News

British Envoy Says Mission in Afghanistan is Doomed, According to Leaked Memo

»

by: Charles Bremner and Richard Beeston, The Times UK

photo
Afghan child outside refugee camp in Kabul. (Photo: Gurinder Osan / AP)

    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.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

"The Graveyard of

"The Graveyard of Empires"... Ignorance (of History) really must be bliss for the "NeoCON intellectuals". -Now THERE'S an oxymoron for you. All hail Bush and Dick, and the sainted geniuses that support them. Bin Laden's probably already on a beach on the other side of the planet. Speaking of whom, do we have any proof that the CIA isn't STILL running him? -Just a thought.

I think the "respected

I think the "respected French weekly" is the French equivalent of The Onion.

And to harvest the poppy and

And to harvest the poppy and allow Bin Laden to be hold up in a cave with our support from the ISSI Pakistani/Saudi folks.

15:06 We do not really know

15:06 We do not really know if Obama supports the continued war in Afghanistan really. When one is a presidential candidate, you cannot tell everyone your true feelings or you would never get elected. It is clear that Obama wants us to get out of at least one war and that is good enough for me for now. After we get out of Iraq, then think about Afghanistan.

Where does this leave Obama

Where does this leave Obama who supports the invasion of Afghanistan?

The big problem is how do we

The big problem is how do we get out and leave a viable govt.? I sure as hell don't want to see any footage again in the news of women being stoned or shot in the head in a public display of islmaofacist horror! Or do all those who want us out NOW wash their collective hands of the fate of the women (and men) who oppose the religious fanatics? What is the solution?

The five-nation consortium,

The five-nation consortium, led by Carlyle, has stood in the wings, waiting for the 'political climate' to be acceptable so that the Kurdistan pipeline project can be undertaken successfully, to move natural gas (&/or oil, I imagine) to a port city in Pakistan- and to the 'world markets'. A lot of heavy hitters from the American political Right can be found at Carlyle Group. S. Korea, Singapore, Malaysian companies are also involved... waiting... ^..^

What act of aggression or

What act of aggression or unkindness is ever beneficial to the aggressor - or the victim? What will the perpetrator's reward REALLY be? Traveling to far off lands where people just like you and me; that may dress, speak and pray differently; to kill them, to visit harm upon the ostensible "other"to achieve some nebulous material end - where's the intelligent strategy there? We, as a nation and individuals have so many problems and actual wealth, if so perceived, here at "home," that it just doesn't make sense to beat down on anyone to get anything.

It is well known by those

It is well known by those who follow these things that the Brit attitude toward strategy in Afghanistan is very strongly at odd with the US strategy. It is the Brits who are most seriously mistaken, however. That's a pretty damning indictment, considering how bad US strategy has been, but it is true. Some of the Brit differences may go back to differences in Iraq, where a disastous Brit strategy in the south "pacified" that region by turning it over to Sadr's Mehdi Army. There is some resentment by the Brits that we have not just identified that as a problem, but have moved rether sharply to correct it. Now the Brits are holding secret talks with the Talibs, undercutting everyone else. Who is running this operation, and why is beyond me so far - but it needs to be dealt with. I'd boot them out of country, if I were in charge of Afghanistan policy. How many times do the Brits think they get to try to trash Afghanistan? Didn't they learn anything in 1842?

Four words the incoming

Four words the incoming President needs to ponder: The FORMER Soviet Union. I have been waiting, though not expecting, for someone to point out that after seven years of American occupation, the lives lost and shattered, treasure spent, the situation in Afghanistan is worse than it ever was, even in the beginning phases of the war. But then I again, I'm still hoping that someone in a position of authority in the Defense Department and Armed Forces to remember that they took a solemn oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, which is not necessarily synonymous with the President of the United States. They also should remember that the failure to do so is a prosecutable offense.

The British should know

The British should know about the inevitability of failure in Afghanistan; they fought two wars to secure the northern territory bordering the jewel of their empire - India from Imperial Russian influence. Losing one war and "winning" the other (only to have their dupe overthrown). Britain was heavily involved in Afghan intrigues for most of the late 19th and 20th century. Which is why the "NATO" and EU forces that comprise the so called "Allies" represent age old interlopers pursuing geopolitical ends that had little or nothing to do with the tribes and peoples of the what constitutes amorphous entity known as "Afghanistan". Of course the next U.S. President will meet his first foreign policy failure in the mountains of the Hindu Kush.

The liberal media continues

The liberal media continues to refer to the Afghan invasion as the "good" war- as compared to Iraq. Nonsense. We never had the right to invade Afgh, and it continues to be an illegal occupation. We need to bring everyone home, and try to get our own house in order- as it appears to be crumbling- under its own empty words.

This is old news... although

This is old news... although certainly it has received nowhere near the light it should have. When the USSR went into Afghanistan - on the flimsy excuse of supporting its puppet government - we recruited from around the Arab world, looking for extreme-minded young men who wanted to fight imperial agression in Arab countries. We trained them, provided arms and intelligence and money. We promised that, as soon as they rid Afghanistan of the evil USSR, we would return with gobs of money to help rebuild their country. We seem to have forgotten to tell that, before they could have the money, they would have to sign away the rights to that pipeline for about ten cents on the dollar of its value. Of course, they refused as, other than opium, that pipeline is about the only thing of value in the entire nation. We pushed. We prodded. And shortly before 9-11, we delivered a Godfather-esque threat -- either sign the contract or we'll take you out ofpower and install someone who will. And wouldn't you know it? They didn't like that. bin Laden, one of those we brought into the mess in the first place was PISSED at this outright aggression. Another thing to point out -- when we invade or attack a country, the first thing we do is to go after the government, the command and control of the military, and the financial center. Uhm.... JUST like what happened to us on 9-11. We also, by the way, attack hospitals, which they did not. We also slaughter thousands upon thousands of civilians, which they did not. They attacked us hoping to take out the head of the government, prevent the military from quickly responding, and removing those int he financial industry that were assisting in making the economic situation in the country so difficult while also helping with the theft of their major national resource. Why are we surprised by this? Why are we enraged that others might actually want to benefit from the sale of their resources? As for using the airplanes? Why is it only OK to make war if you have a multi-trillion dollar war machine? Tell you what -- you try to take my home from my family, I'll use whatever I have handy to stop you. If that happens to be your own gun, so much the better.

bingo! it was the proposed

bingo! it was the proposed pipeline that was to go from kurdistan, i believe, all the way down to the "democratic" nation of Iraq. trace the route and you'll find the occupation.

The only reason we are in

The only reason we are in Afghanistan is to build a natural gas pipeline.