500 more troops to Afghanistan
David Blackburn 5:28pm
Gordon Brown’s Afghanistan and Pakistan statement was virtually identical to the joint statement he gave with Battlin’ Bob in August. Once again, the government are pinning their hopes on a tactic called “Afghanisation” – by which they mean conducting operations alongside Afghan forces and police, and the steady extension of Kabul’s authority into the localities. I’ve debated this before, but I doubt that an Afghan police force that is drug tested because its officers consume opium prodigiously can be relied upon to even hand out parking tickets; and, more importantly, Nato’s strategy rests on the contestable assumption that ordinary Afghans believe that Afghanistan exists as a political entity and that they want a stake in it.
Whilst Britain remains committed, it is clear that more boots are required on the ground. The announcement that 500 more troops will be deployed, subject to conditions, is welcome but does it go far enough? Sir Jock Stirrup is adamant that this increase fulfils the exact recommendations of military advice. That contradicts General Dannatt’s claim that 2,000 more troops were required (actually a further 500, once all the other recent rises are accounted for). So what to make of this difference of opinion? General Dannatt’s adoption of the Conservative party and the promise of a ministerial brief have been met with nothing short of disgust among senior officers: a source told me that General Richards admits privately to feeling “betrayed” by his predecessor. But the army would not limit the increased deployment on the basis of personal differences between senior officers. I suspect that commanders would like 5,000 more troops in Helmand, but it seems that 500 is all the MoD can afford to equip.
Previous
Any Colour but Brown
October 14th, 2009 7:07pm Report this commentGordon Brown has confirmed that they will not be sent until they have "sufficient equipment for all possible scenarios".
Since putting this plan together, Labour party faithfuls have scoured charity shops and Salvation Army stores for wearable trainers and DPM-styled clothing. They came back with 300 pairs of arctic camo style 3/4 length cargo pants, 150 shell suits, 50 Russian winter padded jackets and 3/4 of a ton of Nike and Adidas knock-offs.
A raid on the Royal Armouries in Leeds and the imperial War Museum garnered 76 WWI and WWII tin helmets and 34 MkIII Lee-Enfield rifles (each with 5 rounds of 1896 .303 ammunition.
Gordon Brown has expressed his satisfaction that the troops would all be able to go to war fully equipped for every possible eventuality..............
except, perhaps, the enemy
The Foxhole Atheist
October 14th, 2009 8:14pm Report this commentI have no idea what effect the announcement of the deployment of an extra 500 troops will have on the enemy, but by God it scares me. This is very far from a decisive, campaign-shifting move and highlights just how feeble our resolve - and the political faith in the centrality of Afghanistan to UK security - has become. I doubt the Taleban and Al Qaeda missed the meagreness of this 'bold' move.
Just as there seems to be no alternative plan for the economy other than to make a virtue of necessity by throwing printed and borrowed money around like a madwoman's shit, so there is no alternative in Afghanisation to 'Afghanisation'. Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with reality will realise that it is not 'either/or': we need a hugely expanded Coalition presence on the ground AND an expanded Afghan capacity. You cannot to train up local troops and expect them to occupy the security space you vacated or failed to deliver. The vacuum must be filled first, and the local forces conduct in effect a mass 'relief in place'. That is not going to happen with 9,500 troops, a goodly portion of whom are self-licking lollipops engaged in force protection rather than projecting decisive force.
Which poses the question: What if this does not work? What is the contingency plan to be enacted in the event that we cannot deliver 5,000 extra trained ANA troops by Oct 10? Who holds the line then?
The one thing that might deliver us from campaign failure is the Pakistan army. But we have very little control over that, and Pakistan is five well-placed suicide bombs from implosion.
Austin Barry
October 15th, 2009 7:58am Report this commentEven we armchair generals can see that the battleground should be Pakistan. Why can't the politicians?
Ray
October 15th, 2009 12:40pm Report this comment'Afghanisation' should be not unlike 'Vietnamisation': namely, a fig leaf to allow the United States and its allies to quietly exit stage right whilst beefing up the Afghan army in the hope (and hope looks like all there is to cling to) that it will have a fighting chance of successfully parleying with its Taliban foes.
Kalvis Jansons
October 15th, 2009 1:42pm Report this commentThis is a bad move. Please go Mr Brown: http://petition.kalvis.com
Only one more week of "resign" fun to go.
Leo Aylen
October 15th, 2009 6:59pm Report this commentJon Snow interviews John Hutton Oct 14th on C4 News. Hutton gives standard government pronouncement on the need to send more British troops to Afghanistan, ‘to finish the job there.’ Hutton: this is not a political matter, but “a matter of UK national security.”
But why? Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London? Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft? How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
No one in government ever properly explains why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
See my blog for a fuller attack on Hutton.
http://guyfawkesoption.blogspot.com
Back to top