| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Reid admits latest Afghan mission will leave army overstretched |
| 2006-01-27 |
| MORE than 5,000 British troops will be deployed in Afghanistan in a £1 billion mission the government says is vital to combat global terrorism. John Reid, the Defence Secretary, yesterday directly linked the deployment to Afghanistan - larger than many had expected - to the 11 September attacks on the US and the al-Qaeda terrorist network. But the mission to the unstable Helmand province in southern Afghanistan will leave the army overstretched even by the Ministry of Defence's own measures, Dr Reid admitted. Under the so-called Harmony Guidelines, soldiers should be given 24 months between operational deployments. Questioned in the Commons, Dr Reid said the Afghan deployment would cut that average to 21 months "and that is not satisfactory". Under a long-standing agreement with NATO partners, Britain will lead an expansion of the alliance's mission in Afghanistan, with the first additional troops arriving within months. Other countries, including Canada, will bring the NATO mission in Helmand to 9,000. The 3,300 heavily armed troops Dr Reid announced yesterday will be preceded by 800 engineers. Along with British forces already in the country, the Afghan contingent will peak at 5,700 this summer. For most of the three-year mission, however, the British force in the country will number around 4,700, slightly more than half the size of the UK presence in southern Iraq. MPs of all parties yesterday raised fears of confusion between the NATO "stability" mission and a separate US-led campaign to hunt down terrorists in Afghanistan. While Dr Reid insisted that the British troops' "primary mission" was not to hunt down al-Qaeda, he clearly linked the broader objectives of his deployment to defeating terrorism. Reminding MPs that NATO troops first entered Afghanistan in 2001 to topple the Taleban regime that sheltered al-Qaeda, Dr Reid said the dangers of the deployment are justified. "Whatever the difficulties and risks of this deployment - and I do not hide them - those risks are nothing compared to the dangers to our country and our people of allowing Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of the Taleban and the terrorists," he said. Dr Reid's admission about the Harmony rules was not the only sign that the Afghan mission will put pressure on the armed forces. Up to 200 of the core deployment could be reservists, some of whom were also called up for service in Iraq. Senior army officers have admitted they are concerned that MoD planners are relying heavily on the Territorial Army for current operations, forcing some reservists to quit and harming recruitment of new part-time soldiers. The second front will also put strain on the RAF. Air Force commanders have said that transporting troops to south Asia will be a struggle, and they could be forced to charter commercial planes to cope. Some soldiers in Iraq have effectively been stranded by a shortage of transport planes; others have been forced to travel on public transport back to their bases on return to Britain. Angus Robertson, the SNP MP whose Moray constituency includes the Kinloss and Lossiemouth RAF bases, yesterday challenged Dr Reid about transporting the Afghan force. In reply, Dr Reid admitted that Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Air Staff, is still "trying to make sure" that there are enough appropriate planes "that we can make sure our soldiers get home properly". BRITAIN'S overstretched army could lose the equivalent of an infantry battalion because of a law about to be passed in South Africa. Following Sir Mark Thatcher's involvement in a failed African coup plotted in South Africa, the government there is introducing legislation planned to control its citizens' involvement in foreign military organisations. Though aimed mainly at mercenary groups, the law will also cover South African nationals serving in the British military. The new rules are expected to take effect within weeks. There are 710 South African nationals serving in British forces, 650 of them in the army. The Ministry of Defence has admitted that once South Africa's Prohibition of Mercenary Activity Act takes force, Britain will have to seek Pretoria's permission for South African nationals to enlist in the British services. Separate permission will have to be sought should Britain want to send South Africans to conflict zones such as Iraq. South Africa strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted in a written answer to parliament that the law "would require permission to be sought for South African personnel to serve in the UK armed forces". Charles Nqakula, South Africa's safety and security minister, confirmed that it will become illegal for South African citizens to serve in the British Army at a time when the UK is at war. That last para from Comrade Nqakula is curious in light of recent visits by the Iranians. Comrade Nqakula received his military training in Angola, the FSU, and East Germany in the mid-80's I might add. Beseoker post. |
| Posted by:Creck Ulagum6581 |
| #9 The EU has 400 hundred million peplez, give or take 100 mil, and they demand full status recognition in world affairs. How can they be taken seriously when they haven't funded or commited more organic expeditionary brigades fully capable of sustaining combat, engineering, training or supply? the EU is somthin for nothin. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-01-27 18:15 |
| #8 Pull the troops out of Germany and South Korea. |
| Posted by: doc 2006-01-27 15:55 |
| #7 The British Army is only about 100,000 and they have troops deployed in Bosnia/Kosovo(4,000), Iraq(8,000), Afghanistan, Northern Ireland(10,000), Middle East(4,000), Falklands, Sierra Leone, as well as non hazardous duty stations like Germany and Gibralter. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-27 15:16 |
| #6 OK, I'm gonna piss in the punchbowl and say the Brits, NATO, and many of the American troops don't need to be there. The western troop commitment is as large as the 35,000 man Afghan army. The European forces don't need to patrol Kabul. The Afghans are perfectly capable of, and more effective at, doing that themselves. The Afghans should be the ones leading the fight against the Taliban and their Pakistani cohorts. We try to do too much for others, and in the process, weaken them. The Afghans have had four years for reorganization and rebuilding. Let them run with the ball. In addition, I would like to see American forces concentrate on: 1. Training and equiping the Afghan military to full strength. 2. Hunting down Al Qaeda on both sides of the border. 3. Provide an overwatch force against any large scale action from Pakistan or Iran. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-27 15:05 |
| #5 5,000 stretches their capacity? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-27 14:54 |
| #4 LOL, Nimble. That's an unfortunate moniker for the Air Marshal to be saddled with, for sure. Almost as bad as that General Chicken fella the Chinese are always on about. |
| Posted by: psychohillbilly 2006-01-27 14:33 |
| #3 Air Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-27 14:09 |
| #2 Sounds like a solid plan Plainslow. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-27 13:34 |
| #1 Any chance these guys are gettign ready to provide a blocking mission for the Americans as they go into Pakistan, and start chasing the non-infidels directley into the hands of the British? |
| Posted by: plainslow 2006-01-27 13:30 |