Afghanistan

Lots of photo opportunities for the Prime Minister in Afghanistan, looking almost louche in shirt-sleeves and tie, but he’s attempted to provide some much needed direction for the Afghan mission. Last month, David Miliband said that Nato must talk to the Taliban and the Guardian reports that Brown is considering reconciliation also. Here are the details: 'A source close to Brown suggested negotiations with insurgents sympathetic to the Taliban, persuading them to switch sides, now formed a key component of Britain's war effort. He added: "The more reconciliation, the better." Diplomatic sources in Helmand suggested such efforts could be on a large scale: "A large part of the Taliban are not really committed to their agenda.

The Wall Street Journal’s write up of its interview with the new US commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, demonstrates why more troops are needed in Afghanistan. The Journal concentrates on the suspicion among some in military circles that the Taliban are using the American emphasis on Helmand to strengthen their grip on Kandahar, the capital of the South and the Taliban’s traditional stronghold. The paper reports that the Taliban are setting up shadow government and court system there. However, McChrystal can’t move troops there until the planned reinforcements arrive as those deployed in Helmand ‘have already set up forward operating bases and recruited help from local tribal leaders, who have been promised American backing.

Splits appear to be emerging in the Pakistani Taliban after a US drone-strike reportedly killed its leader. The New York Times says that a ‘Pakistani government official and an intelligence official said Hakimullah Mehsud, a young and aggressive aide to the former Taliban leader, had been shot dead in a fight with Waliur Rehman, another commander who was seeking to become the leader.’ As a US official tells the paper, splits within the group can be exploited by the US and the Pakistanis. Also anything that limits the Pakistani Taliban’s effectiveness is to be welcomed—the Pakistani state fully collapsing under jihadi pressure is the nightmare scenario. However, a split within the movement could give more power and influence to al Qaeda.

So what do we learn from the Times's interview with David Richards, the man who is set to replace Richard Dannatt as the head of the British Army?  Both a little and a lot.  Most of the piece is made up of nice anecdotes and flatering quotes about the general, and he deflects a lot of the weightier questions with utterly uncontroversial answers - i.e. declining to say whether the army is properly resourced, and adding that "our own tactics must reflect the equipment and troop numbers we have."   But some of his responses are much more eyecatching; as when he claims the "whole process [in Afghanistan] might take as long as 30 to 40 years."  Sure, that's hardly a new contention; but it's important - encouraging, even - that the incoming head of the army is making it.

If Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, has been killed that is a major success which should help both in the fight against the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan; Mehsud had up to 20,000 fighters under his command. It appears that a drone hit his father in law’s house while he was there receiving medical treatment. One of his wives is reported to have also been killed in the strike. Drones are a controversial part of the US arsenal, some argue that the collateral damage they inflict turns the population against the coalition and so make them not worth using. But for this kind of operation they are invaluable.