Britain to send 2,000 extra troops to help train Afghans

#1
From The Sunday Times
August 2, 2009
Britain to send 2,000 extra troops to help train Afghans
Michael Smith

BRITAIN is expected to send up to 2,000 more troops to Afghanistan as part of an effort by General Stanley McChrystal, the American commander, to train more Afghan soldiers and police.

At talks in Washington last week David Miliband, the foreign secretary, discussed with Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, the idea of Britain supplying more soldiers as part of a plan that would see Afghan forces more than double.

“We obviously have talked about it with not only those like the British troops and government who are so supportive, but those who don’t have troops on the ground but understand the importance of this,” said Clinton.

The move is likely to see a revival of British commanders’ plans to send 2,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, a proposal vetoed by Gordon Brown. With the government under fire over a series of failures to equip troops properly and restrictions on payouts to those wounded in battle, ministers are under pressure to ensure the necessary forces are provided.
More
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6736140.ece
 
#2
I see quite a bit about what America says will happen but not to much from what the MOD says will happen in that report.
 
#3
High time too; we cannot take and hold the amount of ground we're trying to with only 9000 people on the ground. Will there be a sufficient increase in helos, vehicles etc to cover a 20% increase in manpower though?
 
#4
stacker1 said:
I see quite a bit about what America says will happen but not to much from what the MOD says will happen in that report.
You mean there's a differance? :roll:

America: "Jump!"

MOD: "How high, sir?!" :wink:

All joking aside, where are the extra two grand of soldiers going to come from? 8O
 
#5
Werewolf said:
All joking aside, where are the extra two grand of soldiers going to come from? 8O
and the money/kit to support them?
 
#6
Bravo_Zulu said:
High time too; we cannot take and hold the amount of ground we're trying to with only 9000 people on the ground. Will there be a sufficient increase in helos, vehicles etc to cover a 20% increase in manpower though?
Don't be silly, there's a good chap... :twisted:
 
#7
Werewolf said:
stacker1 said:
I see quite a bit about what America says will happen but not to much from what the MOD says will happen in that report.
You mean there's a differance? :roll:

America: "Jump!"

MOD: "How high, sir?!" :wink:

All joking aside, where are the extra two grand of soldiers going to come from? 8O
I'm not joking, because you are correct and I was going to ask the same thing.
 
#8
2000 troops need to get to Afghanistan. My mate has a coach and I can lend you my car but I need it back for work in the morning.

2000 troops need paying. My mate just got a payrise and I have some spare change in my cars ash tray.

2000 troops need feeding. My mate is a chef and I'm willing to give up my dinner money (Its in my cars ash tray to pay for a few scoffs).

2000 troops need flying around theatre. My mate works a=in a stationary shop and I'm pretty nifty with paper airplanes (Helicopters can't be that hard).

To conclude my waffling. Where is the necessary money and resources going to come from to cover this? Or is our "Special relationship" going to cost us a few more pennies in the long run... Again.
 
#9
I was under the impression that the cupboard was bare. There were simply no more troops available, never mind "luxuries" like extra vehicles or helos. Was'nt it not so long ago that we had no Strategic Reserve left for the first time in our recent history, because we had to deploy them to Kosovo?
 
#11
Jack89 said:
why cant more Nato countries provide the troops to train the afghans ? instead of just us
Perhaps because other NATO countries' leaders do NOT have their head so far up Obama's ass, if The Chosen One farts he'll blow their brains out?

Just a theory... :roll:
 
#12
Don't know what everyone's moaning about. Surely it will only be a matter of time before our illustrious NATO colleagues follow our example and front up with thousands more soldiers? It's not as if they collectively have close to 2,000,000 troops or anything. Obviously Germany and the (newly re-enaged militarily with NATO) France will be at the very front of the queue. And dont be surprised if those traditional 'Bravehearts' from Spain, Italy and Belgium jump on the deployment bandwagon too. Viva Lithuania and Estonia!

Or ............

Maybe they will just bury their spineless heads in the sand, focus on a new common fisheries policy and leave us to it ........... again.
 
#14
hell I've been holding them in reserve but ok I'll release them for active service. I have two btns of Inf and one of Airborne nutters, some tanks and some arty.





 
#15
Bravo_Zulu said:
High time too; we cannot take and hold the amount of ground we're trying to with only 9000 people on the ground. Will there be a sufficient increase in helos, vehicles etc to cover a 20% increase in manpower though?
But out of the 9k how many are actually on the ground and how many are pushing paper etc?

you need to get enough boots on the ground to hold it rather than supplying
 
#16
Jack89 said:
why cant more Nato countries provide the troops to train the afghans ? instead of just us
Why should they?
 
#17
Jack89 said:
why cant more Nato countries provide the troops to train the afghans ? instead of just us
Because even Afghans have standard's, why be taught by runners up when you can be taught by the best. 'Be the best' its not an option when your Britsh, it's a birthright :wink:

Ooops British.
 
#18
"and the money/kit to support them? "

A very good question - start digging into just how much it costs to support and equip troops deploying to Afghanistan and we start talking very large numbers indeed.
 
#19
jim30 said:
"and the money/kit to support them? "

A very good question - start digging into just how much it costs to support and equip troops deploying to Afghanistan and we start talking very large numbers indeed.
I should have said training as well, bet that make the treasury a bit quesy.
 

Latest Threads