During his 25 years as a diplomat for the United States government, Peter Galbraith certainly encountered his fair share of disagreement.

As a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Galbraith successfully mediated an end to wars. He negotiated treaties, designed interim governments and authored two books criticizing U.S. foreign policy in Iraq.

Yet Galbraith, the chief American in the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, was fired recently for urging the international organization to take a stand against something that jeopardized its very mission there.

Galbraith was terminated for urging the U.N. to recognize and act against the widespread fraud that occurred during Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election. His firing has since sparked unrest within the U.N. mission, leading several of its members to quit in protest. And Galbraith is concerned the result of the fraudulent election is sure to cause a widening divide among the Afghan people.

Since the story of his firing broke, it has gained international attention. Galbraith's guest columns have appeared in the Washington Post, New York Times and the Guardian, in the United Kingdom. On Tuesday, the former veteran diplomat was in Missoula to talk at the University of Montana (where his son earned a master's degree in environmental studies) about Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The United States' involvement in the two countries dates back 30 years. Therefore, the United States has a vested interest maintaining a presence there, he said.

However, Galbraith is against both troop withdrawal and sending more troops to Afghanistan.

The August presidential election in Afghanistan was important, Galbraith said, because the results prove the United States can no longer work in good faith with a government that is corrupt. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is not a credible partner to the United States, he said.

"It's taken the wind out of the sails of Obama's new policy," he said.

In fact, Galbraith contends that there is no golden solution. While maintaining the status quo is a bad idea, he suggests it's the least bad option because it will result in only a gradual worsening of the situation.

Keeping the Taliban from overtaking Kabul is key, he said. But adding more troops to accomplish an impossible mission is a waste of resources, he said.

To learn of the U.N.'s unwillingness to take a hard line on election fraud when its mission was to help carry out a fair election was disheartening and uncommon, he said, but it's not the first time the international organization has turned a blind eye, either, Galbraith said.

Galbraith pointed to the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 when 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were executed during the Bosnian War. A U.N. report identifying a witness who knew where the bodies lay was stuffed in a drawer, Galbraith said.

Eventually, years later, the U.N. performed an internal investigation. Its review of those actions was "scathing," he said.

Galbraith has no doubt that his termination, too, will eventually be investigated and some committee will render the same conclusion.

"I was basically fired for no reason at all," he said.

Galbraith remains a supporter of the United Nations, but thinks its current leadership lacks strength. In fact, Galbraith would not have resigned. What's key in diplomatic negotiations, he said, is to allow dissent in private and to work within the constraints of the orders given.

Though he urged the U.N. to recognize Afghanistan's election fraud, he ceased his dissent when leadership made it clear that they were dismissing his allegations. It was only after the disagreement between Galbraith and his bosses was leaked to the media that Galbraith was fired.

While Galbraith's next step is unclear, he imagines his diplomatic career is over.

"You never want to be fired for taking a stand on principle," he said. "You want people who are team players and effective without making waves. I have made a wave."

Reporter Chelsi Moy can be reached at 523-5260 or at chelsi.moy@missoulian.com.