Page 1 of 1

#1 More UK soldiers for Afghanistan

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:21 am
by frigidmagi
BBC
More than 1,000 extra British troops are to be sent to Afghanistan, the BBC has learned.
Defence Secretary Des Browne will give details of the new deployment to the House of Commons on Monday.

The UK has been reluctant to add to its 5,600-strong force there, as it has reinforced several times already.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the move showed that British forces were too "overstretched" to carry out duties in both Iraq and Afghanistan.





Other international forces in Afghanistan

The move comes as the government announced that about 1,600 troops would be withdrawn from Iraq.

It is thought that some of the soldiers will come from the Household Cavalry. On Thursday it was announced that the regiment's Blues and Royals unit, in which Prince Harry serves, is being deployed to Iraq.

British forces are in Afghanistan as part of Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).


Mr Fox said the government had failed to persuade its Nato allies to take their share of the burden in Afghanistan.

"Too many of our European partners are now pocketing the Nato security guarantee, leaving UK taxpayers and the UK military to carry the cost," he said.


"It's clear now that our army's so overstretched that we can't carry out two conflicts."

Britain has recently revamped its operations in Afghanistan to put most manpower into Helmand province in the south, where the fighting is at its most fierce.

Nato and British commanders have said for some time that more resources are needed if the Taleban are to be defeated.

But until now the government has argued that countries like France and Germany should contribute more.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says commanders on the ground are "screaming for more troops" to deal with the Taleban's expected spring offensive, but Monday's announcement is still likely to be controversial.

He said the governor of Helmand province recently said another 700 Taleban fighters had crossed the border to confront British troops.

"The appeal went out to other Nato nations - such as the Germans up there in the safe part of Afghanistan in the north," our correspondent said.

"Yet it is the British troops once again who are having to reinforce - the third or fourth reinforcement."

The Liberal Democrats said Britain needed to focus on Afghanistan and withdraw troops from Iraq.

Thomas Withington, from the Centre for Defence Studies, explained that the south-west of Afghanistan was proving to be a "stubborn nut to crack".

He told BBC News: "Many answers lie in deploying more troops and having more equipment on the ground, but they also lie in securing the border areas.

"And I think what really is required is a two-pronged strategy, to ensure those two things can become a reality."
The irony here is while even the more left members of the UK's government believe in winning Afghanistan elsewhere in Italy the government fell partly because of keeping troops there... Hmmm.

#2

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:28 am
by Dartzap
The slightly bigger irony is that only the other day we hear of well over 1500 troops being withdrawn from Iraq, making loads of family's think they're going to see their loved ones again for a long period of time.

I think we have more a vested interest in sorting Afghanistan out than Iraq, since we're more heavily involved over there.

#3

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:28 pm
by Cpl Kendall
Well I thank the UK for the help and hope that the rest of our allies follow suite. Knowing a bit of how the military works I doubt this will be a case of "ok your done in Iraq so it's off to Afghanistan" but rather that fresher troops will be sent.