Brits in Afstan for long haul/US critical of (some) NATO allies

Significant statements (both noting the need for combat) just before a meeting in Scotland of countries with troops in the south:

1) UK Prime Minister Brown:

Gordon Brown has unveiled a new long-term strategy to "isolate and eradicate" the Taliban that will see British troops fighting in Afghanistan for years to come.

The Prime Minister told MPs that Britain will support efforts by the Afghan government to negotiate with tribal fighters now supporting the Taliban - but only if they renounce violence and accept democracy...

British officials believe that there are around 5,000 fighters allied to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the vast majority of them tribal gunmen who are paid to fight.

Only a handful of senior leaders, mostly based around the Pakistani city of Quetta, are "core Taliban", survivors of the regime that ran Afghanistan until 2001.
advertisement

"Our objective is to defeat the insurgency by isolating and eliminating their leadership," Mr Brown told MPs.

"I make it clear that we will not enter into any negotiations with these people. Our objective is to root out those preaching and practising violence and murder in support of men and women of peace."

As part of Afghan efforts to peel away support from the Taliban, the democratic government in Kabul will create a new agency dedicated to drawing their fighters away from the militant leadership.

Britain may help fund that agency through a new aid package that will be worth £450 million in the three years after 2009.

A range of economic development projects will be launched in the hope of weaning the Afghan economy off the opium trade.

In some cases, poppy farmers will be directly paid to cultivate other crops like maize.

The Prime Minister said the British military force in Afghanistan will remain at 7,800 as part of a "long-term commitment".

He gave no hint of a timetable for reducing those numbers, and military sources say British troops could be in the country for a decade.

The long-term British aim is to increase the Afghan army from 50,000 to 70,000 troops with the assistance of 340 British military trainers and mentors, part of an overall Nato training force of 6,000.

In the meantime, British forces will continue to bear a heavy military burden, and Mr Brown said they will soon be receiving 150 additional protected patrol vehicles as well as extra Sea King helicopters.

Mr Brown's statement comes after nearly 3,000 British forces helped drive the Taliban from the town of Musa Qala in Helmand province in the biggest UK operation in Afghanistan since the invasion of 2001.

That victory was proof of international success in Afghanistan, Mr Brown said.

"Let me make it clear at the outset that as part of a coalition we are winning the battle against the insurgency," he said.

Mr Brown said the "long-term comprehensive framework" for the country entailed Afghan ownership, localisation and reconciliation and reconstruction.

He added: "The foundation now and in the future for our comprehensive framework of support for Afghanistan is military support for the Afghan Government against the Taliban-led insurgency and denying al-Qa'eda a base from which to launch attacks on the world."

2) US Secretary of Defense Gates:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized NATO countries yesterday for not supplying urgently needed trainers, helicopters and infantry for Afghanistan as violence escalates there, vowing not to let the alliance "off the hook."

Gates called for overhauling the alliance's Afghan strategy over the next three to five years, shifting NATO's focus from primarily one of rebuilding to one of waging "a classic counterinsurgency" against a resurgent Taliban and growing influx of al-Qaeda fighters.

"I am not ready to let NATO off the hook in Afghanistan at this point," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. Ticking off a list of vital requirements -- about 3,500 more military trainers, 20 helicopters and three infantry battalions -- Gates voiced "frustration" at "our allies not being able to step up to the plate."..

The United States provides about 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and has the lead combat role in the eastern part of the country, and U.S. Special Operations forces operate throughout the country. NATO provides most of the remaining 28,000 foreign troops, and British, Canadian, Australian and Dutch forces play key combat roles in southern Afghanistan, where violence has surged over the past year.

Bush extended the deployment of one brigade and sent another additional brigade to Afghanistan earlier this year to get a handle on the situation. But senior U.S. military officials have privately voiced concern that Afghanistan is regressing under a NATO command they describe as dysfunctional. If the United States wants success there, they have said, it may have to increase its military commitment again...

Violence is up significantly in Afghanistan this year, (JCS Chairman Admiral] Mullen said, citing previously undisclosed figures that attacks are up 27 percent overall -- including a 60 percent spike in the southern province of Helmand, where the Taliban resurgence is strongest. Suicide bombings, roadside bombs, and other tactics common in Iraq have increased, Gates said.

Meanwhile, cross-border attacks continue from Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan. Some weapons and financing are flowing in from Iran as well, although Gates said Iran's role is not as yet "decisive."..

Pressed by lawmakers on whether the United States should not shift more of its military resources to Afghanistan, Gates and Mullen held firm, saying Iraq remains the overarching priority for stretched U.S. forces.

"In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must," [emphasis added] Mullen said. "There is a limit to what we can apply to Afghanistan."

Gates said that after extending the tour of a brigade of 3,500 troops from the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan this year, and also keeping a helicopter contingent in Kandahar for six extra months, he is not inclined to do more now.

"I have refused to extend our helicopter cut . . . to ISAF beyond the end of January," Gates said.

Gates later qualified his criticism by praising British, Canadian and Australian forces [Dutch, Poles, Romanians, Danes, Estonians?], which he said have "more than stepped up" in combat roles. "We should not use a brush that paints too broadly in terms of speaking of our allies and friends," he said.

One of the most pressing needs in Afghanistan is for about 3,500 additional trainers for the Afghan police, a force that Gates said suffers from "corruption and illiteracy." Because the European Union did not come through, he said, the United States has had to divert some U.S. trainers from the Afghan army to the police. Mullen confirmed that the United States has approved an increase in the manpower goal of the Afghan army from 70,000 to 80,000, creating a need for the additional U.S. trainers.

"The European effort on the police training has been, to be diplomatic . . . disappointing," Gates said...

Note the differing Afghan National Army figures: UK--70,000; US--80,000. Let's get our acts togther. And the Afghans want a whole lot more.

Update: So now a Liberal is against Canadian development work in the south continuing? This is getting ridiculous in terms of getty-out:

...
Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who was at the committee meeting, said his ears perked up after hearing that statement and wondered whether the Conservatives would use an extended development commitment as a pretext to keeping troops in the country.

"We all know development can't proceed without security, at least that's what they keep telling us," McTeague said Wednesday.

"This is troubling and the government needs to explain to Canadians precisely what its intentions are for the PRT (provincial reconstruction team) in Kandahar. I, like many Canadians, was under the impression Mr. Manley was looking at the whole mission.

"We've all been focused on the combat mission. Since we can't have development without security, I think the government needs to explain clearly to Canadians how long it sees our development commitment running until. Is it 2011, 2015, or some time longer?"