News Sections
British general: 'We're not going to win this war'
CTV News Video
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(34)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Sun. Oct. 5 2008 9:20 PM ET
In an interview with The Sunday Times, the commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith, suggested that NATO troops may well leave the country before an insurgency is entirely defeated.
"We're not going to win this war," he told the newspaper. "It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army."
British forces are stationed mainly in Helmand province. Canadian troops are based in Kandahar province, where there are similar problems with the Taliban.
Carleton-Smith said the NATO role is to contain the insurgency to the extent that it can be dealt with by the Afghan National Army after foreign troops leave.
He also said that negotiations may be necessary to end a Taliban insurgency.
"If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this," Carleton-Smith said. "That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."
Former Liberal foreign affairs minister John Manley said his review of the Afghanistan mission, released in January at the request of the Conservative government, also proposed the idea of negotiating with insurgents.
"When you use decapitation as a method of persuasion, it's hard to find common ground with those people," he told CTV's Question Period. "But we shouldn't allow ourselves to go down the road of thinking that's the only group that's out there. There are lots of them that are different from that, and we need to build bridges with them and we need to make their lives better. We need to make sure that we are empowering those groups in society, particularly women, who can offset that."
CTV's Paul Workman, based in Kandahar, said Sunday that many Afghan and NATO leaders feel the Taliban "may have to be brought into the structure of the country, may have to be involved in government and that would be the only way to bring peace to Afghanistan."
Last week, Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, said he has spent years seeking Saudi Arabia's help to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. However, the Taliban have routinely rebuffed offers to negotiate a peace accord.
Taliban leaders view Karzai as a weak leader who they will be able to wrest control of Afghanistan from after foreign troops leave the country.
Drug trade
In addition to the Taliban insurgency and concerns about the strength of the Karzai government, Manley pointed to the drug trade and adequate distribution of development funds as issues that the international community needs to address.
"All of these moving parts are a part of this puzzle," Manley said. "And most of them are not going as well as we would hope."
Manley said that in NATO forces, the United Nations, the European Union and Pakistan, Afghanistan's neighbour to the north, all have a role to play in bringing peace to the region.
Carleton-Smith's outlook on the Afghanistan war came as another Canadians soldier was injured in the country.
Reports say an improvised explosive device detonated around noon local time near an armoured vehicle carrying Canadian troops.
Conservative MP James Moore said the government has been honest about difficulties inherent in the Afghan mission, but NATO efforts have produced results.
"We've been honest with Canadians that this is not going to be an easy mission, it's going to be a difficult one," Moore told CTV's Question Period. "But we're seeing remarkable progress there, we're building universities, 5,000 schools, women now have access to medical care that they never had access to before. So the Afghan mission, I think, has been as success."
NDP candidate Paul Dewar disagreed, saying his party has called for a new strategy for the Afghan mission, which would end military operations and focus on diplomacy and aid. He said Carleton-Smith's comments are in step with that proposal.
"I recall very well in the (House of Commons), our party standing up and saying this isn't going well, this isn't working, we need to change the direction," Dewar told Question Period. "Now we have the military, at least in the U.K., saying the same thing."
At a campaign stop in St. John's, N.L, on Sunday, NDP Leader Jack Layton said ongoing problems with security and a bustling poppy trade are just some of the signs that the current military campaign isn't working.
"These issues suggest that a new approach, that Canada could be a part of leading, I feel, should be undertaken," Layton said.
User Tools
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(34)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
Freedom Lover in SK
said
Alan - Toronto
said
How does this news help anyone in Canada. It is pretty clear it reinvigorates the enemy and thereby endangers troops on the group.
This is one of the greatest plagues of our time... an unaccountable media.
Vote ABC
said
It appears Harper and Bush are the only 2 people that can not figure that out.
Ronald T. Robinson
said
These seem like reasonable comments and equally reasonable conclusions.
The Prime Minister's timeline for ending Canadian, military participation - given those conditions - may be more than appropraite.
This, given the likelihood that no combination of forces will ever "kill their way to victory".
Michelle
said
I always thought it was about helping to stabilize the area so that those people in Afghan who desire freedom can stand on their own feet and fight for their own rights. Ultimately, this is their battle. We helped restore the balance of power back to ordinary Afghan citizens, the rest is up to them.
New World
said
I disagree, the media has a responsibility to report facts… Opinions disguised as news is another thing, that is irresponsible media.
If we didn't have the media who would provide information to us, whether it's news you want to hear or not. The Danger to our troops lie in letting our government do what they want with no checks and balances, and it's only media that provides those checks and balances. And also whether you like it or not the media needs to provide both sides of a story… we are not always right.
ScottS
said
shane Prpich
said
War, what is it good for?
Absolutely NOTHING!
Lets fight poverty at home not invading countries to build pipelines and poppies!
Todd Reaker
said
Gail (Hamilton)
said
Lighthouse
said
"...the British will leave soon because they believe in nothing."
then he added:
"...but the Americans are different. They believe in what they do."
To me this sums up the problem of giving any credence to comments from the British. They had a hand in how these Islamic lands were divided up in recent history. This in part relates to problems today but did not originate the problems which are more rooted in religion and tribalism than politics.
In any case, the British are more responsible than the Americans but many of the British "intelligentsia" are in my opinion simply decadent. They have money, beautiful houses, country estates, idyllic lifestyle and they are lazy. It was the same with the French and Italians in past wars - they had very comfortable lives, wonderful culture and they love the good things in life. They had no stomach for any causes.
The British are simply an embarrassment. Why a mere Brigadier General is making such sweeping statements to the press in a time of war is bizarre. Obviously he does not feel Britain is at war and that is the problem - the British do not feel engaged or have a vested interest. They want to leave it to the Americans. Just like the Germans and others have.
Joe Sanity
said
Canadians would be better off to "Beware" of far-right-deep-south thinkers like yourself. How any of you Neo-Cons can cling to Bush's idology after the melt down on Wall street and his fiasco in Iraq is beyond me. I mean really, how bad does it have to get before you say "hmmm,,,maybe this isn't working?"
Sand Soldier
said
ScottS
said
Thank you for your response, as you strengthen my argument that Libs and NDP really want to be a scared, weak, politically correct state of socialist bliss!
Why is it, that the angry left ignores the truth and fact?? Do you think this might have anything to do with their problems? I did not mention Bush. Oh, by the way, I'm not from the deep south, am not far-right, and I have many British friends with the same sentiment.
Lost Cause
said
Alan said "One of the greatest obstacles to winning any war is the media's need to feed information to the public."
George Bush Sr. and Norman Schwarzkopf knew this full well - that's why they razed the battlefield and bulldozed all the dead bodies before letting the media in during the first Iraq war. A 'keep it clean' approach to the presentation of warfare, nothing more than lo-fi POV shots of missiles going into chimneys. They knew that one of the main reasons that the Vietnam war ended was because the public grew understandably weary from the ghastly images of the war coming through on the news every night.
Similar thinking is probably why Stephen Harper (like George W. Bush) initially didn't want to have a media flashpoint every time one of his country's soldiers got killed in Afghanistan - thankfully the Canadian media and the Canadian public rejected that notion real quick...
AJ
said
Wes Cam
said
I hope you remember that it was the Liberals who sent the soldiers to Afganistan. The House voted to keep them there. And it will be the Conservatives who will be bringing them home.
NR
said
the typical British response is surrender...the comments made by this Brig General appear to be quite reasonable being that he WAS in Afganistan. I would much rather have the ideology of a scared weakling than one of a trigger happy bully...
Joe Sanity
said
"Why is it, that the angry left ignores the truth and fact??"
The heart of your problem (and many other right wingers) is that you honestly believe that everything you preach is truth and fact. When your default position is that your views couldn't possibly be wrong you leave little room for truth or fact. It's called tunnel vision.
Canadian Immigrant
said
"The Conservaties will bring them home"
I love your spin, just like your Boss - S.H.
It was the opoosition parties that forced the adoption of 2011 deadline.
Your Boss demanded and "open ended extionsion". In futrue please do not insult the intelligence of the public , we do not mind if your head is in the Sand, but dragging everybody else - no thank you.
Sand Soldier - Thank you for your services and let us hope and pray for all involved in this conflict,
Niagara George
said
Do you remember the worldwide support there was for that agenda? Even some of the Islamic nations were supportive. It seems our leaders have forgotten that part of the justification. If we would have done that job in the first 6 months and then got out, the world would be a completely different place, today.
Thankfully, Harper was only opposition leader, at that time, or we would have moved on to the quagmire of Iraq.
It is good to hear that someone is speaking honestly. We could be in Afganistan for 100 years and the situation would be the same as today. Negotiations that lead to a peaceful withdrawal are the only hope.
Mo
said
Canadian Soldier
said
If we do pull out in defeat, you will have nobody to blame but yourself.
Lost Cause
said
Generalizing the British populace as being decadent, wealthy, lazy, and selfish across the board shows that you don't know much about the contrast between the rich and poor there. There are plenty of unfortunate British people who are neither wealthy nor decadent, plenty more who are neither lazy nor selfish. To say that all British people live wealthy carefree lives is flat out wrong.
Also, what is this angle on the issue about anyway? I'm not sure I understand the argument. Would it be more in our national interest to have a much crappier standard of living, so we can be somehow be collectively more aggressive and unhappy due to being more impoverished, and thus somehow have a greater spine to be at war? I would almost think the opposite would be true - rhetorically speaking, if Canada had a much lower standard of living, I don't think we'd be particularly pleased that our government was dumping billions of dollars into a long lasting war overseas that wasn't producing much in the way of results that would benefit the everyday impoverished Canadian.
Frank
said
Canadian Soldier
said
If you read the comments I made very carefully, you will realize that at no point in time did I ever advocate that we should give up a higher standard of living, rather, that because we live so comfortably in Canada, we become rather self absorbed and simply dont care about what happens in the rest of the world. Usually by the time we do start to care, its too late, Rwanda and Bosnia ring a bell? I was there for those operations as well.
What I am trying to argue here is that our comfortable way of life has blinded us to the reality of the world. There are those that sit in comfy ivory towers who claim we should simply negotiate with the Taliban... Ok, lets follow that argument. Do you think the Taliban have any interest in negotiation? Is there anything about the way we understand totalitarian regimes to suggest that such regimes negotiate? If by some miracle they did negotiate, what do you think they would ask for? What do you think they would compromise on? Have any of you even thought that far ahead? Do you even care? I dont think you do.
My greatest dissapointment in Canadian politics is the complete and utter hypocracy that we have. Left wing parties pride themselves on fighting for womens rights, and equal rights for all. A worthy cause to be sure, but why do they not pride themselves on maintaining those same rights for other less fortunate people around the world? I joined the army to fight for people that could not fight for themselves, Afghanistan is one such place. There are good people there, they need our help.
Alex Nelson
said
MHB
said
Lost Cause
said
As per the idea of helping women there, a woman named Miriam from RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) was interviewed in July 2008 and she had this to say:
"It is true that it (Afghanistan) might be worse under a Taliban regime. But at least we will not be occupied by a foreign power. Today we have two problems: our own local fundamentalists and a foreign occupier. If NATO left we would have one problem rather than two. RAWA has announced a number of times that neither the US nor any other power wants to release Afghan people from the fetters of the fundamentalists. Afghanistan’s freedom can be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation."
Canadian Soldier, as someone who has actually been on the ground over there, what do you make of that statement? Is she wrong? Right? Somewhere in between?
fitzz
said
If there are any lessons to be learned from history, surely NOT to invade Afghanistan is one of them. From Genghis Khan onwards, foreign invaders have learned the hard way that Afghanistan can be defeated but not held. The British more than others should know this. Did their loss of a full army down to a single man allowed to survive in order to tell the story teach them nothing? Surely a British General Officer would be aware of his own Army's tragic slaughter in the First Afghan War of 1842.
That a senior officer should speak now is either foolish, defeatist of desperate. At least he should be listened to - perhaps in Ottawa as well.
J L C
said
Liberals sent Canada to Afghanistan, but not IRAQ!
Our individualism has divided us so thoroughly, that is almost impossible to reach consensus on all but the simplest of issues. - "Is Britney Crazy?"
All you need to do is read the comments sections in these news articles, and that of other news sites to see this. You can usually filter out the Tory War Room stuff, once you're used to seeing it.
-Go Coalition Lib/NDP
If the right was united (with the poor Progressive Conservatives getting the shaft)
Why not unite the left - centre left? ? Maybe the Bloc/Conservatives could cooperate to outnumber the Lib/NDP coalition if they tried to get too out of hand with the socalism.
What's worse, a little fuzzy socialism, or Neo - Con Fascism?? (Go Amero, SPP?)
Wake up Canada.
a retired soldier
said
The deployed forces are there to provide some degree of stability and safety to eventually allow the Afghan to look after their own security and to rebuild their country.
The challenge to that security will continue to exist when our troops leave.
Jack Layton's jump on that item demonstrates his willingness to distort any story to score cheap points.
1. This statement changes nothing.
2. The mission is UN sanctionned.
3. The UN has handed it over to NATO because it cannot handle it. Handing over to a regional organisation is a common UN practice
4. The UN is not equiped to handle that level of insurgency - look at Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda, Kosove etc.
5. The Taliban will not come to thee table. It is like playing Monopoly with someone who won't trade.
6. If Canada were to withdraw and attempt to hand the mission back to the UN, nothing would happen. We do not call the shots. We are not even on teh security council at this time.
7. Even Barak Obama, whom Layton loves, sees the need to help the Afghans. He proposes to increase the number of troops deployed.
I find it strange that those who most readilly associate themselves with human rights are also the most vocal proponents of abandonning these people to the most repressive regime. Do not forget the Taliban and Al Queda are the ones who recruit children as suicide bombers, who target medical personnel as a priority, who assassinate humanitarian workers etc.
It would be charitable to think that Layton is misguided, I think he is trying to manipulate the situation for partisan purposes.
schpid
said
NATO has been, from almost day one, been building both infrastructure, leadership and security. They face not only the Taleban as an opposition but tribal differences, corruption (both from Afghan officials, aid groups, and civilian contractors) and cultural indifference. If the aid groups are not protected they will be slaughtered, plain and simple. So if the NDP are so sure their way is the best way, put up or shut up.
Mac1- Guelph
said