The Ministry of Defence have confirmed that they would send an additional 440 troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total number to almost 1,100.

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.

They will deployed as part of NATO’s Operation Resolute Support, alongside 38 other nations, comprising of almost 16,000 troops.

“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 move will make the UK the 3rd largest military contributor to Afghanistan’s security, behind the US and Italy.

It is important to note that they will be deployed in a non-combat role; they are officially defined as ‘mentors’. The decision to increase numbers is understood to be due to a direct request from the Afghan government, and not from the US as previously reported.

It is also understood that at least some of the troops will be deployed to train the Afghan Security Forces in bomb disposal.

7 COMMENTS

  1. Soviets could not tame the place with hundreds of thousands of men why does the west persist at this? They will be fighting each other for a thousand years.

    Keep an intelligence presence, watch the place like hawks with satellites, use SF missions. If terrorist camps appear destroy them, but don’t attempt to occupy like the west did previously.

    I worry mission creep is happening all over again.

    • The problem with pulling out is you eventually condemn the people who have worked “with” you for over a decade to death. Terry will eventually retake Kabul without the presence of air strikes and foreign forces constantly training the ANA and ANP (I have little confidence in them training themselves, especially the latter).

      • I agree, the ‘fire and leg it’ policy we saw in Lybia does fail to protect the vulnerable left behind. I believe the strategy has changed, where the West see Afganistan as long-term commitment. It serves two purposes, keeps a constant check on the Taliban and allows troops to experience real battle conditions. The latter is not in anyway an official position, but nevertheless is one positive spin-off?
        Giving the Taliban a free rain is not going to be sanction by NATO, but a full-scale engagement as seen in the past, will I’m sure, not happen. No, the West is there for many years to come.

  2. The number climbing beyond 1000 is a worry to me and a huge red flag.

    Depressingly, Afghanistan does appear to be condemned to a permanent state of brutal civil war.

    I don’t know what the answer is for that poor country or its down trodden people, but it’s not further young British lives waisted on a totally lost cause, in my opinion…

    Hundreds have died, no more please….

  3. Is training/mentoring not combat or holding ground. This limited commitment is better than allowing it to collapse. Must ensure military is correctly resources though.

    • These things have a hirrible tendency to creep Julian. I honestly don’t see the point.

      You would have to base 1000.000 troops there until hell freezes over to stop them hacking each other to pieces!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here