Britain and America

Gordon Brown shifts from Blair-Bush approach by initiating talks with Taliban

Britain's two most vociferous opponents of the Bush-Blair approach to the war on terror lead with the same story this morning and with almost identical headlines:

"Brown: It's time to talk to the Taliban" - The Independent

"Brown: Talk to the Taliban" - Daily Mail

If true, the move will mark the biggest break from the Blair years since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister.  Both newspapers say that the White House has been informed of the shift in policy but hint that the administration's "hardliners" are unhappy.

This from The Independent:

"Senior government officials said it was an error to see the Taliban as a unified organisation rather than as a disparate group of Afghan tribesmen, often farmers recruited at the end of the gun, infiltrated by foreign fighters. The aim is to divide the Taliban's local support from al-Qa'ida and militants from Pakistan."

Britain's Conservatives reacted cautiously to the news.  Defence spokesman Gerald Howarth MP said: "Sometimes you do have to talk with the enemy, but Gordon Brown has got to be careful he is not placing too much emphasis on doing a deal with people who are unwilling or unable to deliver."

There are two principal dangers of this approach:

• It risks looking like weakness.  Brown's withdrawal from southern Iraq - which caused dismay in the White House - has already risked sending the message that Britain is unwilling to see a task through to completion.  British retreat in Basra contrasts strongly with the success of the US surge.  Now, in Afghanistan, we risk emboldening the Taliban - just as they have sufffered another military defeat, at Musa Qala.
• The Taliban's demands are unacceptable.  Gordon Brown may want to suggest he is talking to tribal leaders but it may be difficult to identify where the Taliban starts and ends.  Any agreements with Taliban-affiliated tribal leaders risks handing over parts of the nation to groups willing to oppress women and harbour extremists.

Noon: Donal Blaney's take on Brown's move - Whither Courage.

12.45pm: David Cameron writes for ConservativeHome.com about the need to change course in Afghanistan

3pm: National Review's reaction: "Do we need to fight them? Do we need to fight them??? I am at a loss for words. Stunned."

Iain Duncan Smith argues that it is even more important that we prevail in Iraq than in Afghanistan

The former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith writes for today's Times about the relative importance of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It's his first comment on the war on terror since his two year focus on writing a report for the Conservative Party on social justice.

IDS correctly identifies that it is primarily in Iraq that we will defeat al-Qaeda or that al-Qaeda will defeat us:

"The problems in Iraq are great but the rewards for success are also huge. Al-Qaeda has thrown everything into Iraq and to show it can be beaten would send shockwaves around the world. A democratic Iraq is a challenge to the violent ideology of militant Islam, and would stabilise the whole region in a way Afghanistan cannot. After all the superhuman effort over the past few years, a precipitate British withdrawal, which has its roots in our appallingly underfunded and undermanned army, makes no sense."

The headline of The Times' article - 'Don't leave Iraq: quit Afghanistan instead' - is somewhat misleading.  Mr Duncan Smith is not advocating that the west gives up in Afghanistan but that France, Germany and other NATO states that supported the overthrow of the Taliban regime should do much more there:

"France and Germany supported the Afghan war and, given our commitment in Iraq, their forces should now be deployed in Helmand province, not ours. Yet they won’t do their bit. The British Government should have been raising merry hell with them every time our ministers meet, telling them their failure to face up to their responsibilities is shameful. Yet little seems to happen."

Writing for the International Herald Tribune, Bernard Jenkin MP, Tory defence spokesman at the time Britain supported the invasion of Iraq, warns that an early British withdrawal of troops will lead to "more bloodshed in Iraq, dismay among many Arab states and a less "special relationship" between No. 10 and the White House in the future."

The Anglosphere leads the fight in Afghanistan

The Australian Prime Minister announced last night that he plans to double the number of Australian troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2008. Australia currently has 550 troops in Afghanistan and expects the number to increase to approximately 1,000. The majority of the new troop deployments will be made up of Special Forces. They will be sent to the Uruzgan province where they will provide security for Australian reconstruction efforts and disrupt Taliban operations in the area.

The increased Australian deployment will be well received by the Bush administration and NATO commanders who have been calling for increased commitments from coalition partners. It is also a reflection of Howard’s desire to put his money where his mouth is. He had been critical of countries not contributing enough to the war on terror and therefore felt the need to show Australia’s commitment. Although the increase from 550 to 1,000 may not match the numerical commitments of Germany, Italy and France (who have contributed 2700, 1800 and 975 troops respectively), the significant characteristic of the Australian troops is that they are deployed in the dangerous regions of the country.  The German, Italian and French governments have largely refused to put their troops in harm’s way except in emergency situations.

It is noteworthy that most of the heavy-lifting in Afghanistan is being undertaken by Anglosphere nations - the USA, Great Britain, Australia and, of course, Stephen Harper's Canada - which lost six men over the weekend.  Canada has lost fifty members of its armed services in Afghanistan.

The importance of the Anglosphere - which (exceptionally) sided with Israel during last summer's conflict with Hezbollah - will be a recurring theme of BritainAndAmerica.com.