Posted on 07/26/2007 4:56:28 PM PDT by blam
David Miliband in Taliban policy split with US
By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad
Last Updated: 10:01pm BST 26/07/2007
Differences between British and American strategy in dealing with Taliban militants emerged yesterday during the Foreign Secretary’s first visit to Pakistan.
Mr Miliband with Pakistan's foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri
David Miliband, the newly-appointed Foreign Secretary, emphasised that a purely military solution to violence in Pakistan’s tribal areas would not alone quash the insurgency.
“Britain has a strong interest in the stability of Pakistan, in defeating extremism and in the development of tribal areas,” said Mr Miliband after talks with President Pervez Musharraf.
“Counter-terrorism is about military force but we also need economic and social development,” he added.
Pakistani officials underscored the difference in approach between the two allies by stating that Britain understood that political agreements were also needed to bring peace.
advertisement A peace in agreement in North Waziristan tribal area signed by the government and militants recently collapsed and a series of clashes between militants and security forces has cost over 200 lives.
President George W Bush said that the agreement had been a failure. However, Pakistani officials are attempting to revive the agreement.
Pakistani officials said that Britain’s historical experience in India and Afghanistan had lent a greater understanding of the region.
“The British have a history in the area and dealt with the tribal areas and Afghanistan,” said Tasnim Aslam, a senior Pakistani foreign office official. “They therefore have a better understanding of the ground reality”.
She added that British commanders had tried the same approach in Afghanistan. “Even if it failed it bought peace for a period.”
Pakistan and America have traded bitter blows since American officials claimed last week that Taliban and al-Qa’eda have re-grouped in the ethnically Pushtun tribal areas.
Senior US officials stated they would not rule out taking unilateral military action in Pakistani territory. By contrast, Mr Miliband struck a more diplomatic note.
“In respect of the shared challenges we face in the tribal areas, in every aspect we have been talking about what we can do together, not me lecturing the Pakistani government or vice versa,” he said.
Yesterday Pakistan’s foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, reacted to the pressure by launching a blistering attack questioning American motives for criticising Pakistani commitment fighting militants.
“It may be election season in the United States but it should not be at our expense,” he said.
The US has proposed a $750 million development funding for the restive tribal areas but critics have questioned how that will be implemented if Pakistan launches a full military operation at America’s behest.
British officials, privately acknowledged that the North Waziristan peace agreement had failed, but said that Britain shared Pakistan’s “holistic” approach to subduing pro-Taliban tribesmen in Pakistan’s border areas.
British commanders and diplomats in Afghanistan have expressed reservations about America’s overwhelmingly militaristic strategy in Afghanistan.
Militants killed a Pakistani soldier yesterday in a rocket attack near the Afghan border as roadside bombs wounded seven people in the latest attacks on security forces in Waziristan.
blam, I think we’ve got trouble.
I agree. This guy is a loser. This is what we can expect with the dimocRATS in power.
This is the 2nd youngest ever British Foreign Minister ever, no military background that I can see.
wiki has a bio, fwiw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miliband
I would tend to have alisten to what the Brits say with a better-than-critical ear; they have far more experience in dealing with tribal cultures than we do (our experience is stictly limited to killing them in large numbers in ‘daring’ sunrise raids on sleeping teepee villages, and coating .45 caliber bullets in pig’s grease).
Afghanistan has once agan become backwater in the fight against terrorism. An important one, to be sure, but the main focus must be Iraq/Iran/Syria. Continue to support the Karzai government, continue to put pressure on Pakistan, give the Afghans something better to do than grow heroin poppies and molest farm animals, and then get to the heart of the matter; the ability of Iran and Syria to continue to fight us by proxy.
if the Brits have a solution that we can live with, and it gets us back on track in the terror war, I’m all for it.
Read the wikki blurb. This guy is a communist.
One of the main reasons why that part of the world is the way it is today is the history of the British Empire and French and other colonial powers and their dealings in this and others regions in that neck of the woods.
Miliband seems like a status quo kind of guy in an age when we need a Git R Done! chap in charge. That must please the “insurgents” to no end to see someone ready to bail their arses out of harm’s way yet again.
“I would tend to have alisten to what the Brits say with a better-than-critical ear; they have far more experience in dealing with tribal cultures than we do (our experience is stictly limited to killing them in large numbers in ‘daring’ sunrise raids on sleeping teepee villages, and coating .45 caliber bullets in pig’s grease).”
Whether you like it or not... you posted the only REAL SOLUTION!
LLS
“One of the main reasons why that part of the world is the way it is today is the history of the British Empire and French and other colonial powers and their dealings in this and others regions in that neck of the woods.”
Yes, thank you. I already have a PhD in History, but I appreciate your response.
However, there are places on this planet where British (not necessarily french) diplomacy and political maneuvering vis-a-vis tribal cultures has not gone so disasterously wrong. In fact, the underlying issue in Islamic terrorism is NOT Western inteference in their affairs, it is that Islam, like Communism, cannot stand to exist in a world where viable (and more successful and attractive) options exist.
The issue is not that the British pit Sunni versus Shi’a or Hutu versus Tutsi — those sorts of things most likely would have happened in any case; it’s that they have a far better history of dealing with the intricacies of tribal societies and customs than we have. This is one area where they CAN do it better than we can. And if they should manage to cobble together a solution which saves us blood and treasure, then I’m all for it.
The problem with the Muslim world is not a lack of diplomacy and diplomatic effort; it is that this is a failed society, and one doesn;t need a PhD to notice it, especially the people who live in it. The question for them is: can they evolve into a more egalitarian (and ultimately successful) society while still attached to the Islamic umbilical.
The verdict so far is NO, but only because the great unwashed masses are not, as yet, convinced that their system still has nothing to offer. They just haven’t been convinced of that yet (say, in the manner of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan).
A diplomatic move that buys us time to whack another mole, gain another bunch of allies, or perhaps re-orinet resources to places where they are more critically needed, is not such a bad idea, provided that we don’t take it on faith that, having an agreement in hand, the Afghans won’t chuck it if it suits their purposes.
“Whether you like it or not... you posted the only REAL SOLUTION!”
Oh, don’t get me wrong; I’m all for turning the Middle East into a glass-topped self-lighting poisoned landscape for the next 10,000 years, replacing what passes for life there with an ameoba-like creature which eats radioactive sand and craps oil.
All I’m saying is that it is evident that we are, militarily, stretched. if working something out with the Afghans (and working something out that we intend to ensure is honore, in the long run) can gain us a few more friends, time and intel, then I’m all for it.
I don’t want to let up on the Taliban at all. I want our folks ot be able to take advatage of every weapon in the arsenal, though in achieving our ultimate ends.
The question for them is: can they evolve into a more egalitarian (and ultimately successful) society while still attached to the Islamic umbilical....Never happen.
PS, I have no degree but thanks for sharing. The lessons to be learned here are probably why George Washington was against foreign entanglements.
Washington was against foreign entanglements because it wa sforeign entanglements that ultimately made him President.
Having used the European conflicts to advance the cause of American freedom (by obtaining aid from Spain, France and Holland against England), he did not want that freedom derailed by Europeans calling their markers due, as it were.
History has shown him to be somewhat blind,in this regard, for the United States couldn’t (and still can’t) just turn it’s back on the world. Whether it is the Barbary Pirates, the overflow from the Napoleonic Wars, two World Wars, a Cold War, and now two (and counting) Gulf Wars, the United States must be involved in the world if only because our national interests (military, political, economic), our philosophy, and our culture, will always conspire to keep us in the forefront of such affairs.
our national interests (military, political, economic), our philosophy, and our culture, will always conspire to keep us in the forefront of such affairs.
..
Ha! so it is a conspiracy. ;-)
Yes. The Brandenburgers, Illuminati, Priory of Zion, the Knights Templer, and the Campfire Girls are in on it too.
Meets every other Wednesday (Ladies Night), at the local bowling alley.
Duhhh! Not Brandenburgers! Got my thoughts mixed up
(Was doing WWII research today!)
I meant the Rothchilds.
My apologies.
It’s Bohemian Grove gathering time soon here in Northern California.
The Campfire Girls should protest their exclusion. ;-)
“Read the wikki blurb. This guy is a communist.”
I would tend to not give much creedence to anything on Wikipedia, since it is notoriously inaccurate, and can be updated/edited by even the most-uninformed denizen of the darkest trailer park, on the fly.
Perhaps the guy IS a communist, but a broken clock is still right twice a day. Just look at Pat Buchannan.
“The Campfire Girls should protest their exclusion. ;-)”
Nah, they’ll only get struck down on appeal by the Ninth Circuit.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.