Revealed:
Revealed: Brown's secret plan to cut Afghanistan force by 1,500
Military chiefs condemn 'disastrous' move after Britain suffers bloodiest week
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Ministers are secretly planning to cut the number of British troops in Afghanistan, at a time when defence chiefs are appealing for thousands more reinforcements to meet the deadly threat from the resurgent Taliban.
Hours after the death toll of UK forces in Afghanistan rose above the number killed in Iraq, The Independent on Sunday established that Gordon Brown wants to bring up to 1,500 service personnel home from the war-torn country after its elections next month, seemingly on grounds of cost.
Astonished former military chiefs condemned the "disastrous" move, which emerged at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks in the recent history of the British military.
General Sir Hugh Beach, a former deputy commander of British land forces, said: "They ought to be sending the extra 2,000 men the generals have asked for because it's quite obvious that if we're going to get anywhere with this campaign it's troops on the ground that are going to cut the mustard. To reduce numbers now seems to be crazy... and [makes] nonsense of everything the Army has tried to do so far."
Colonel Bob Stewart, who commanded UK forces in Bosnia, said: "The Army apparently asked for 2,500 men and was given 750. The real resource in Afghanistan is manpower, and they ain't got it."
The deepening crisis in Afghanistan has dominated the political agenda in recent days, as the number of British military killed in the conflict rose to 184 – five more than the total lost by UK forces in Iraq. Ferocious fighting during Operation Panther's Claw, the offensive aimed at clearing the Taliban from central Helmand Province, has claimed the lives of 15 British soldiers in 10 days. Eight died in 24 hours at the end of last week.
Senior ministers, including Mr Brown, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Secretary of State for Defence, Bob Ainsworth, have striven to justify the mission amid growing doubts over the reasons for remaining in Afghanistan and over the Government's ability to give UK forces the tools they need to do the job.
The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, last week fractured the cross-party consensus over the eight-year Afghan campaign by questioning the Government's commitment to the forces, and challenging the Prime Minister to show that the sacrifices of troops "have not been in vain".
Amid growing frustration over the death toll, Tory leader, David Cameron, yesterday said it was a "scandal" that British forces lacked vital equipment, including helicopters.
Mr Miliband reinforced the Government's commitment to the conflict, claiming it was essential to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming an "incubator for terrorism" that serves as a launching pad for attacks on the West.
"This is about the future of Britain because we know that the badlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan – that border area – have been used to launch terrible attacks, not just on the United States, but on Britain as well," he said.
"We know that until we can ensure there is a modicum of stability and security provided by Afghan forces for their own people, we are not going to be able to be secure in our own country."
In a letter to senior MPs yesterday Mr Brown stoutly defended his Afghan policy, saying the global terror threat that sparked the invasion in 2001 remained a danger. Mr Brown also told the liaison committee, in advance of his appearance before them this week: "We will, of course, continue to review force levels, based on the advice of our commanders and discussions with allies."
The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, also emphasised Britain's commitment to provide whatever equipment British troops might need, and pointed to the extra troops sent in preparation for the elections, but said the figures were being constantly reviewed.
But a senior MoD source yesterday said the Prime Minister wanted up to 1,500 personnel – troops and support staff – pulled out of Afghanistan once the election campaign is concluded. The decision conflicts with demands for an Obama-style surge to defeat the Taliban threat, and comes only weeks after Mr Brown rejected a request from defence chiefs for 2,000 more troops.
An MoD spokesman confirmed yesterday that hundreds of troops would be returning after the election – although he said any withdrawal would involve 700 troops sent in "temporarily" in April to help maintain security ahead of the elections. He added: "This is an international mission to which the UK is the second largest troop contributor. UK forces are doing a large part of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, having provided the vast majority of international forces in the most difficult province in the country for the past three years.
"While we will continue to keep the position under review, there is no plan to reduce troop numbers by 1,500 from their current levels."
But critics said the rising death toll demanded an increase in troop numbers beyond the current 9,000 – not a reduction – and warned that, failing a change of plan under political pressure following last week's deaths, the military was falling victim to government cuts.
The shadow Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, said: "Commanders have been telling us that they need more boots on the ground. To be reducing the numbers seems to fly in the face of military need. It would be a disaster if Labour were to make decisions on deployment based on political interest and not the safety and welfare of our armed forces."
Colonel Clive Fairweather, a former SAS commander, said there were also rumours about cuts in infantry battalions in the years ahead. He added: "This surge is for 20 August, but it's no good just to have it for then. You've got to have it permanently, you've got to be able to hold the ground and at the moment the Afghan army is not big enough to hold the ground. If there were 2,000 more troops there now the casualties would probably be lighter.
"I think it would be a terrible mistake to take troops away in October, both from an operational point of view and a morale point of view – it's disastrous when in fact there should be 2,000 more actually there now. Frankly, any talk of bringing troops back would leave a very bitter taste in the mouth all round."
The US President, Barack Obama, last night said that coalition partners would consider increasing their contribution to Afghanistan after the election on 20 August. He also signalled that the move would not necessarily mean more troops.
He added: "My heart goes out to the families of those [fallen] British soldiers. Great Britain has played an extraordinary role in this coalition, understanding that we cannot allow either Afghanistan or Pakistan to be a safe haven for al-Qa'ida."
Britain's Afghan brigades
The 'pull out now' brigade
Robin Beste Stop the War Coalition
"There is no possibility of stability or security in Afghanistan while a single foreign soldier remains in the country."
Paul Flynn Labour MP
"We created the insurgency by our presence in 2006. Ministers sleepwalked into Helmand and changed what was a manageable situation into one that is now unwinnable."
Correlli Barnett Military historian
"Without such a brave decision [to pull out], British servicemen and women will go on pointlessly dying, while a more and more disillusioned nation simply wants our troops home."
Boris Gromov Ex-commander of the 40th army in Afghanistan
"The international forces must leave Afghanistan alone militarily, and switch to [solving its] economic problems. This would benefit all."
The 'we have to commit - or withdraw' brigade
Nick Clegg Liberal Democrat leader
"Gordon Brown must stop pretending that this is somehow someone else's conflict. The Government is willing the ends, but not willing the means."
David Cameron Conservative leader
"The Government must explain its strategy in Afghanistan, and how it will ensure success. Above all, it must urgently provide the key equipment, such as helicopters, our troops need."
Colonel Bob Stewart Ex-commander of British forces in Bosnia
"The armed forces were promised all the means necessary to achieve operational effectiveness – equipment, transport, and manpower. We should do the job properly."
Dr John Nagl President of the Center for a New American Security
"The British commitment is absolutely essential to holding southern Afghanistan, now that so many UK soldiers have given their lives to clear it."
The 'don't panic' brigade
Gordon Brown Prime Minister
"Our resolve to complete the work that we have started in Afghanistan is undiminished. We must help deliver a free and fair presidential election in Afghanistan."
David Miliband Foreign Secretary
"This is about the future of Britain, as we know the borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan have been used to launch terrible attacks, not just on the US but on Britain as well."
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup Chief of the Defence Staff
"The Taliban ... are losing. But it's going to take time and alas it does involve casualties, but there will be the opportunity for considerably greater governance for the people of Helmand."
Dr David Kilcullen Counter-insurgency adviser to US
"I feel a greater degree of confidence in Afghanistan today than in the past six months. We are finally starting to take the fight to the enemy in the south and east."
The military brigade
General Stanley McChrystal Head, US and Nato forces in Afghanistan
"We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories but suffering strategic defeats. The Taliban cannot militarily defeat us, but we can defeat ourselves."
Field Marshall Lord Bramall Former chief of defence staff
"Our best hope at the moment is the new US strategy and extra troops to give it our best shot for the next year or so and hope we can get some sort of stability there."
General Sir Hugh Beach Ex-deputy commander, British land forces
"They ought to be sending the extra 2,000 men the generals asked for, as it's obvious that if we're going to get anywhere, it's troops on the ground that are going to cut the mustard."
Pavel Grachev Soviet general
"I believed as sincerely as US officers do now that we were fighting there to help make our country safer. After the war, as a politician, I could see this war had been pointless."
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
I suppose the flaw with such a plan would be that it might expose who the real terrorists are. And it could be bad for financial markets. It might also mess up the plans for the oil pipeline. On the other hand, if a nuclear attack were well thought out, it might be possible to level a few mountains and make the construction of the oil pipeline easier.
Surreal?
Isn't what we are presented with as 'news' surreal?
Guardian - Brown set to reinforce troops in Afghanistan
Two thousand troops could be sent to Helmand following a review after the bloodiest day
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju
I wonder which the BBC will go with?
In answer to the MOD's shot across the bows, Nulab has used its trust Pravda the Guardian to show a white flag:
So this is all duelling-by-media-proxy between the generals and the politicians, a familiar sight in the world's banana republics. You Brits should start getting used to it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8146327.s
I can't help but think the sacrifice of those who are dying fighting under the orders of, and with the limited 'support' of his cosy government might have seen this phrased a tad better.
And the Americans have nothing to feel smug about either, they spent billions of 1940's dollars to prop up Chiang Ki Shek and by 1949 he had been pushed out of mainland China by the communists and was living in Formosa (Taiwan).
involved in reconstruction work in the Northern part of Afghanistan but the British, as well as Canadians and the Netherlands, troops are in the very dangerous Helmand province near the border with Pakistan, which is where Al Qaeda has its training bases.
However, it is bad enough that we do not have enough servicemen and women to be able to deal with what is a terrorist game of war made worse by the lack of airborne transport and fire-power resources, hardened vehicles and weapons and materiel to enable to commanders on the ground to carry out their task. As the Chinese Warlord Sun Tzu wrote circa 400 BC, "In warfare: If you are ten times the enemy's strength, then surround them; if you are five times, attack them; if more than double their strength, divide them; if equal, be able to fight them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, avoid them", "He who wishes to fight must first count the cost", and, "I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted."
In other words, you cannot conduct warfare on the cheap and you must be prepared to spend as much as it takes to complete the task; that it takes a great deal of time, effort, planning and money if you wish to get involved in any conflict no matter how small; and, any conflict must be conducted as swiftly, efficiently and effectively as possible, with the lowest possible loss of life, otherwise you will never win any battle, let alone win a war.
You cannot keep cutting the defence budget, which is precisely what has been happening in Britain over many decades, under previous administrations and certainly under this government and Chancellor, and expect men and machinery to prosecute any war or conflict and to function without more than sufficient replacements, on roulement, to continue with the task. And, it is crass to apply so-called commercial best-business practice in the selection and procurement of ships, aircraft, vehicles, weapons, equipment and machinery for defence purposes, rather, instead of going for the cheapest option based in just-in-time techniques one must purchase the best systems available for the task and in sufficient numbers to ensure replacements are available.
Gordon Brown must answer for this because it was he, as Chancellor, who deliberately cut the defence budget in 1997 and for the years up to and including 2004 despsitre our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the chancellor who personally took part in cutting the army's infantry battalions at a time when infantry was urgently needed to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. But generally, too, there seems to be a remarkable lack of understanding or sympathy for the armed forces. Military personnel will never forget his hands on this affair.
Well come back and arrest the traitor Troughminster rabble then, and convey them to the Tower - to await the election of more effective representatives and the exercise of the popular will - which won't be very forgiving as the economy slides inexorably down the tube
The point is that very few of our fat-bottomed politicians have served in any branch of HM Armed Forces, very few have any idea how the military operates and what the various specializations and expertise that each naval and military man has nor their professionalism, commitment, teamwork and determination.
As usual, and as per WWI we have Lions that are led by Donkeys.
(Personally, I find it difficult to believe.)
My previous submissions in response were removed, not approved, deleted - basically I suspect that the comment is merely political spin and rhetoric.
Either way we must be so lucky to have such clever politicians
As a correspondent has said our troops were sent there to rebuild the country. Naturally, the people of Afghanistan don't want foreign armies deciding their priorities and future. The are doing what we would all do if invaded by foreigners - fight back and boot out the invaders.
For over 60 years now our politicians have been unable to come to terms with the fact that Britain no longer has an Empire and is most defintely not a world power which can dictate to others the sorts of government is prefers. Hanging onto the USA's shirt tails does not make one a world power, more of a world joke.
We spend billions on weapons and war in a vain effort to pretend that we are still a major world power. That money would be better spent on industry and our infrastructure. The rest of Europe learnt the lesson a long time ago, and it is plain for any visitor to see that they spend their taxpayers money wisely.
It keeps amazing me that not only have we as a species failed to move beyond killing each other but that we put so many resources into it. We spend so much on making arms, paying a full time military, etc., resources that could acually be much better spent on progressing the species.
Seems that it is the minority hat persist in this activity, mainly our leaders and mainly against the wishes of the population. One can only ask if there is something wrong in the nature of the leaders we are electing and that maybe we should get ourselves leaders who do not want to invade other countries and kill people there. Maybe then the human race and start to progress a bit.
From the start, McDoom strongly hinted that the extra troops were only there for the elections and then out. Liebour are now using the 'It is unpatriotic to say any thing controversial about the war' approach. This aligns with Lab complaining about the military campaining for more troops in Afganistan. So the lines are set, McDoom wants numbers to drop because he has economically destroyed the country and the Military want more troops. Only time will tell who gets their way.
Untill Brown starts talking a language the public can understand, the war will create
controversy. Politicians arn't winning the war on words and, it's very obvious reading the
comments on here.
We've took seven years to stand in one place. The politician looks to be meandering
in line with the troops.
Brown looks indecisive.
Also he was not corrupt, that did not suit Bush so he was thwarted in his aims.
Needless to say he was killed later by his enemies?
While overseas wars are happening in Afghanistan--and still, to an extent Iraq, Britain has been put on an undeclared security and war footing.
The general public are losing their peace of mind and freedom, in order to fulfil the wishes of global corporatism, vanguarded by US foreign policy, founded under Reagan, and constructed to its present form, during the reign of terror, by the mad emperor W Bush.
The only people safe, during these warring periods, are those who sit close to the new emperors--in the seats around the arena. Soldiers are fighting, the public are harried--and in the high seats it becomes a source for discussion and entertainment.
Second Boer War - finished in 1902/1903;
1914 - 1918 - WWII
WWII - 1938 - 1945
Korean War - 1950 - 1954
Kenya - Mau Mau insurrection - 1952 - 1959
Malaysia emergency campaign - 1957 - 1966
Northern Ireland - 1966 - 2005
Falklands Campaign War - 1982
First Gulf War - 1990 - 1992
War in Afghanistan - 2001 and ongoing in 2009
War in Iraq - 2003 and ongoing in 2009
Of course some were involved in the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939. Little wonder national resources are strained, the piggy-bank is empty and the nation bordering on bankruptcy.
I understand that The Guardian is a "Left" newspaper but surely two conflicting stories in two national newspapers raises questions (like we needed reminding) about the accuracy of journalistic reporting? By the way, The Independent is also supposed to be a "Left" newspaper but don't they all just love David Cameron now!
Brown's cowardice is putting the lives of our brave troops in danger. This hypocrite of a PM must be the worst PM in history to send our troops into war under resourced and undermanned.
He will die with eternal shame on his conscience.
Furthermore if the govt. were to announce troop withdrawls from Afghanistan it would be done post-elections (in Afghanistan) and in public, when the British govt. could ride on a high knowing that democratic elections had been served in Afghanistan.
This article is nothing more than scare-mongering to show a heavily divided Labour Party that has lost the support of the MoD...crap journalism.
Adrian, Vancouver, BC
probably best just to cut our losses and withdraw completely and just see what happens
moral: never grab a tiger by the tail