These are the words of Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb,the British general charged with pulling fighters away from their extremist leaders. He says Afghan insurgents should be offered amnesty and should be removed from the coalition’s “wanted” list if they lay down their arms. Do you agree with his suggestion?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
What is this victory in Afghanistan that you want to buy in to……..that the Afghan people no longer wish to be free of occupation, 20% annual growth in Christian conversion, more soldiers dying than civilians, more money spent on civil development than military action……how is this victory defined? Only a proper definition of the objective can guide suitable strategy and unless you have that any money spent will be wasted.
Have we learned anything from history? When did the foreign army win in afganistan? Soviet army had its nose broken.pakistan’s northwesrt frontier a no go area for even pakistanis.these people seem to be inspired by their great past and not the number of death in their mids.they all seem to be dying for allah and honour. May be i need history lesson here.
It is no doubt a positive decision than trying to hunt them down. A chance to achieve goodwill among them.
It can be a small part of the answer. What counts is that the locals prefer the life they have over what the Taliban offers. That is the only way to push the Taliban out. The military can only provide temporary stability to let the locals develop what they want.
But as too making any deal, with any level of the Taliban, we have already seen that they will gladly take anything offered and continue with their goals.
How many times has the U.K. and other countries invaded Afghanistan and lost? Now, we’re going to buy the local’s hearts and minds? Can this get any more daft?
Hello again
I was watching Aljazeera the other day and just this question came up in an interview with an Afghan. I think he was asked how much money it would take to bring the Afghans into line.
He answered that you can hire an Afghan but you can’t buy him.
It’s probably an answer the occupation should take note of.
Jim
The menace of insurgency, anywhere in the world, is caused by activating the evilly motivated mindset, generally with the sole purpose of brutally/violently supporting and fighting for establishing the dogmas of fundamentalism and extremism. If at all, we’re to win over the insurgents, by asking them to lay down their arms and join the main stream of the Afghan society, it should be by way of giving them a compassionate call for seeing reason in the civilized and moderate way of life; And thereafter, efforts should first be made to train and absorb only those who voluntarily offer to accept to work for the good of the society. It must be borne in mind, that, while venturing into this kind of exercise, fraught with terrible security risks, all care must be observed to screen and scrutinize such entrants (call them social-interns). The induction will have to be fool-proof.
Hello again
And hello Scmehta. With all due respect couldn’t one think of insurgency as a reaction to those who invade their country with the intention of establishing dogmas of extremism and fundamentalism. I’m sure the ranks of insurgents have been greatly increased by the activities of those who have come from outside to terrorise them into accepting foreign dogmas.
The main dogma being that they have the might therefore they have the right. That oil pipeline shall cross Afghanistan whether the Afghans like it or not.
I’m sure that the occupation has been responsible for much more misery than the Taliban.
Jim
That sounds like a good idea in theory, but in reality it is a dangerous scenario….And, I think that this idea, can get reconsider by the approriate authorities.
~Dennis Junior~