Britain to send more troops to Afghanistan

Antaletriangle · 03-28-2009, 02:02 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ghanistan.html

Britain is preparing to send an extra 1,700 soldiers to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, the head of the Army has indicated.

By Matthew Moore
Last Updated: 10:47AM GMT 27 Mar 2009

The troops from 12 Mechanised Brigade will help support the US-led surge in the country to be announced by President Barack Obama today.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, yesterday said that a portion of the 4,000-strong brigade – which had previously been training for deployment in Iraq – had now been "earmarked for Afghanistan".

Related Articles
Obama to send 4,000 extra troops to Afghanistan
Obama's hopes for more Nato troops
No more British troops without a fair deal
10,000 British troops to be fighting Taliban in Afghanistan within 12 months
Gordon Brown and Hamid Karzai to discuss more troops for Afghanistan
Prince Harry has been fighting in AfghanistanIn an interview with The Times he said that the instability of the country could only be addressed "by having more boots on the ground", but Britain could not spare an entire brigade.

"If we were to send another 4,000... there would be a risk of replicating the pressures on the Army that we are trying to avoid," he said.

Britain already has 8,000 troops in Helmand province, in the south of the country, and the Government has been lobbying Nato allies to shoulder a greater share of the burden in the most dangerous areas.

Although Gen Dannatt did not speculate about figures, sources have previously indicated that the maximum deployment will be around 1,700.

More than 150 British troops have been killed in the country since the 2001 invasion, with a resurgent Taliban increasing the frequency of attacks on recent months. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, last week conceded that the insurgents had achieved a "strategic stalemate".

Tory leader David Cameron said sending more troops to Afghanistan would only be worthwhile if they were able to deal with "on the ground" problems such as tackling corruption and drugs.

He said: "More troops could be part of the answer but in our view they should only be sent if they are sent with the right equipment, with the right number of helicopters and the right civilian back-up and support so we deal with the other problems in Afghanistan like corruption and drugs.

"It is no good just pouring in the troops if you do not deal with the other problems on the ground."

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "Four criteria must be met before any more British troops are sent to Afghanistan.

"First, there must be a clear and achievable political mission to support the military mission, as was the case with the surge in Iraq. This strategy must not be limited only to Afghanistan, but must encompass Pakistan.

"Secondly, local and district governments must be empowered, as widespread corruption and a lack of good governance in Afghanistan is undermining our military efforts.

"Thirdly, as we have repeatedly said, all Nato allies should be asked to take a fairer share of the mission because too many are shamefully failing to do as much as nations like Britain, America and Canada.

"Fourthly, any increase in troop numbers must be matched by a proportionate and appropriate increase in equipment such as helicopters and armoured vehicles. If troop numbers increase, then so should the number of assets and enablers that help our troops do their job on the battlefield.

"If we want to see the same kind of success in Afghanistan as we have recently experienced in Iraq, we have to provide Afghanistan with its own coherent approach and not merely replicate policies designed for a different country."

Barack Obama is expected to announce an extra 4,000 troops to help train the Afghan security forces on Friday, in addition to the 17,000 US reinforcements pledged last month.

Swanny · 03-28-2009, 01:14 PM

Seeing as we are pretty much bankrupt I wonder how they can afford to do this???

oldpaganfreak · 03-28-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swanny

Seeing as we are pretty much bankrupt I wonder how they can afford to do this???

i'm sure obama would be happy to print up a few trillion dollars for the UK too. their printing presses are all warmed up!

seriously though, the trans afghan pipeline must be really behind schedule if both the US and the UK are sending in more troops.

be prepared to see more kids coming home in boxes. canadians are dying every week in kandahar province.

03-28-2009, 02:02 AM	#1
Antaletriangle Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: U.K. Posts: 3,380	Britain to send more troops to Afghanistan http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ghanistan.html Britain is preparing to send an extra 1,700 soldiers to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, the head of the Army has indicated. By Matthew Moore Last Updated: 10:47AM GMT 27 Mar 2009 The troops from 12 Mechanised Brigade will help support the US-led surge in the country to be announced by President Barack Obama today. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, yesterday said that a portion of the 4,000-strong brigade – which had previously been training for deployment in Iraq – had now been "earmarked for Afghanistan". Related Articles Obama to send 4,000 extra troops to Afghanistan Obama's hopes for more Nato troops No more British troops without a fair deal 10,000 British troops to be fighting Taliban in Afghanistan within 12 months Gordon Brown and Hamid Karzai to discuss more troops for Afghanistan Prince Harry has been fighting in AfghanistanIn an interview with The Times he said that the instability of the country could only be addressed "by having more boots on the ground", but Britain could not spare an entire brigade. "If we were to send another 4,000... there would be a risk of replicating the pressures on the Army that we are trying to avoid," he said. Britain already has 8,000 troops in Helmand province, in the south of the country, and the Government has been lobbying Nato allies to shoulder a greater share of the burden in the most dangerous areas. Although Gen Dannatt did not speculate about figures, sources have previously indicated that the maximum deployment will be around 1,700. More than 150 British troops have been killed in the country since the 2001 invasion, with a resurgent Taliban increasing the frequency of attacks on recent months. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, last week conceded that the insurgents had achieved a "strategic stalemate". Tory leader David Cameron said sending more troops to Afghanistan would only be worthwhile if they were able to deal with "on the ground" problems such as tackling corruption and drugs. He said: "More troops could be part of the answer but in our view they should only be sent if they are sent with the right equipment, with the right number of helicopters and the right civilian back-up and support so we deal with the other problems in Afghanistan like corruption and drugs. "It is no good just pouring in the troops if you do not deal with the other problems on the ground." Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "Four criteria must be met before any more British troops are sent to Afghanistan. "First, there must be a clear and achievable political mission to support the military mission, as was the case with the surge in Iraq. This strategy must not be limited only to Afghanistan, but must encompass Pakistan. "Secondly, local and district governments must be empowered, as widespread corruption and a lack of good governance in Afghanistan is undermining our military efforts. "Thirdly, as we have repeatedly said, all Nato allies should be asked to take a fairer share of the mission because too many are shamefully failing to do as much as nations like Britain, America and Canada. "Fourthly, any increase in troop numbers must be matched by a proportionate and appropriate increase in equipment such as helicopters and armoured vehicles. If troop numbers increase, then so should the number of assets and enablers that help our troops do their job on the battlefield. "If we want to see the same kind of success in Afghanistan as we have recently experienced in Iraq, we have to provide Afghanistan with its own coherent approach and not merely replicate policies designed for a different country." Barack Obama is expected to announce an extra 4,000 troops to help train the Afghan security forces on Friday, in addition to the 17,000 US reinforcements pledged last month.

03-28-2009, 01:14 PM	#2
Swanny I dont need a label ! Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Shire of Wilt Posts: 2,889	Re: Britain to send more troops to Afghanistan Seeing as we are pretty much bankrupt I wonder how they can afford to do this???