Britain Plans to Send 500 More Soldiers to Afghanistan

Britain Plans to Send 500 More Soldiers to Afghanistan

www.nytimes.com

LONDON — Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a cautious and heavily conditioned plan on Wednesday to send 500 more British troops to Afghanistan, which would raise Britain’s contingent — the second largest in the 41-nation coalition fighting the eight-year war — to 9,500.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The British prime minister Gordon Brown has pledged 500 more troops to Afghanistan - if certain conditions are met. RT discusses the latest initiative, we are now joined live from London by Bob Bailey - from the British National Party.

Interesting turn of events. I'm surprised they added more troops. Anybody knows what Canada is going to do? I say if the coalition countries don't want to be involved in the combat then they should get busy training the Afghanistan military and police units so they can take a larger part in it's maintenance and defense. While we do the fighting.

Remember: IMO this fall/winter is going to get tough as the Taliban get pushed out of their winter hideouts in Pakistan by the Pakistani push that is already 3 or 4 days old now. They will flood back into Afghanistan.



www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Pakistan is a known Taliban hideout during the winter months from their fight in Afghanistan that's why there is the new big Pakistani push being assembled. This is also why McCrystal is asking for more troops. Once the Pakistanis push them out of their safe haven they will flood back into Afghanistan.

Understand whats happening.

Pakistan Braces for Taliban Attacks as It Prepares Offensive

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani interior minister said Tuesday that the government was expecting more attacks by the Taliban as the military prepared to launch a major offensive in South Waziristan, the rugged northwestern tribal region considered a stronghold of Taliban.

Obama's Afghanistan decision easier than claimed

President Obama has what everyone is conceding is a momentous decision on Afghanistan. The decision is whether to follow the recommendations of General McCrystal and send in more troops or not.

First let me say I have a good deal of respect for the Royal Marines we did some joint ops with them and they really know their stuff... The Canucks tend to follow the UK's lead.... for god queen and country as it were... we should hear something from them after this is settled

AP sources: Afghan corruption worries McChrystal

A still-secret document by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal that requests more troops is expected to be among the topics discussed Wednesday when President Barack Obama meets with his national security team to hash out a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Even with additional troops, McChrystal concluded that corruption still could let terrorists turn Afghanistan back into a haven, according to officials at the Pentagon and White House.

His request outlines three options for additional troops — from as many as 80,000 to as few as 10,000 — but favors a compromise of 40,000 more forces, the officials said. They described it to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

reply to post by DaddyBare


as of the 9th...

OTTAWA–Two cabinet ministers have signalled Parliament will decide Canada's future role in Afghanistan when the government settles on a precise configuration for the new mission. Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the Commons defence committee Thursday that Canada will not leave Afghanistan completely after the combat mission ends in 2011, but the role will change from war-fighting to development and training. He says the government is committed to withdraw Canada's battle group starting in July 2011. The Canadian Press

But as we all know, things change quickly.

source

[edit on 14-10-2009 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by SLAYER69


I hear they're also planning on sending 30 pairs of boots, 200 rounds of ammunition and a couple of Fiat Puntos.

We don't need more soldiers. We need equipment so that those already there can do their job properly.

btw I heard today my Stepbrother is one of these 500....

I saw our general's plan to pull back from the more remote areas to concentrate on protecting the more populated areas, and hope the Brits jump in there to fight this dumbass strategy.

If you're going on a bug hunt, you gotta go where the bugs are.

If you let them come to you, you already lost.

You have just accorded them freedom of movement while sacrificing your own.

If you do not know when or where the battles are going to be fought, then how can you hope to win?

His "winning hearts and minds" only work when you have them by the testes.

Alesia. The Alamo.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Originally posted by Essan
btw I heard today my Stepbrother is one of these 500....

I wish him good luck, this is a nasty war we are fighting and our men have not got the equipment and weaponry they deserve; something they should be able to rely on.

If we can't afford these wars then why do we continue to keep fighting them?

reply to post by SLAYER69


From Source:

Mr. Brown’s menu of possible options for these countries suggested that Britain and the United States may have concluded that Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, among others, are unlikely to agree to new combat roles, but may be ready to make other contributions that would ease the overall burden of the war on countries like Britain and the United States.

It's good to see our European brothers having a significant contribution to the Afghanistan peace effort, also, considering all we did for them in past wars and the Marshall Plan (WWII recovery)!

I don't see Canada getting more involved in this just less involved in fact.

The entire country really opposes the war, or at least around 65% or so.
If not more

they have about 3K troops there now and want a complete pullout by 2011 and do not intend to send more troops.

500 more? Why bother at all.

If you want to send troops then give something meaningful, like along the lines of the 86,000 man force sent to France in 1914. THAT would be more then enough to make a difference.

reply to post by LadySkadi

your right that no one wants to go out on the line for these people...we did slack off, making Iraq top priority... Now Afghanistan has re-surged and threatens to once again destabilize the region... I think the UN knows that... with a little luck Canada can still follow threw on their 2011 withdraw plan... but only if we mount a decisive action soon before it drags out...

If Obama sends troops and 57% of Americans are against it this must mean democracy is dead. Same goes for England. I am sure the majority of the good people of Britain are against this move. How can leaders defy the will of their people like that. The only expination must be that they are not giving the public all the information needed to make that dicision.

SCENARIOS: Obama's options in Afghan war

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama faces key decisions soon on the war in Afghanistan, where insurgent violence has reached its highest level since the Taliban was ousted from power in late 2001.

On one side of the White House debate are proposals to send at least 40,000 additional troops and trainers as part of a beefed-up counterinsurgency strategy advocated by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.

On the other side are plans to hold steady on troop levels in Afghanistan and concentrate on attacking al Qaeda targets along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and in Pakistan itself with the greater use of drones and special forces, a proposal backed by Vice President Joe Biden.

Who to trust?

More Troops Needed, Says Afghan Diplomat By Gary Thomas Washington 14 October 2009

Said Jawad Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States has called for President Obama to adopt a clear counterinsurgency strategy for his country, and to back it up with the deployment of additional troops. In an interview with VOA's Gary Thomas, he says the intelligence agencies of neighboring Pakistan were involved in the recent attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

Originally posted by DaddyBare
First let me say I have a good deal of respect for the Royal Marines we did some joint ops with them and they really know their stuff... The Canucks tend to follow the UK's lead.... for god queen and country as it were... we should hear something from them after this is settled

I've never doubted our cousins fighting abilities. It does seem from that side of the pond though that they feel they have not supplied their troops with the correct type or enough of equipment.

IMO had we not made a detour through Baghdad and simply stuck with Afghanistan and then immediately followed up like we should have sooner we would be in a much better stance. I agree with Dooper. Once they come out in numbers instead of the present game of cat and mouse we have been playing the advantage goes back to the US/UK/West.

Falling back then later paying for the same real estate again is a poor way to attempt a win.

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

From Source:

Mr. Brown’s menu of possible options for these countries suggested that Britain and the United States may have concluded that Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, among others, are unlikely to agree to new combat roles, but may be ready to make other contributions that would ease the overall burden of the war on countries like Britain and the United States.

It's good to see our European brothers having a significant contribution to the Afghanistan peace effort, also, considering all we did for them in past wars and the Marshall Plan (WWII recovery)!

Again I say if they don't want to contribute in a combat role they should at least focus their endeavors on training and equipping the Afghanistan Military/Police.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
500 more? Why bother at all.

See Canada for example would consider 500 ALOT
that's why they only have 3K there

The U.S. uses the very large majority of it's funds for wars
this means it is a military country
Canada is not

UK wouldn't consider 500 as much as Canada would, but it's still a good direction... and a bad one I guess but symbolically a good one.

reply to post by ChrisF231


At least we are sending troops you ignoramise. Compared to the rest of the nations in NATO.

reply to post by earthdude



The UK Public are against it, They want our troops out of there, willany off the political parties listen NO. It is ridiculous, thier old argument with regards to torroists waved thin, with the UK PUblic a long time ago. OH BTW, annoys me when people say only the troops come from england, er scotland, wales and Northenr Ireland too you know!