The British Army is likely to send up to 440 more troops to Afghanistan to train the Afghan National Security Forces.
Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC’s political editor tweeted:
1. Whispers tonight National Security Council to discuss increasing number of UK troops in Afhganistan tomorrrow, with govt likely to send another 440 to help train Afghan forces
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) June 25, 2018
She added that if agreed by the National Security Council, it would likely be announced in the “coming days” in the run up to the NATO summit. The decision would make the UK the 3rd largest contributor to Afghan security.
The move would come after The Guardian reported that the UK was ‘considering doubling the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan in response to a request from Donald Trump’.
Afghanistan is currently faced with a Taliban resurgence. This comes after the UK officially withdrew from the nation in 2014. The Taliban recently refused to extend a three-day ceasefire that had occurred over Eid.
“The support the UK provides Afghanistan on security, development and governance is crucial to building a stable state and reducing the terrorist threat to the UK. We remain committed to Nato’s non-combat Resolute Support mission, in which we play an important role, and keep our contribution under constant review”
MoD spokesperson
The decision would also come after Nia Griffith, the shadow defence secretary, condemned “short-sighted and painful cuts” to defence, at a speech in London.
I would advise caution here. The British public had no desire or apitite to see a significant increase in troop numbers to Afghanistan.
900 will become 1600 and the remit will start to grow…
I certainly don’t want to see our troops dragged back into their never ending ground hog day civil war.
These deployments tend to suffer from mission creep….
the British public shouldn’t have a say about training missions such as this. they haven’t a clue what’s going on and perhaps never did.
Op Torral is a cake walk compared to Herrick.
In regards to mission creep; it only became that because nobody actually had a clue what to do with Afghanistan. the lads wanted to fight and destroy the Taliban, the politics made sure we couldn’t do it properly so it took too long.
the place is a proper shit tip hell hole that just wants to be left alone. I’m sure we would be better training soldiers that actually appreciate our efforts.
furthermore, you can’t send 18 year olds from the uk who’ve never been in conflict to train another 18 year old who’s been farming since he was 5 and knows how to handle an AK and spot an IED with minimal effort. waste of time when their cousin is Taliban and father is ANP.
@Reaper “the British public shouldn’t have a say about training missions such as this. they haven’t a clue what’s going on and perhaps never did.”
Oh really? The general public pay for this and all the military toys involved, As a member of that public I should be able pass verdict on the value for money of a training mission in a hostile environment just as much as you may.
The UK is better off out of Afghanistan. The war there will never end. You cannot win hearts and minds against Islamist fundamentalists who hate the West and despise us for our involvement in their country.
One day the local farmers and youths are your friends. Next day they are paid 500 US dollars to pick up an AK and shot at our lads and lasses.
Afghanistan is likely always going to be a hornet’s nest. We either have to go in extremely hard and irradicate them or every few years once the latest terrorist group has gained significant control in the failed state we go in and turn them over.
An enduring commitment in the country we do not want, nor do we want a mission creep.
I support efforts to train and support local forces to fight terrorists.
If this means putting extra troops on the ground in Afghanistan then so be it.
If this is needed then it should be done. The history of COIN teaches the same lesson. You don’t win with some grand climactic battle. Politically you win by separating the people from their would be ‘liberators’ The military part is a matter of grinding down the terrorists and breaking their morale. When they know the people are against them and they can’t win militarily they disappear. Sometimes quickly more often gradually.
We have been grinding them down for years. This OP is about training Afgan military commanders and soldiers so that they can take over, and one day we can pull out.
We have been doing this for the last decade Ben …. It’s only Western military and financial underpinning that keeps the Kabul government afloat.
It’s simply not sustainable in the long term, unless we intend to stay there forever ?
I have grave reservations about increasing our foot print in Afghanistan. I can see us getting dragged back into the 50 sided fudel war again.
There’s little to achieved unfortunately
Going back with a new mandate, a new strategy and a new prospect of vic’try. Just, hopefully, not back to Helmand.
A total waste of time, money and far more importantly lives. That place is a hell hole. Let them stay in the Stone Age.
Afghanistan is a conundrum.a gordian knot.the Brits tried the Russians tried the us tried nato tried.pakistan and the Taliban make sure we stay.and our men and women are forced to make a game out. Of war and dying.the Americans had the war won then took there eye off the ball in iraq.the war was lost when that happened.
More troubling news.
http://www.janes.com/article/81687/warrior-capability-sustainment-programme-at-risk