British Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirmed Nov. 30 that an additional 500 U.K. personnel will be sent to Afghanistan, and said that another eight coalition nations – besides the U.K. and the U.S. – are willing to provide further military support for the operation.
Brown said the latest increase takes London’s contribution to more than 10,000 personnel, if the U.K.‘s Special Forces are included. The ministry has previously said that the additional troops would raise the number of British forces deployed to 9,500, though it now appears this figure did not include the Special Forces.
The additional British forces will be deployed to Helmand in southern Afghanistan in December. Brown declined to identify which partner nations had already indicated they would be willing to provide more personnel.
U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to unveil a revised Afghanistan strategy during a speech Dec. 1, including a substantial increase in U.S. forces.
Brown, with United Nations Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon, announced Nov. 28 that the U.K. is to host a conference on Afghanistan at the end of January 2010. Brown said: “The conference will cover both our military and our political strategies, but concentrate on the political strategy for Afghanistan.
“We will need further troop and training commitments from partners. I expect to see 5,000 further troops committed by other nations, and the London conference will be also an opportunity for some to make new commitments,” he added.
The British and U.S. governments face growing opposition to the war in Afghanistan, and the emphasis on ‘Afghanization’ – in which the Afghan military and security forces increasingly take over from the International Stabilization and Assistance Force – is an effort to address such concerns, and to provide an exit strategy.
“I hope we will see this process of Afghanization happening in a way that people can feel more secure, that side by side with the British troops, the Afghans are taking responsibility for themselves,” said Brown, “so we can look forward to a time in the future, for which there is no timetable at the moment, when Afghan forces can take responsibility in new areas and British forces are able to come home.”
One of the criteria Brown had set to provide additional British troops was that all members of the U.K. deployed force would be “fully equipped for the operations they are asked to undertake.”
Read the rest of this story, see yet another Russian stealth frigate, check out Ivan’s landing on a Frog carrier and tick off JSF’s December goals from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
P.S.
I thought the crowning of the “Child of the World” Was going to usher in a new ear where all our allies would willingly provide any support we need.
Waaa Waaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaa
At least they are helping out, that should make it welcome. But I agree, 500, what a diffrence!! A few more can’t hurt him politicly that much more than 500 can it?
Trouble is Philo, the Brits are a busted flush operationally having expended significant blood and treasure supporting the US war of aggression in Iraq. Even if the British public supported it, the UK doesn’t have the forces or kit available to deploy to Afghanistan. And while the US can print more of its own money to pay for its own wars, I can see why other nations would be unwilling to support what is essentially US foreign policy, and a dubious one at that, with unclear goals and objectives. No wonder the Child of the World has failed to get more support from the US’ closest ally. Let’s hope the mighty Estonian Army or the fearsome Republic of Palau comes to the rescue with thousands of hand-picked operators.
“US war of aggression in Iraq” Aren’t ALL wars, wars of aggression?
Piecemeal troop surges to buy ‘nation building space’ for a country that doesn’t know it is a country. Genius! And filled with competing tribes who like to do nothing more than kill each other for fun. Instead of invading Iraq for its oil (and giving Iran the oportunity to spread its tentacles right into the heart of the Arab world, whereas it had previously been contained), the US should’ve been denying Afghanistan to would-be Islamic extremists. If I was IRGC, I’d be flooding Afghanistan with cheap SAMs and RPGs — give the US a taste of its own medicine. I sincerely hope they don’t and that the NATO mission succeeds, but I have my fear that any ‘success’ will be nothing more than a short term political expediency designed to allow withdrawal before it all collapses again. Have a nice day, Johnny Afghan!
Surely it is better we (the Brits) are adding to our contribution than simply withdrawing all our troops as a lot of the public want — pure numbers are not always the story, these are supposedly pure fighting troops rather than support / logistics etc. and they have additional helicopters and gorund vehicles to support them. yes, as a nation we currently do not spend enough on our military, but what we have is amongst the best trained and led (if not equipped) out there. added to the 300+ dead our forces have suffered in afghanistan over the last 8 years, i am slightly saddened by the negative and sarcastic tone of previous comments. i’m sure you could do it all on your own, and pay with your own blood and treasure, but please respect what we as your allies have committed to.
Having suffered, and continuing to suffer from the islamo-fascist surge in your own home land, I’m surprised that the public isn’t more willing to at least kill them in their own lands.
That aside, just bustin chops here. Just bustin chops..
Great, another symbolic deployment. Though I’m sure Gordon Brown is going to pay politically for the troops he has deployed to begin with.
I kind of doubt Muslim nations will be willing to send troops to Afghanistan: Jordan did not send troops to Iraq, and when Malaysia and Pakistan sent troops to Somalia they were butchered.
WOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAA!
Outstanding. Without a doubt, these 500 troops will turn the tide of the war.
Wonder how things would have turned out if we just dropped a few symbolic deployments in WWII? LOL Sorry, always have to drop a “saved your ass in WWII reference on the English.” (And the French;)
On a serious note though,
These guys have nothing to worry about. From what the Supreme Leader babbled last night, it doesn’t sound like they’ll have to be there for much longer anyways…
You’re welcome (I think!).
UK has been the 2nd biggest contributor in Iraq and AfPak since day 1.
500 on top of 9500+ is better than <1000 on top of 0, or pulling out in 2010–2011 (countries shall be nameless here).
US has ~5x population of the UK (307m vs 61m) and spends twice as much on defence as % of GDP (4.08 vs 2.4) So parking the sarcasm, prior to latest US surge top-up, I’d argue the UK has been closely matching the US contribution in theatre by relative size (9500+ vs 50000+)
The british however… which isn’t written… are reducing the amount of helicopter support missions that they are providing their special forces.
They want the US to fill that gap.
A bit of a give and take… not really that much help to be honest, but we shouldn’t complain when people help out though!
There has to be a better way:
That brings the total military commitment to ‘stan to over 100K costing about $50Bn a year. There are about 5M Afghan males between 15 and 40. and you could BUY every potential combatant in Afghanistan for $10K a piece and eliminate all the death and destruction.
The best person to rule Afghanistan would have been Saddam Hussein (with the sole instruction that we would kill him if any threats originated on his turf) but he’s playing a harp right now — a great waste of muslim organisational tallent.
500. what a woeful contribution. Hard to convince other states to contribute anything when we (UK, im a brit) are meant to be one of the ‘leaders’ on this operation and send 500…which changes nothing. And yet politicians talk of maintaining parity with US commanders and the like through such pathetic contributions.
Vstress i appreciate that contribution. I had no idea of the governments plan to scale back the heli operations (not suprised though) — Ive watched through the Prime Ministers Questions in the commons when the helicopter debate was being waged and Brown straight out lies through his teeth over and over when it comes to defence-related subjects. Labour has for the last 12 years presented one thing in public and in secret done something else (usually cutting the forces to the bone. on land sea and air.)
Look for other allies US. the UK doesnt have the balls (or the public support) to do anything anymore.
The US can either have a weak Britain to control (Undoubtably it’s policy since 1945) or one that can provide military assistance. It cannot have both and the choice cannot now be altered. Britain can only continue to deploy brigades, not divisions, that is all that can be done. People like Philo make one wish Operation Sealion had worked.
What in the hell does the Proposed Nazi invasion of Britain have to do with me? pffffftttttt
My only point was that everyone around the world was supposed to pony up more help when the grand ayatollah barak hussien obama came to power. This is another example of how that’s NOT happening.
I am surprised at the lack of public support for UK intervention considering how tangible the effects of Islamo-fascism must be to its citizens.
US policy during the end of and in the aftermath of ww2 was, as u say, putting britain and its territories in a suffocating embrace. The US did more damage to Britain’s power, influence and economics than any of the axis powers of the war.
Something very few seem to know about. But alas.…cant time travel and make it different so.…
we cant blame the US for the current state of affairs though (the worst position the UK military has been in in modern times.) Consistent cuts, extremely heavy cuts under Labour in the last 12 years. Its a huge injustice and they get away with it largely because the general public dont have a clue thus it isnt an electoral issue so they can do whatthey like.
“The US did more damage to Britain’s power, influence and economics than any of the axis powers of the war. ”
That comment is so counter to historical fact that it almost defies reality. That has to be a joke right? If not, you need to catch up on your reading bud.
I have to agree Ross, the recent sacking of operational capabilities in exchange for pouring money into RAF pet projects is a travesty. Though i’m still less than impressed of US influence of this decline until 9/11 (lets not forget the IRA recieved huge amounts of charity from the City of Boston,) it is our own government and the ignorance of the populace at large which had been the main contributors to the current sorry state. We could barely fight the Falklands in 1982, we certainly couldnt perform such a short deployment, Out Of Area (as it was called in the day). Afghanistan is such a deployment and its distressing that all that can be managed is a paltry 9,500. Then again, the disparity is stark. The US military expenditure is so vast that it eclipses the whole British economy by a ratio of 3 to 1. Even if we had the capabilities which we can reasonably afford, (if our political masters didnt clip wings so) anything approaching an equal burden of operations in Afghanistan between British and US forces is laughable. The US is a super power, we’re a mere regional player with the unrealised potential of limited projection.
One certainly cant expect real parity with the US in any operation…but we could have given more, i dont like to do what if scenarios but had we not done the whole iraq ‘diversion’, we may well have sorted A-stan out by now. I was amused by Miliband (UK foreign sec. for people that dnt know) saying that the NATO response has been good. UK sending 500 and 25 countries, TWENTY FIVE sending under 7000 total…talk about polishing a turd eh.. i mean we’ve boosted our numbers more than the other nato minors (as we all are except for the US these days) over the years, we’ve seen more of the action than most too…and we cant expect the ones that have also pressed forwards (dutch and danes to name 2, canadians also) to put out much more than they already have with their rather small amount of resources at disposal.
the whole thing is basically a farce. Every day i check up on military news and it is *never* good on the whole for the UK. You US folks dont know how good u got it with ur armed forces heh. And then theres the record sales of defence exports whilst our own industries are all french owned or moving elsewhere…list goes on and on and on.
bet you are a right laugh at a Party Ross.
tend not to get into politics at parties lol. people know it just sends me off into a rant