Britain confirms more troops for Afghanistan

Reuters ^ | Feb 26, 2007 | Adrian Croft

[Freeport]

Afghanistan because most NATO allies have refused to send soldiers to battle a resurgent Taliban, Defense Secretary Des Browne said on Monday.

"Put simply, the alternative is unacceptable," Browne told parliament. "This is a risk we simply cannot afford to take, both for the sake of Afghanistan, and the for the sake of our own security."

Last year was the bloodiest in Afghanistan since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network after September 11.

NATO, the United States and the Taliban are all promising spring offensives in what is widely regarded as a crunch year for Afghanistan, a country still in crisis more than five years after the Taliban's fall.

NATO has more than 33,000 troops in Afghanistan but Britain and the United States have struggled to persuade other members to send more troops, or to agree to deploy existing units to tackle the Taliban in their southern and eastern strongholds.

"It is increasingly clear that at present, when it comes to the most demanding tasks in the more challenging parts of Afghanistan, only we and a small number of key allies are prepared to step forward. This is why we have decided to commit additional forces to Afghanistan," said Browne.

"In terms of overall numbers, this adds up to nearly 1,400 additional personnel ... in total our forces in Afghanistan will increase from around 6,300 to settle at about 7,700 personnel."

[Freeport]

I think the English term "Wogs" should apply to the rest of our "allies" in NATO who "help" in Afghanistan by not helping.

[pissant]

But, but, but Patsy Buchanan assured me last week that Britain was no longer a reliable ally...