More British soldiers to Afghanistan as Canadians and Dutch bottle out

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,430
1,668
113
Despite being 7,700 there already, more British soldiers are being sent to Afghanistan to fill in for the Canadians and Dutch who, despite the war being legal and part of NATO, may come home due to huge public pressure in both countries. Since 2001, 82 British and 71 Canadian soldiers have died.


UK troops to fill Nato's boots in Afghanistan


By Tom Coghlan in Kabul
22/10/2007
Daily Mail


Gordon Brown has repeatedly said that the reconstruction of Afghanistan is central to British foreign policy


The Government is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan to make up for the expected withdrawal of other Nato forces, a spokesman for the organisation has said.

Britain already has 7,700 soldiers fighting Taliban insurgents in Helmand province, at a time when senior Army officers complain that there is a serious overstretch in the armed forces.

There are fears that the Canadian and Dutch governments may withdraw their forces because of growing political pressure.

James Appathurai, the spokesman for the Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, disclosed that Britain was considering increasing its troop commitment.

He told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "The British are talking in the south not only about keeping what they have, but potentially increasing it."

Mr Appathurai's remarks follow a Government announcement that troop numbers in Iraq are to be nearly halved by next spring.

The Prime Minister was accused by the Conservatives of trying to overshadow their party conference by announcing that 1,000 British troops in Basra would be home by Christmas.

He later said that by next spring 2,500 of the 5,500 troops in Iraq are expected to have been with drawn.

Reducing troop numbers in Basra would make troops available to be sent to the arguably more risky conditions of Afghanistan, where 82 British soldiers have died since 2001.

Gordon Brown has repeatedly said that the reconstruction of Afghanistan is central to British foreign policy.

Britain and other Nato member states will attend a summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday at which Mr de Hoop Scheffer will call for more troops and material to be sent to Afghanistan.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said last night: "We are keeping our force levels under review but we are not about to make any future announcement."

Within the diplomatic community in Kabul it is widely expected that Canada will withdraw from its current fighting role in Kandahar after losing 71 soldiers since 2001.

The Dutch government has indicated that it is looking for other Nato countries to take over in Uruzgan province from August 2008.

The Dutch have lost 11 soldiers in the past year.


telegraph.co.uk
 

Mano

New Member
Oct 18, 2007
20
0
1
I hope we can sum up the will to stay and finish our work in Kandahar, and I don't think there is huge public pressure from Canadians to give up.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Mano

I agree with your observation but regret that attitude. Because some other people's nation is an agenda item of Britain (reconstructin of Afghanistan) then the people being sent are exercising an agenda that the nation (the people of Britain) support. If Turkey sends troops into Iraq, that would be regarded as pre-emptive self-defense against Kurd terrorists...right? But who decides to send in the military in Turkey, the government or the people? And are there special or preferred conditions attached to this dynamic? Indeed there usually are!

The United States and Israel have repeatedly demonstrated that military action against an "assumed" "perhaps some time....later when they put those "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" or attempt to purchase the technology and the ability to own what America and Israel and a few others want everyone to believe is theirs to say Yes or No to.... By what right?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
So..If Britain is 3 times the size as we are, why does it have so few troops there that it relies on Canada.

We get stuck in the hotspots and suffer almost as many casualties for a nation 1/3rd the size and there is complaint.

Sheesh. Don't get me wrong, despite bitching, Canada should stay there..but it would be nice if we didn't have to keep punching above our weight because our allies start a fight then don't finish it before moving on.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Zzarchov, it's the nature of the beast!

Look anywhere in the world where an imperial power has exercised its right to intrusiveness and you'll find nothing but disaster after disaster. The United States France Britain Russia all the neighborhood bullies have wrecked their will on millions for decades and in the case of the Spanish and the French, hundreds of years.

This kind of self-destruction can't take place without leaving a few bruises....:)