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."

Comments

[Tony Makara]

I am not against dialogue with such groups if it can be productive. However I do not believe Brown would be able to have much influence over the Taliban, considering their point of reference. Constructive dialogue is always good but most of today's headlines are about making Brown look statesmanlike rather than anything to be taken serious.

[Malcolm Dunn]

We've already been hoodwinked once by doing deals with some very unsavoury Shia groups in Southern Iraq, are we going to make the same mistake twice?
Having said that the current strategy is not working. We can take ground but not hold it,poppy production continues to rise and the Pakistani border seemingly provides an endless supply of willing recruits.
On our side we must realise now that most members of NATO are useless. Asking for more support nicely has not worked,we should now try to embarrass them.

[MarkJ]

Hmmm, imagine this headline in early 1945:

"Churchill: It's time to talk to Hitler."

or in 1982:

"Thatcher: It's time to talk to Argentina."

Gordon Brown gets my nomination for the prestigious "Neville Chamberlain Peace-in-Our- Time Award."

[davod]

Brown is not changing direction.

The Brits already did this last year in a province in Afghanistan. Instead of abiding by the terms of the agreement, the Taliban moved back in using intimidation and force.

Only when the Brits relinquished command to the US did NATO and the US start the process of reclaiming the province for the Afhganis.

[Anthony (Los Angeles)]

This is the same stupid policy of talking to "local leaders" that lost Musa Qala to the Taliban in the first place.

[Yet Another Anon]

Hmmm, imagine this headline in early 1945:

"Churchill: It's time to talk to Hitler."
Talking with members of the Nazi Party was a possibility though, when Hitler died there were channels of communication - the taliban are split between internationalist elements many of whom are linked with Al Qaeda and nationalist elements who never liked Al Qaeda - the whole war was because Al Qaeda were allowed to run international operations from inside Afghanistan and not about the taliban.

or in 1982:

"Thatcher: It's time to talk to Argentina."
Much as I disagree with it, after the war the UK Treasury with Margaret Thatcher's support gave money to Argentinian banks in a bid to prop up the Argentinian economy. There weren't military compromises with the regime, but after direct economic assistance to the Argentinian economy.

Personally I think that UK forces should have invaded Argentina and strung members of the regime up and starved Argentina's Navy out of the Falklands!

[Maduka]

Brown said he was NOT going talk to the Taliban at the PMQ's.

[richard everett]

So, the re-incarnation of Neville Chamberlain is back. Or, is he just stupid. We Americans have always relied on Britain and America sticking together, but if you go this way, we are probably not in a mood to save you asses again. Is Brown vying for the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi insincerity award for feckless stupidity? You need to pull you heads out of your collective butts and get real. Churchill must be flipping over in his grave.

[richard everett]

So, the re-incarnation of Neville Chamberlain is back. Or, is he just stupid. We Americans have always relied on Britain and America sticking together, but if you go this way, we are probably not in a mood to save you asses again. Is Brown vying for the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi insincerity award for feckless stupidity? You need to pull you heads out of your collective butts and get real. Churchill must be flipping over in his grave.

[richard everett]

So, the re-incarnation of Neville Chamberlain is back. Or, is he just stupid. We Americans have always relied on Britain and America sticking together, but if you go this way, we are probably not in a mood to save you asses again. Is Brown vying for the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi insincerity award for feckless stupidity? You need to pull you heads out of your collective butts and get real. Churchill must be flipping over in his grave.

[Kevin Sampson]

"Afghan battle 'being won' - Brown"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7139736.stm

WTF??

[davod]

Afghan battle 'being won' - Brown"
Just as the battle for Southern Iraq is being won (or won). He has to say this so he can get out with honor.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Having read the speech Tim I think you've made a mistake. I hate to be fair to Gordon Brown but this thread is most definitely not an accurate reflection of what he's said.Several Americans on this blog need no excuse to bash the British let's not give them unecessary amunition.

[Steevo]

I read the London Times and it paints a different picture. He says he supports President Karzai.

Brown: "But President Karzai's message to former insurgents is that if they are prepared to renounce violence and abide by the constitution and respect basic human rights, then there is a place for them in the legitimate society and economy of Afghanistan.

"He and his ministers told me this week that already some 5,000 fighters have laid down their arms. And we will support the Government in their efforts to reconcile all parties to Afghanistan's democratic constitution."

And this which confirms legitimate sources containing the facts on the ground although seemingly typical of Brit leaders with no mention of American forces: "Both Mr Brown, and David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition, paid tribute to British and Afghan forces for their role in recapturing Musa Qala, which had been the only town in Afghanistan under Taleban control but was retaken this week after five days of fighting."

The facts in full: there was an Afghan Army brigade, a battalion of US soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, elements from the British 40 Commando Royal Marines Regiment, the 2nd Battalion of the Yorkshire Regiment, the Scots Guards, and Danish forces.

Finally from the Times: "Mr Brown was unveiling his long-term strategy for British involvement in Afghanistan, including Afghan-led economic development. He promised that the UK will commit £450 million to aid from 2009 to 2012.

"In a statement to the Commons, Mr Brown said that Britain would maintain a military force in Afghanistan of around today's figure of 7,800, second only to the US contingent. He announced increased support for those troops, including 150 new protected patrol vehicles and extra Sea King helicopters."

[davod]

Extra Sea King Helicopters?

[Christopher]

While I understand the need for diplomatic relations when dealing with foreign policy, it takes to sane parties for the talks to produces results. Those of the extreme Muslim faith are nothing more than animals in clothing and we would do well to acknowledge that. When one's views are governmental they can be changed but extreme religious beliefs that need the blood of innocents to thrive will never. The only way for peace to exist in the Middle East is to kill all who are Islamic extremists.

[Andy]

This has hit the nail on the head for me. Brown's days are numbered.

He has fewer marbles than I originally thought if he believes you can actually negotiate with terrorists.

[Ami]

richard everett,

For heaven's sake will you please stop with the "we saved your asses" nonsense (not once, but three times?). World War I and World War II were European wars that we unfortunately had to become involved in. That we tipped the scales in favor of the allies would be closer to the truth, rather than saved anyone's ass. As a matter of fact examining the final result, and what hostility we face today from our "dear European friends," I would say we were actually the losers. Let's hope we don't make the same mistake three times.

[Marija]

Why more young people to lose their lives? Why?

Look this!
http://viewheadlines.com/News/Article.aspx?i=6102