British Ambassador: Best Solution For Afghanistan Is An "Acceptable Dictator"

New York Times:

A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. That was not all. The best solution for the country, the envoy said, would be the installation of an "acceptable dictator," according to the newspaper.

"The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," the British envoy, Sherard Cowper-Coles, was quoted as saying by the author of the cable, François Fitou, the French deputy ambassador to Kabul.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

"Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace. Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN."

Taliban SHOULD have done this in 2001 and saved everyone untold grief, Instead they had to be defeated first. Al Qaeda is now finished.

[QueenOfViolets]

Afghanistan has already had several Communist dictators, but I guess Britain doesn't require their ambassadors to know anything about the country they're assigned to.

If a dictatorship had any chance of success in Afghanistan, there never would have been a Soviet invasion. The dictator who ruled in 1979 had to call in the Soviet Union for help because they couldn't stop the mujahedin terrorists using the power of dictatorship alone.

That's how the Soviet-Afghan War started.

Hasn't this guy ever heard of Daoud? Taraki? Amin? All modernizing dictators of Afghanistan, who tried to use the power of dictatorship to stop honor killings and get girls into school.

Didn't work then, won't work now.

[motley2]

Yup. Time for a new British ambassador, not another colonial puppet.

[LITU]

I agree with that application of a dictatorship. How else can a region of factions, or tribes cooperate without a controlling, heavy hand of intolerance?

These are not Westerners, bound by western rules of conduct. In fact, most of them utterly reject westernization.

Having said that, I can't imagine living under a Taliban regime. Probably because I'm a westerner.

[watchingthings]

If they plan on finding one that is suitable [for them] then the British havn't learned a thing from their previous attempt at installing a puppet there. Have they forgotten, Russia tried their strategy after them, how well did that work? Russia even took the young Afgan children to Russia to be "Russified" there. When they were brought back...most reverted to their old ways.

[QueenOfViolets]

Say what? What are you talking about?

Communism was extremely popular among the educated elite in Afghanistan. In fact there were not one, but TWO Communist parties in Afghanistan -- Parcham and Khalq. There had been a homegrown Communist government in power in Kabul for six and a half years before the USSR rolled into Afghanistan in 1979.

Those dictators failed, and finally the last one begged the Soviet Politburo to come help save him from the murderous mujahedin.

Leading Soviet Communists -- including Andropov -- were divided over whether Afghanistan was a viable candidate for state socialism. Andropov even ruled against helping the Afghan Communists in his first opinion on the subject.

But then overnight he changed his mind and supported the invasion, and so they went in.

Daod, Taraki and Amin were all Communist dictators, but none of them were installed by the Soviet government.

Daoud was even helped into power by Richard Nixon! Nixon had the CIA get the King out of the country on some bogus medical emergency concerning a black eye so his cousin Daoud could take over.

I agree that those all dictators all failed miserably, but none of them were installed by the Soviet Union. They all ruled before 1979. Their failures to modernize the country are why the Soviet Union ended up getting dragged in there in 1979.

[SeanHannity4Obama]

Most middle eastern countries that are stable are led by dictators... The Ambassador is right, but there has to be compromise onhuman rights

[wndrwrthg]

Perhaps they should elect a tyrant.

[MyTake]

No, No, they need a Dictator and a Vice Dictator.

In just 108 days, I nominate George Bush to be the Afghan Dictator and Tony Blair to be the Vice Dictator!

[Toonadude]

Note the qualifier. It must be an ACCEPTABLE dictator. The Afghans have standards.

[MajorKong]

Maybe they can give him a cool title like "Shah", because that worked out so well last time.

[Perry Clease]

Khan

[MajorKong]

Khan does have a nice ring to it. Are they taking applications?

[brooklyncitizen]

Well the USA is good at this game then...in fact they were on rather friendly terms with the Taliban.
Issn't grand to have such power over sovereign nations and the Afghan peopl have no say....so what if it's not DEmocracy?

[DCato]

The belief that it is better to have sympathetic dictators in foreign lands is the belief that gave us Saddam Hussein. It gave us Pervez Musharraf and the boost to the Taliban in Pakistan that followed. It is the belief that led to the democratically-elected Mosaddeq being deposed by the CIA, elevated the Shah and thus drove Iranian who wanted reform into the hands of the Ayatollahs. It is the belief that has protected the House of Saud and so allowed al-Qaeda to be born among the disenfranchised. It is the belief that led to the western powers supporting the canceling of elections in Algeria in 1991 and unleashed 10 years of brutal civil war. It is the belief that has meant the west has funded Mubarak's regime and thus allowed jihadism to gain a foothold in Eygpt.
But hey, maybe this time it will work...

Better to make every attempt at something like a democracy, even if those attempts ultimately fail, than to install a dictator, however "acceptable".

Cowper-Coles should be removed from his position.

[CaptainStormfield]

I agree 100%. The USA , the Brits and The Saudi's have royally screwed up the Middle East.
Dont expect them to change.

[Huffyfan]

Best Comment on this Page . Bravo Captain . (the saudis have even paid for covert operations sending their own salafists to where they are needed to blow up cars in Lebanon , in syria . they have paid for Young North Africans to be brainwashed in saudi and learn the Wahabi extremist doctrine and sent back to North Africa totally changed . those vile saudis are hurting Islam and Muslims everywhere . Many many Muslims like myself are beginning to understand the saudi agenda and often say it on Live programs . i have not heard anyone praising the saudi Family except some brainwashed saudi )

[MagisterLudi]

"The USA , the Brits and The Saudi's have royally screwed up the Middle East. "

What a intellectually indigent view of reality
Obviously, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians did better to bring stability and democracy to the ME... what pure apple sauce.

[loudspeaker]

Typical British.

[Perry Clease]

They have been in and out of there several times over the last two centuries

[Gasparilla]

Regrettably and unfortunately, he's probably right. We are never going to make Afghanistan into a western style democracy, with respect for minority religions and women.

[TXfemmom]

Jordan has a king who rules with an iron hand and is reasonably stable. We keep hearing from all these Muslim countries that they want democracy, but none of them have demonstrated that they can be pragmatic enough and work together enough to provide safety.

[Huffyfan]

in Jordan the majority of people Can NOT say in public what is said behind closed doors . the poverty is rising in Jordan , 3/4 of jordan has become nothing but slums . fertile Land is being sold to real estate Moghuls to build a casino and Mansions , and the fat cats are getting fatter .

IF a Muslim country choose the leaders they want , the CIA and MI5 wont be far to work with the Opposition to make sure those leaders are OUT , or pay some criminals to bomb markets and bus stations . the CIA and MI5 do not democracy in the Middle East because the people will choose leaders who put their needs first , their true independence , NOT become an America stooge and military Base and 3/4 of the budget is spent on British and US arms and not inthe local infrastructure .

Hamas (regardless of its political views ) was chosen by the people , the people are now paying for it , starved and isolated and sanctioned .
Iranian have chosen the Islamic republic , iran is still under sanctions
the somali have chosen the Islamic Courts to govern them , the US has sent ethoiopian troops to put an end to that and thousands of Civilians are dying each month in somalia and Oggaden while the world looks elsewhere .
I just wish they left us alone , to deal with our affairs and kept their CIA (embassies

[MagisterLudi]

"I just wish they left us alone , to deal with our affairs"

OK, fair enough. In exchange I don't doubt YOU'd willing to leave us in the West alone.
I suppose the West can also take take back our technology, scientific and consumer developments and leave you to your bucolic existence.
I suppose to make things fair then every immigrant from "your" country would be willing to return to his/her Islamic utopia. How about "your"investors. They'll leave us alone too? Hopefully the mullahs and their converts will leave us alone. Fair deal. Sounds good to "us."