By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
Gordon Brown last night called for a timetable for withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan. The PM confirmed his offer to host a London summit in January to set out the timetable, which would transfer control to Afghan forces "district by district".
The PM said:
"Tonight I can report that, methodically and patiently, we are disrupting and disabling the existing leadership of al Qaeda. Since January 2008 seven of the top dozen figures in al Qaeda have been killed, depleting its reserve of experienced leaders and sapping its morale. More has been planned and enacted with greater success in this one year to disable al Qaeda than in any year since the original invasion in 2001.
The international community will meet to agree plans for the support we will provide to Afghanistan during this next phase. I have offered London as a venue in the New Year. I want that conference to chart a comprehensive political framework within which the military strategy can be accomplished. A strong political framework should embrace internal political reform to ensure representative government that works for all Afghan citizens, at the national level in Kabul and in the provinces and districts. It should identify a process for transferring district by district to full Afghan control and if at all possible set a timetable for transferring districts starting in 2010.
For it is only when the Afghans are themselves able to defend the security of their people and deny the territory of Afghanistan as a base for terrorists that our strategy of Afghanisation will have succeeded and our troops can come home."
Gordon Brown's full speech, on Afghanistan, the economic crisis, climate change, and nuclear negotiations, can be read here.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
A lot of people said that vis-a-vis about Northern Ireland in 1969 - thirty years and hundreds of deaths later, it wasn't the answer.
We can't win in Afghanistan. Even Russia couldn't do it in 1979
"We" should never have got involved at all - it was just that Auntie Tony like to see himself as some butch war-leader....
A timetable is a way of admitting "defeat" to the Tali`s.
We`ll do this by Dec 2010, then we`ll do this by Dec 2011 then it`ll be home time by Dec 2012.
Well if I was a Tali, Dec 2012 would stick in my mind & I`d try my damnest to inflict even more casualties to the Coalition Forces to bring that home deadline forward due to public pressure.
Buying al-Qa`ida off with gold isn`t going to solve the problem, nor is publishing a timetable. Just pack up, leave and bring our lads home in 1 piece.
I support the war in Afghanistan and our troops , A timetable would be wrong , We couldnt have one in Iraq as it would send a message to the enemy , I think the only reason Mr Brown is saying this is because President Obama wants to withdraw, We have a duty to see the job through .
ricki
This is just Brown with his trousers around his ankles (yet again), nothing new, just trying to pretend he is competent; Alex. It was, as billed, the beginning of the election campaign and it sounded like a party political broadcast - lots of hot air, no substance, cliched in the extreme. Given the hammering he has been taking I could have written this speech to 'rebut his denigrators'.
These are all promises New Labour has made year on year and done 'squat diddly' about. In Scotland the 'leak' is all about how Brown is minded to implement the Calman recommendations on partial 'fiscal autonomy' for Scotland - which given he will not be in a position to do so with the Tories 10% ahead in the UK poll - smacks of desperation. Calman has been sitting on his desk for 9 months or so, Brown made clear six months ago Calman would be implemented over his dead body and Cameron agreed with him on that. Nothing has changed, Glasgow NE has not changed Labour's fortunes in Scotland. Wee Eck and the SNP are still ahead in the polls by a decent margin with Glasgow just been given £80 million from the Scottish Capital Fund by the SNP to save its Commonwealth Games from its Labour Council lead funding disaster. Plus the SNP are keeping their powder dry over how much funding Glasgow gets from the Scottish Taxpayer per head compared to the rest of Scotland, the Willie Bain approach will not work in May 2010.
If Labour are serious about Calman then there has to be a white paper published before Christmas, promises in the Queen's speech will not cut the mustard but a white paper means Wee Eck has still won the argument since Brown said 'No' in the first place as the SNP will remind Scots in the run up to May - more flip flopping from Brown and Labour over issues important to Scotland.
As for Pakistan they are just getting the bounce back from years of trying to destabilise their neighbours - India and Iran. I give 'democracy' about six months before the Pakistani Army take control in yet another coup with its follow on mini genocides in the tribal areas. Another major attack on a Pakistani Army establishment will see it happen sooner and there will be little surprise if the Army High Command sets it up with CIA assistance!
Then where will that leave Gordon?
This is a genuine question to help me be better informed. It's not a political side-swipe at anyone or any party, so please treat it as such.
I've always assumed a key reason we are in Afghanistan is to stop the Pakistani government being toppled (or sufficiently infiltrated) by jihadists such that its nukes are placed at risk. The recent attacks on the military and spy HQs do suggest that Pakistan's command and control structure is capable of being compromised.
I hear a few commentators talking about this; Paddy Ashdown and Patrick Mercer MP (Chair of the sub-committee on counter-terrorism) have both spoken of the risk but you don't hear much about this specific nuclear risk as part of the mainstream discussion on Afghanistan. The rationale is always given as "keeping the streets of Britain safe".
If we pull out, is this nuclear risk elevated (if it exists at all) ? Presumably there is a chance that India and Israel may not hang around to find out. And wouldn't a regional nuclear war (of whatever scale) be just as devastating to the UK as dirty bomb turning Canary Wharf into a no-go zone for the next 30 years?
As I say this is a broad question for debate as we think about the time-table for leaving Afghanistan.