world you must live in, whereby the bounds of your reality are defined by your own ignorance.
Posted by: Wishbone at February 27, 2007 1:10 PM
Any war is winnable if one has the will to win. Unfortunately, from the outset, ie the moment Pres Bush gave the accolade of "Religion of Peace" to Islam, which BTW no religion has got, the war was unwinnable.
at February 27, 2007 5:08 PM
Don't worry about us guys and the way we do things.
We do things different to the US thats all.
By the way can anyone define what is a win in Afghanistan?
The length of time a democratic government can exist without or without our support?
at February 27, 2007 8:57 PM
Sry.. should have read "The length of time a democratic government can exist with or without our support?
at February 27, 2007 8:58 PM
LAME CHERRY
MATE, WE HAVE 16 YR OLDS FIGHTING IN THE BRITISH ARMY IN AFGANISTAN AND IRAQ SO YOU CAN ENJOY LIVING FREE FROM JIHADISTS. YOUR COMMENTS WERE F*****G RUDE AND EMBARRASSING. THOSE 16 YEAR OLDS HAVE MORE BALLS THEN YOU WILL EVER HAVE. NOW APOLOGISE TO OUR BRAVE BRITS WHO ARE GETTING BOMBED, MAIMED AND SUPPORTING ONE HELL OF A F*****G FIGHT SO YOU CAN BITCH ABOUT THEM ON LINE.
PLEASE, YOU NEED TO APOLOGISE OR DONT EVER COME ON THIS SITE AGAIN!
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 27, 2007 11:09 PM
obviously lame cherry know little of:
The SAS,the Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), and Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), not to mention the RAF and the Royal Marines,or the Regular British Army,,, I would be proud to have these guys by my side and not shooting at me....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 1, 2007 3:01 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)