| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| UK Army chiefs warn: 'We're not ready for Afghanistan' | |
| 2005-12-15 | |
| Key quote "In many ways, Afghanistan is in a worse position now, four years on from the war there, than Iraq is," - Army officer BRITAIN is set for a U-turn on its commitment to send thousands of troops to fight in Afghanistan next year, with some in the army now questioning whether the mission should be abandoned altogether. Military commanders say that lessons have not been learned from the run-up to the Iraq war and that political prevarication has left them unable to make adequate preparation for the mission, which had been expected to involve up to 5,000 troops. Instead, an additional fighting force of only about 1,000 soldiers - almost certainly paratroops - is expected to be sent to Helmand province, in the south of the country, probably backed up by Apache helicopter gunships. The government had initially been keen to make an impact in Afghanistan when the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) takes over responsibility for peacekeeping in May. Ministers hoped British involvement could kick-start the faltering process of rebuilding the country, but their enthusiasm seems to have waned. And with winter closing in and no preparations in hand for the arrival of UK soldiers, the government has still to make a formal announcement on the deployment. It is understood orders are yet to be placed for the construction of the accommodation which will house the soldiers when they arrive. Senior officers are in despair over the chaos surrounding the mission. Opium production in Afghanistan has returned to pre-invasion levels, the police force is in disarray and there is an active and growing insurgency. It took months of wrangling to persuade other NATO members to agree to supply troops. But one senior officer described the efforts of coalition partners as "shambolic", accusing the Dutch government of demanding United States military protection for its troops before agreeing to send them. Another officer accused the Germans of a complete failure in their mission to rebuild the country's police force. He said German forces had trained little more than 200 officers in four years, and when the new police force was deployed in Kabul, they had promptly disappeared. "In many ways, Afghanistan is in a worse position now, four years on from the war there, than Iraq is," he said. "It is going to take years to resolve it and the insurgency is getting worse. It is being squeezed in some places but that simply means it moves to other areas." The Ministry of Defence has consistently refused to discuss in public the number of troops it planned to send to Afghanistan, but speculation fuelled by briefings from military sources in June suggested a force of about 5,000 was being considered. A decision was expected to have been taken and announced months ago, but discussions with coalition partners have hindered preparations and Britain's ongoing commitment in Iraq has also had to be taken into account. While General Sir Michael Jackson, the head of the army, has indicated that Britain could start withdrawing troops from Iraq next year, senior MoD sources have suggested that the Afghan deployment is not dependent on any such withdrawal. However, there is frustration in some parts of the army that no decision has been taken on the Afghan mission and one officer said that, unless a sizeable force was deployed, it was unclear what Britain hoped to achieve. "There are people asking if we should be doing it at all," he said. "A lot of money has been committed, but it will probably take a lot more. There has been discussion about a rethink, maybe not doing it at all, though that does not seem very likely." Another military source said the complex negotiations required to build a NATO coalition were hindering the deployment and threatening its chances of success. "Unless it is sorted out, they will just have to put up some spin-related successes and leave it at that," he said. "Whitehall wants to see results and they will trumpet the short-term gains but it won't help towards long-term withdrawal." Britain currently has about 900 troops in Afghanistan, mainly in Kabul and the northern provinces, where they are involved in what the MoD says are peace support operations. Under the ARRC plans for next year, Canada is expected to send 2,000 troops but Dutch ministers have postponed a decision on their deployment of 1,000 soldiers until next week, amid concerns about security in the more dangerous southern part of the country.
Pathetic. Aside from Oz, probably the UK, maybe Japan and India, we're alone. I don't think the average American has any conception of how effectively isolated we have become. Pat Buchannan could start to look prescient if the Soccer Moms ever figure this out. And the donks want to trash the PATRIOT Act. Somebody give Harry Reid a violin to fiddle. Great photo of Michael Jackson at the link. No, not that one. | |
| Posted by:Elmeash Flaiter6401 |
| #8 And the point of my comment in the post is that it's time to stop thinking in terms of the "free world". The concept is obsolete. In what way might a dhimmi be said to be free? |
| Posted by: Elmeash Flaiter6401 2005-12-15 16:46 |
| #7 OP, I would suggest that Oz, India and Japan have also learned from A&I Beyond that, ostriches. |
| Posted by: Elmeash Flaiter6401 2005-12-15 16:44 |
| #6 It may be the "Scotsman", but there's a lot of truth in what this article says. The only nation that has learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is the United States. It's about time everyone else in the free world gets on board and starts both learning and helping out - if for no other reason than they'll have trained, experienced troops to handle the situation when it rears its ugly head in THEIR country, a la France. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-12-15 15:22 |
| #5 My apologies. It was Zhang Fe who wrote of Ami bennies. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-12-15 13:58 |
| #4 Elmeash Flaiter6401, I am a Soccer Mom. I'm not sure I'm typical, but all the SMs I know have been voting consistently Republican post-9/11. I read this article as saying that Western Europe is refusing to step up to the few responsibilities they verbally accepted. But Eastern Europe is participating to the best of their ability, because they understand the importance of fighting a fascism not so different from the one whose rule they just escaped. And they are using American bennies, as you so succinctly put it, to upgrade their armed forces in the direction of the American standard so that they'll be able to do more in the future. Is there an awful lot of anti-Americanism out there? Certainly. There has been for centuries amongst European elites. Will Western European governments do everything they can to keep from doing anything at all? Of course -- look at how they handled, in fact are still handling, the problems in post-Tito Yugoslavia. And Sudan. Zimbabwe. Iran. etc, etc, etc. And do let us not forget that Afghanistan, despite being a named country since the British Raj, has never been anything more than Pakistan's hinterland, populated by a motly collection of bickering tribes, sub-tribes, clans, cousins and brothers, all scraping a living from the earth and whatever they could steal from others. That they have made such progress as they have toward what the rest of us consider to be a normal society is, in my humble opinion, close to miraculous. That they have ambitions to go further is, honestly, practically unbelievable. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-12-15 13:57 |
| #3 Doom. Doom! DOOM! DOOOOOOOOO[deepbreath]OOOOOOOM! |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2005-12-15 13:18 |
| #2 Caveat emptor: its the Scotsman. Hard left, maximum spin, zero credibility. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2005-12-15 11:18 |
| #1 EF6401: Aside from Oz, probably the UK, maybe Japan and India, we're alone. I don't think the average American has any conception of how effectively isolated we have become. I think the misconception is that our alliances are some kind of "we're all in this together Band of Brothers-type" gatherings. They're not, and they've never been. India and Japan are not our friends, and may never be. As allies, they are, in a word, untested. India has sent no troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. Japan has sent non-combat troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. WWI and WWII were instances where, with the exception of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (all in it to defend the mother country and the Queen, their official head of state), every other Allied power was trying to save its own skin. We waded in even though significant chunks of American territory were never truly in danger of being occupied. During the Korean War, the war-weakened Euros were afraid the Soviet bear was going to roll across their borders, and sent forces to demonstrate their resolve. By the time of the Vietnam War, they thought Europe was just the center of a struggle for dominance between the two superpowers, and wanted no part of it. However, Buchanan is nuts about the economy, and he's nuts about foreign bases. Buchanan's protectionism will get us a lot more companies like GM and Ford, loss-making albatrosses that cannot do anything right despite being in perhaps the most protected industry in America. (GM's workers get paid for not working, and some non-workers have been on the payroll for 10 years). Foreign bases are useful because they give us the capability to inflict big time damage upon anyone who does things like 9/11. At the same time, Uncle Sam has been too indiscriminate about signing up military "allies" who get bennies paid for by American taxpayers without shouldering any load in return. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-12-15 10:39 |