British troops must stay in Iraq as Nato dithers

[cal04]

The Army's long-heralded deployment to Afghanistan has been postponed by several months as other Nato countries dither over putting their troops in jeopardy. It means that, despite Tony Blair's hints during a visit to Basra before Christmas, there will be no substantial troop reductions in Iraq this year. Ministers must decide next week whether to take the risk of sending a larger force than was originally planned to Helmand province in south Afghanistan, putting even greater pressure on overstretched infantry battalions. That decision will be influenced by whether the Dutch parliament agrees to send 1,200 troops to Afghanistan as Nato moves into territory previously patrolled by the US.

If the Dutch refuse, the alliance will have to look elsewhere and there is a distant possibility that Britain's spearhead battalion, which can be deployed at very short notice, could plug the gap for six months. A spokesman for the Dutch defence ministry rated the chances of agreement on the deployment at "50-50". Members of 3 Para and a squadron of Apache helicopters have been training since the autumn and three ships loaded with stores and equipment have been tied up in Karachi waiting for the deployment to go ahead.

More than 300 troops, including special forces, are in Helmand preparing for the contingent's arrival. John Reid, the Defence Secretary, must win the agreement of colleagues at next week's Cabinet meeting to a force of almost 4,000 troops in Afghanistan. A Whitehall source said: "Potentially we could go it alone but this would need every minister's support and could easily become a hot potato." There is still great uncertainty over the precise role the troops will play and a lack of clarity over tackling the illicit opium economy. Defence chiefs have stated that the soldiers will not actively pursue the Taliban or al-Qa'eda terrorists and are there to protect "provincial reconstruction teams".

A Nato source said it was never easy to make up the numbers for missions in which there was a possibility of fighting terrorists. "Some nations are concerned about being too close to anti-terrorist operations and links with America," he said. "If the Dutch fail to provide the troops it will be a serious problem but we will find a way through it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/17/wafg17.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_17012006

[EuroObserver]

1. So, just why is the US pulling out of there? n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

2. because it can - NATO agreed to participate in Afghanistan

remember that there was UN agreement about an invasion of Afghanistan. The international community will be able to deploy troops, even Germany and France have contributed contingents there. Unfortunately there have been rumbles about an upcoming guerilla offensive in the coming months. recently techniques like suicide bombers have appeared for the first time in country as well. The Taleban are alive and kicking in Afghanistan.

[EuroObserver]

3. The Taleban are alive and kicking in Afghanistan

Very much so (amongst other strongmen and factions).

This is not a security and reconstruction job. This will be anti-guerrilla warfare (in Afghanistan, for God's sake). Maybe we should ask the Russians to help
:sarcasm:

[TheBaldyMan]

4. congrats on the 1000th post

I'd say that treating Afghanistan as an anti-guerilla operation would doom the venture to failure.

It might sound like heresy but a negotiated settlement involvong all parties seems like the only way forward. Painful and protracted but the Afghans have suffered enough since '79.

[EuroObserver]

5. Bejaysus, thanks,

I hadn't even noticed. Was in stock market watch mode <g>.

I agree. And I see via my Spanish press Kofi Annan and other important players also insisting on negotiated ways forward (in the context of Iran and elsewhere - ie. Bush regime fallout).

[enigma000]

9. The Taliban just rejected an offer to negotiate

with the Afghan government. And most Afghans don't like the Taliban much anyways.....

Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276

[TheBaldyMan]

10. I read the ABC report but I'm suspicious of the findings

the geographical distribution of sampling is concentrated in government controlled areas. There eare some areas like Kandahar, long noted as the heartland of the Taleban, that have very few sampling points even though it is one of the largest cities in Afghanistan. Also Kunar province lately a hotbed of activity does not look like it has been sampled.

[MrPrax]

6. Only half right...

NATO is mandated for Europe only and was originally conceived as an alliance to fight the Warsaw bloc. In many countries in EU, as well as the UK, this is a much bigger problem and parallel negotiations for a Euro only alliance is still going on...

Besides, all is not lost, a far right Tory gov't is going to be elected in Canada, and LIKE the current right wing gov't, Canada will increase it's troop role without debate and easily replace the Dutch committment.

But you are right, few gov'ts (esp. democratic ones) want to be in a situation where the US can provide 'death from above' offshore, while 'western' targets take the retailiation on the ground.

Afghanistan is as much a quagmire as Iraq and will be remembered as the first fronts of a Third World War.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. You seem to consider the election of a far right government a good thing.

More details please.

[MrPrax]

8. Nawh being cynical...

surprised you missed it...basically the Tories are pledged to ramp their military spending and involvement across the board and so, this NEW government, in order to show just how more Pro-American empire than the last one, which doubled and changed it's committment without debate (in a minortiy gov't no less).

So if the Dutch get cold feet, we'll assume that Canada will be MORE than willing to continue it's hypocrisy and just do whatever needs to be done with the Afghan project.

The more countries that can be pulled into this, the better for the Bushites...it makes the war on terror more nationalistic as 'dead bodies' come back and the national supporters want to 'take' it a step farther in revenge.

Canada's image is managed essentially and mostly Americans tend to look at the country (all countries) in terms of things American's don't get from their government (universal health care, gun control) or things that Americans are in disagreement with...(trade or 'lack of Xtian values';-)