Afghan campaign
Army fury at refusal to bolster Afghan campaign
Senior commanders warn British strategic alliance with United States is being put at risk
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Britain's most senior military commanders have warned Gordon Brown that unless he sends more troops to Afghanistan Britain will lose credibility with its American allies, The Independent has learnt.
Senior generals are bemused that the Prime Minister has turned down the advice of his own Defence Secretary, John Hutton, that a larger force should be sent to Afghanistan following the withdrawal from Iraq. Now they have warned Number 10 that the reputation of the armed forces will suffer in the eyes of senior American commanders unless Mr Brown authorises an autumn surge in troop numbers. Such a surge, they say, would signal Britain's intent to "pull its weight" in the Afghan conflict by plugging the shortfall in the multinational force.
On Saturday, two more British troops died in Helmand, bringing to 165 the total number killed in the conflict so far – just 14 fewer than the total number of British soldiers who died in Iraq.
Mr Brown has until now turned down, on cost grounds, the generals' proposal to send 2,500 extra troops in support of the projected US-led "surge" against the Taliban. Instead, he has authorised a deployment of 700 temporary troops to cover the period of the forthcoming elections in that country. But The Independent has learnt that defence chiefs have persuaded the Government to review the situation in the autumn. Even then, any increase is likely to be in the hundreds rather than in the numbers that the Army believes are needed.
In a sign of the private concern felt by senior military personnel over the Government's stance, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, has publicly warned that Britain's strategic alliance with US is at risk unless British forces are seen to be pulling their weight in Afghanistan.
In a speech to the international relations think-tank Chatham House he said: "Britain's calculation has long been that maintaining military strategic 'partner-of-choice' status with the United States offers a degree of influence and security that has been pivotal to our foreign and defence policy. But this relationship can only be sustained if it is founded on a certain 'military credibility threshold'.
"Credibility with the US is earned by being an ally that can be relied on to state clearly what it will do and then does it effectively. And credibility is also linked to the vital currency of reputation." General Dannatt added that "unfairly or not" British performance in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been called into question by some in the US administration.
"In this respect there is recognition that our national and military reputation and credibility, unfairly or not, have been called into question at several levels in the eyes of our most important ally as a result of some aspects of the Iraq campaign," he said.
"Taking steps to restore this credibility will be pivotal, and Afghanistan provides an opportunity."
This view has been backed up Col David Kilcullen, a former Australian army officer who helped plan General Petraeus's surge in Iraq and acted as an advisor to Condoleezza Rice.
He told The Independent: "It is true that the British have received some criticism in the US, and some of it has been unwarranted. The Americans too made mistakes in Iraq, but they subsequently tried to rectify that.
"The British have a great opportunity to win back the credibility they have lost with the Americans and enhance it in Afghanistan."
Col Kilcullen, who remains close to senior figures in the US military, said that in his opinion the British General Sir David Richards, who is due to take over from General Dannatt as head of the Army, was "one of the best ever" head of Nato forces in Afghanistan.
He added: "No one doubts the professionalism and bravery of the British, and we accept that they already have a large force in Afghanistan. But we are coming to a crucial time in the campaign there, and I am sure more British help will be welcome."
The US is dispatching up to 17,000 troops to southern Afghanistan, with many of them going to Helmand, which is the centre of UK operations in the war. British commanders are convinced that after three years of committing resources and lives to the mission, reinforcements are essential to maintain the British footprint on the ground.
President Barack Obama is believed to have discussed additional troops for Afghanistan with Mr Brown. US commanders have also expressed disappointment at the shortfall in the troops being sent, especially after redeploying 4,000 troops from Baghdad to Basra to make up for the UK withdrawal from Iraq.
The Afghan campaign
8,300 British troops in Afghanistan
700 extra British troops deployed temporarily for election
610 British troops hurt from 1 January 2006 to 15 March 2009
175 British troops seriously injured between 1 January 2006 and 15 March 2009
165 British troops have lost their lives
39 British troops died in 2006 after taking over in Helmand
28 British troops killed in 2009
10 British troops seriously injured between 7 October 2001 and 31 December 2005
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
They have been there for years and achieved nothing. Eventually, they will be forced to run squealing like pigs all the way home to an ungrateful public.
They don't even know what they are supposed to be doing there - apart from killing little kids and women and then labelling the dead as insurgents.
They are a disgrace to humanity.
http://news.independentminds.livejourna
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the presence of British troops on the ground, the one thing that is certain is that the present equivocal policy of the British government is unsustainable. Either we go in whole-heartedly, with the far greater number of troops and upgraded materiel required to win this war, or we withdraw completely. It is all too clear that the British government has not got the political will to do the job properly, and is just muddling fearfully and short-sightedly along, not wanting to incur the wrath of the Americans but not willing to increase the size of the army (an absolute prerequisite for long-term engagement in Afghanistan, let alone other minor conflicts and peacekeeping the UK either is or will be engaged in) and commit fully to winning the Afghan War.
The implications of the present British government policy are disastrous in military, economic and political terms.
Harold Wilson was strong and brave enough to stand up to US pressure and keep the British military out of Vietnam. Like him or loathe him, his example exposes Blair and Brown for the political pygmies that they really are!
The current government have not tactics, let alone a strategy, for the current engagement in Afghanistan. The UK a century ago, the Russians and now the US experience illustrates how hard it is to control the country by armed occupation. The US withdrawal is only a matter of time, and the UK will join them in leaving with their tail between their legs.
Do you want your women and children to go fight for a gas pipeline?
The west is the only terrorists in Afghanistan.
What's that again? Unless we send more young lads to die fighting for US oil, then the US may spit its dummy?
Who cares? "Britain" (i.e. Blair) backed the US publicly when they needed us and then Blair got screwed in Iraq, why should anyone trust (never mind pander to) the Americans?
The killing has to stop. Enough innocent blood has been spilled.
"The British have a great opportunity to win back the credibility they have lost with the Americans and enhance it in Afghanistan."
LOST CREDIBILITY? That's a very black pot trying to pass judgement on the colour of a kettle.
Even if we sent 25,000 troops it would never be enough, the Russians could hardly control little more than islands of security with half a million troops, the Americans brashly are seeking to do the same with a third of that number and are failing especially when they bomb indiscriminately whole towns and then wonder why for every death caused by them, it recruits 50 more to fight the US.
And now, after stiffing us over credit ratings and leaning on us to buy their crappy debt, the Americans want us to pour more of our people and money into their lost causes and illegal wars?
We simply cannot afford it, we have more pressing things to pay for right now, repairing the damage of the Blair years is far more important than supporting a lost war that is nothing to do with us.
And would someone like to explain how we can lose credibility with a nation that has no credibility or moral authority left and has become the joke of the planet?
If the Americans want to walk away, fine by me, we got Europe, we don't need America...
Your point about Europe is so fitting, since the EEC/Common Market/EU was founded ut has been responsible for removing military dictatorships in Greece, Spain, Portugal and bringing peace to Northern Ireland, all without firing a shot. The dictators stepped down because they knew that only a democracy can be an EU member state.
As for the United States, they have spent billions of dollars on their military since 1945 and they lost in;
-Korea
-Vietnam
-Somailia
-Lebanon
-Haiti
Their client states in China, Iran, Venezuela and so on have all fallen.
You are so right, we don't need America...
The 'strategic alliance' consists of the UK providing cannon fodder and political coverage to further US interests at the expense of the best interests of the UK. British political leaders get to pose and preen in front of the tv camera's on visits to the White House and obtain lucrative book deals, lectures tours and corporate directorships and consultancies when they retire;
-Margaret Thatcher
-John Major
-Tony Blair
and no doubt Gordon Brown in return for doing what they were told while in office.
How has engagement in two Gulf Wars, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and so forth helped protect British citizens, made the UK more secure or the world a better place?
Anyone remember US support during the Suez Crisis?
Time to send Uncle Sam and his Bush-clone Barracks O'Bomber the ONE-FINGER SALUTE.
Who runs Britain?? The Brits, or some stetson-wearing cowboy SCUM? This has gone far enough!! Time General Dannatt was relieved of his command and locked-up in the nut-house where he belongs. Time "Sir" John Scarlett was arrested and tried for falsifying the evidence that took Britain to war.
Time Bliar and Brown were tried as traitors - the Romanians got it right when they dealt with Ceausescu.
And if the planned statue of Ronnie Raygun is built in Grosvenor Square, it will be the patriotic duty of every Brit to TEAR IT DOWN.
A: They were all funded into their positions by the US.
Hitler was financed by the American "power" elite into office, the same elite that also tried in 1933 to overthrow the US government and install a fascist dictatorship in its stead, notable figures involved were Henry Ford, the Rockefellers, George Bush's grandfather and great-grandfather.
The Taleban and Al Qaida... created by the CIA, funded and armed by the CIA to fight the Russians by proxy, trained by Pakistans ISI...
Hmm, I think you need to think carefully on what you think you know mate.
then they were screaming We are policing the world, just look at their record it was a discussing way of policing.
Now, top senior officers have criticize the government since Gulf War II, to such a state that they want to bring charges against the then Prime Minister, now Brown only consideration is to save his ass.
The top brass aim is to save the life of our troops, this is the first priority, who cares about what America think of our credibility, it is better for them to think of their credibility of the blood shed they have cause world wide.
There is not one military force who has ever won a war in Agfhistan.
The potent mixture of aggression and incompetence has revealed that the emperor has no clothes, that there is nothing to fear but fear itself! With only minimal fighters and very little resources, asymmetrical warfare means that the aggressors can be engaged and defeated in repeated engagements until their morale collapses and they withdraw.
The modern technology that came from the west has been effectively adopted by supposedly 'primitive' people who are able to turn it against their opponents. With only small arms. limited amounts of explosives and a communications network that consists of word of mouth and mobile phones, Iraqi, Afghan and Somali irregulars have trounced the mightiest military power in the world. Those with longer memories will recall the withdrawal of the US Marines from Lebanon in 1983.
The soldiers don't give up, the idiots who sent them there in the first place do.
3 million refugees in Swat! Thtas is how histrory will judge that creap Tony Blair, or TB as he likes to be called. I though that that was a highly infectious disease.
It doesn't take a genius to work out "I know Bin Laden is dead and I'll prove it to you" equates to a short time later dying in highly questionable circumstances... The Bhutto assassination was not some random gunman chancing his arm, it was a highly sophisticated operation.
Even Seymour Hersch has hinted heavily that the order may have come from Cheney, directly or indirectly we will never know. The Bush administration needed OBL to wave at the people and the revelation that he was long dead would have caused some very awkward questions.