You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
British troops 'cannot bear brunt of Barack Obama's Afghanistan surge'
2008-11-10
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, warned that the British military was already over-stretched, and suggested that troops from other Nato countries should be sent to fight.

Mr Obama has spoken of his desire to see a surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan, similar to that which appears to have had success against extremists in Iraq, to finally quell the Taliban insurgency. But Sir Jock said that British troops were already struggling to cope with fighting in the two theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan, and could not take on more demands.

His words were echoed by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who agreed that other Nato countries should take responsibility for any fresh surge in Afghanistan. Both men also ruled out sending British troops to the Congo to bolster the United Nations force in central Africa.

There are currently 8,100 military personnel serving in Afghanistan, with another 4,100 in Iraq due to withdraw by the middle of next year. Sir Jock said that they should not be redeployed to Afghanistan once their mission in Iraq ended, adding: "I am a little nervous when people use the word 'surge' as if this were some sort of panacea. We welcome more military force being sent to Afghanistan. Everybody needs to do their share, we are very clear on that. In the context of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are shouldering a burden which is more than we are able to shoulder in the long term, so we expect the others to take up their share of that burden."

Appearing with Sir Jock on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Mr Miliband was asked if Mr Obama's proposed surge would require an increase in the size of Britain's commitment there. He said: "Not necessarily, no. As the second-largest contributor of troops in Afghanistan, the first thing we say is that we don't want to bear an unfair share of the burden."

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, also warned that Britain was already making a "disproportionate contribution" to the Nato effort in Afghanistan. He told Sky News' Sunday Live: "We do need the rest of Nato to play its part in Afghanistan and undoubtedly it seems that Barack Obama does intend to send larger US forces and that is part of what is necessary in Afghanistan. We would all take some persuading that there would have to be a much larger British contingent there - there's already a very large British contingent."

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that the Government should talk to Iranian and Taliban leaders in order to find lasting resolutions to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He added: "Negotiation with both the Taliban and Iran may be unpalatable, but it is the only route to success, and if it doesn't happen now it will be too late."
Posted by:john frum

#9  Given the ongoing saga reflected in this and infinite earlier stories, it really makes one wonder about the French, British and Russian nuclear arsenals. Could they be approaching Pakistani levels of efficiency?
Posted by: Large Spomoling6782   2008-11-10 19:04  

#8  The overstretch of British forces in Afghanistan is due to the meat axe approach to defense spending taken by the Labour governments in Britain since the end of WWII. As bad as it may seem to be in the US military with the teeth to tail ratio, it is 10 times worse in any of the European militaries. Also, the US has been replacing/rehabbing/rebuild equipment the whole time since 9/11, while the Europeans have been coasting along on their Cold War era equipment. The approach works for awhile, since most military equipment is very robust but eventually stuff wears out and needs to be replaced. And the British and other Europeans have taken the "penny wise and pound foolish" approach to procurement : don't buy it until there is nothing left, and buy only European models of all major weapons systems.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2008-11-10 16:52  

#7  12000 men in the field and the British are overstretched? WTF?
Posted by: DK70 the Scantily Clad7177   2008-11-10 16:25  

#6  And y'know, if it were my country's troops, I wouldn't want to surge them into Afghanistan anyway. President Zero doesn't have a secure way of supplying them, if he'd ever done anything besides politics and acadamia in his entire life he could probably grasp that.

We need to make sure we're not sending them there to just wind up as hostages.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2008-11-10 13:33  

#5  Well, there's also the Oz Stralians.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2008-11-10 13:31  

#4  And thus the screamingly obvious fact of the non-existence of "allies" in any concrete sense bursts onto the scene, after years of distortion by the media and Dems, and characteristic silence of the Bush administration. Yes, yes, many Brits are true allies, and their military is good and over-stretched (and under-resourced, and demoralized) - but aside from them, there are hardly any allies who can, literally, be of much use. Lack of political will, and the indolence and dependency of decades, render them thus. I'm wondering whether we'll actually get to enjoy the spectacle of one of the opposition's dumbest and most counter-factual idiocies of the Bush years exploding in their faces, now that the electorate has inexcusably allowed them back in power.
Posted by: Verlaine   2008-11-10 13:26  

#3  Chris, what's left of them are holed up at Basra Airport, cleaning their (unused) weapons.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-11-10 13:03  

#2  Anyone with the name Jock Stirrup is going to have a tough time getting credibility/respect. His old man musta left at an early age per the Boy Named Sue theory.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-11-10 12:55  

#1  the British are in Iraq? I thought they left awhile back
Posted by: chris   2008-11-10 11:23  

00:00