Apparently the UK is planning on moving around 5,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. This would indicate to me that things are going much worse in Afghanistan than we are hearing about in the U.S. It would also indicate that all of those supporters of the Iraq war, who said that attacking Iraq would not weaken our efforts in Afghanistan were wrong. Scotsman.com BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR DEFENCE chiefs are planning to rush thousands of British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, Scotland on Sunday can reveal. Ministers have been warned they face a "complete strategic failure" of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate. An explosive cocktail of feuding tribal warlords, insurgents, the remnants of the Taliban, and under-performing Afghan institutions has left the fledgling democracy on the verge of disintegration, according to analysts and senior officers. The looming crisis in Afghanistan is a serious setback for the US-led 'War on Terror' and its bid to promote western democratic values around the world. Defence analysts say UK forces are already so over-stretched that any operation to restore order in Afghanistan can only succeed if substantial numbers of troops are redeployed from Iraq, itself in the grip of insurgency. The UK contribution to the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan presently stands at fewer than 500, compared with the contribution of 8,000 troops to the Coalition presence in Iraq. Planners at the UK military's Northolt headquarters have drawn up emergency proposals to send up to 5,500 troops to Afghanistan to help avert a descent into more widespread bloodshed. As well as increasing the British presence in Afghanistan 10-fold, it would require additional funding of almost £500m. MoD sources confirmed last night that the secret plans have been firmed up in response to persistent concerns that the notorious rebel commander Gulbadeen Hikmatyar has teamed up with Taliban fighters in the south. An MoD source told Scotland on Sunday: "We are going into an area where there's a civil war going on. It's dangerous and it's somewhere new. "People within the MoD are now saying we will have to deal with this and go into the south of the country. What they are saying is, don't do it piecemeal. We will have to do it properly." Senior army and navy officers, along with officials from the Treasury, were in the region last week to survey the options. But American military experts last night claimed an increase in the British presence in Afghanistan would inevitably threaten the numbers committed to Iraq. Charles Heyman, a senior analyst with the defence information group Jane's, told Scotland on Sunday: "There's no doubt whatsoever that Afghanistan is caught in a very difficult position, where it is very hard to progress without committing more forces. "There is not enough Coalition power, or Afghan government power, to extend their writ into the areas that have proved impossible to control. This is going to be a very difficult period. "They might struggle to cover their commitment to Iraq, but even if they do that, it would mean that the UK could not take on any further military commitments anywhere else." Afghanistan was liberated from the oppressive grip of the Taliban following the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington. American-led forces launched a ferocious assault on the regime, which was accused of harbouring Osama bin Laden and his closest allies. But they have been fighting a largely forgotten war with Afghan rebels, foreign insurgents and tribal warlords ever since. The treacherous situation was underlined yesterday when a bomb exploded near a US military patrol in Zabul province, southern Afghanistan, killing one soldier and wounding three others. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is due in Washington this week to discuss the deteriorating situation. He is also expected to raise concerns about fresh claims that his countrymen had been abused by their US captors in Iraqi jails, allegations that provoked sustained protests around the country. But a newspaper last night claimed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had said in a memo that a poppy eradication program aimed at Afghanistan's heroin trade was ineffective partly because of President Hamid Karzai's leadership. This article: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=559872005
I see you've already bought your "jump to conclusions mat". You are a prime example of a liberal who hears only what he wants to (military failure) and makes illogical, grossly overstated assumptions based on that selective hearing.
So now that you've blasted away at gifford, care to give us the conservative interpretation of this report?
Tell us what the logical conclusions of this action would be? Or should we just not think, and believe everything our govt. tells us, despite their track record?
Ahhh lil t when your BBS claim to fame is mistaking a possom for a HUGE Rat! and starting a thread about it, you should think twice before accusing others of jumping to conclusions. Anyway, If you read beyond the bolded parts (it wouldn't do much good if I bolded the whole article would it?) you would have seen this- Ministers have been warned they face a "complete strategic failure" of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate. And this- An explosive cocktail of feuding tribal warlords, insurgents, the remnants of the Taliban, and under-performing Afghan institutions has left the fledgling democracy on the verge of disintegration, according to analysts and senior officers. And this- Defence analysts say UK forces are already so over-stretched that any operation to restore order in Afghanistan can only succeed if substantial numbers of troops are redeployed from Iraq, itself in the grip of insurgency. Now you may dispute the accuracy of the story, but based on this information which of my points was jumping to conclusions or illogical?
Wonder why none of this was mentioned during Karzai's little visit to the WH yesterday. I know he asked for more control over US forces and W said no and they talked about the poppy crisis (no not W's dad, the drugs).
This insight is incredible. You must be Hannibal, Rommell, Patton, and Wellington all rolled into one.
My problem with this is that the writer is completely jumping to conclusions and does not back up his assumptions. This is like saying that if there is a fire tomorrow, we will need a lot of firefighters. He doesn't mention how the situation is deteriorating at all, yet is quick to proclaim that there will be a "complete strategic failure". Very poor form. Sounds like hearsay to me. I wonder if those analysts are the same as Newsweek's sources, or if they're the same people making up information for the BBC. "On the verge of disintegration" - ooooh, he's quite a good rabble rouser. Back it up buddy. More hearsay. Who are these defense analysts? Please. It you liberals get your jollies from hoping things go wrong in our war on terror, then this piece from The Scotsman (?) should help you out.
so you agree that we still haven't taken care of business in afghanistan and that going to iraq was a mistake? wow, what a turnabout.
It is sad that to be patriotic in the Bush supporter,s eyes you have to have your head in the sand. Nothing new. In Vietnam you had to pretend it was all going well, too, or you were a traitor. On the Right there is this unshakeable belief , with virtually no facts to back it up, that we didn't lose militarily in Vietnam and would have won if we just had not had the press reporting the truth and everyone at home had been kept ignorant about how the war was going. Of course, they have the same theory in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would say that the opposite is true. If you let the crazies run things with no input from ordinary citizens or even many of their elected representatives, this is when you can turn adventures in piss poor third world countires into potential disasters for even our powerful country.
glynch, what's the matter with you?? Half the folks here were babies during Vietnam. They haven't a clue about how conservatives felt about it, much less, "we didn't lose militarily in Vietnam and would have won if we just had not had the press reporting the truth and everyone at home had been kept ignorant about how the war was going." You and I know that charge was and is total rot, but many today are pretty clueless. Get on point, old chap... remember your audience! Vietnam is getting as far back in history as WWII was when we were protesting Vietnam. Pretty strange, isn't it? Keep D&D civil!!
