I agree with Michael Semple's strategy, particularly because in the field of conflict it's been shown that the British have been successful in a divide and conquer strategy which seeks to isolate the radical elements by luring and bribing the moderate ones. Without being able to infiltrate Pakistan, the war in Afghanistan will be rather unwinnable until the border is somehow secured. And even then, the border can't hold back the natural tribal migration of the Pashtuns.
British intel has been able to find and isolate moderate Taliban commanders and work out peace deals, or even defections in return for clemency. I'm surprised that NATO has not embraced more of this tactic openly since it appears such peace deals and ceasfires have worked in Iraq. The "surge" hasn't been the only part responsible for success in Iraq recently. It is owed directly to a cease fire arrangement with the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr. In fact the cleric said that any fighters attacking American troops and jeopardizing the fragile truce would be considered enemies.
It becomes more apparent to me, as well, that the Karzai-backed government is as corrupt and prone to extremist tendencies as the Taliban. With the exception of women serving in Parliament and a general charade of democracy, the country is still ruled by warlords and tribal power struggles. If you look at what happened in the vacuum of the Soviet exit from Afghanistan, you see that the Taliban came from nowhere to seize upon the radical Mujahideen movement which fought the Soviets. The Pakistani government had propped up the Pashtun Taliban from the beginning, and only allied with the Americans after the attack on the World Trade Center.
NATO needs more people like Michael Semple working on strategies which involve experience in Afghanistan and an understanding of the regional power struggles which present a dynamic that brings far more than one dimension to this fight against radicalism.
Commenting by HaloScan
