This comes on a day when BAe at home has sacked 850 people because
defence orders for equipment are drying up. The shortage of relevant
equipment is a permanent weakness and as the defence chiefs say "[we]
urgently need to resource the campaign properly,"
Otherwise the men's lives are being held cheaply.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
================================
FINANCIAL TIMES 1.5.09
UK block on Afghan surge riles army chiefs
By James Blitz in London
British army chiefs are incensed at Gordon Brown's decision this week
to block a long-term surge in UK forces in Afghanistan, arguing that
a troop increase is vital to the success of the mission in troubled
Helmand province.
As the UK on Thursday marked the official end of its military mission
in Iraq, attention was focused on the completion of the operation in
the city of Basra that has cost 179 British lives since the US-led
invasion in 2003.
But behind the scenes, this week also marks the end of a cross-
departmental battle over Britain's military operations in Helmand,
one which has ended with Mr Brown rejecting a recommendation from
service chiefs for 2,000 more UK troops to be sent to the province.
"People are pretty angry about the decision around here," a senior
defence figure told the Financial Times on Thursday. "We're not in a
situation where generals are thinking of resigning. But the outcome
announced by Number 10 this week has come as something of a surprise
to people."
In recent months, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and Number 10
have been locked in a dispute over whether Britain should increase
the number of troops it has in Afghanistan, currently numbering 8,300.
Army generals have told Mr Brown that Britain is now making steady
progress in Helmand, creating a string of security zones in which the
Afghan population can live without intimidation from the Taliban.
But the army believes the UK operation in central Helmand, which is
seen as the front line in the battle against the Taliban, is over-
stretched. Backed by John Hutton, the defence secretary, it has
argued that the UK should increase its Afghan deployment permanently
by 2,000 troops to 10,300.
"If we are going to be in Helmand then we urgently need to resource
the campaign properly," said a senior army figure. "We need to
thicken up on the ground and get ourselves on a sustained campaign
footing."
On Wednesday, Mr Brown unveiled a fresh government strategy on
Afghanistan and Pakistan. This had been seen by service chiefs as the
critical junction at which a long-term increase would have to be
approved.
But Mr Brown rejected their calls. The prime minister announced that
Britain will send some 700 troops to Afghanistan this autumn to help
provide security for a three-month period covering Afghanistan's
presidential elections.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'If we are going to be in Helmand then we urgently need to resource
the campaign properly'
Senior defence figure
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The 700 increase might have been palatable if it had been
permanent," said a defence source on Thursday, "but we didn't even
get that".
Some Whitehall officials argue that the UK operation in Afghanistan
is now well resourced, with the government spending more cash to
improve army equipment. They note that the Afghanistan operation will
cost a projected £3bn in 2009-10, while the cost of UK operations in
southern Iraq never rose above £1.5bn in any year since the invasion.
Officials also argue that a US troop surge in southern Helmand this
month will help the UK task force consolidate security across the
province's central belt. "We're getting another 8,000 American
soldiers in Helmand, for goodness sake," said one official last
night. "Isn't that good enough for the army?" [WE are responsible
for Helmand. Does this 'official' want to opt out? -cs]
Even so, defence chiefs fear damage from Mr Brown's decision on two
fronts. First, they fear that the Obama administration, which wants
Europe to share more of the burden of the Afghan war, will take a dim
view of the failure to agree a long-term troop increase. Mr Obama has
never explicitly asked the UK to send more troops.
But Mr Brown's refusal to grant a long-term boost will take pressure
off other European states to do more.
The army also fears the implications for its own long-term future.
Britain will hold a strategic defence review after the next election,
and its generals are adamant that land operations must not lose out
to calls for stronger naval and air power. "The higher our profile
going into the review," one general said recently, "the harder it
will be to ignore us."
Posts
