0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
380 $
COLLECTED IN APRIL 2020

UK May Double Number Of Its Troops In Afghanistan To ‘Send Message To Allies’ – Reports

Donate

UK May Double Number Of Its Troops In Afghanistan To 'Send Message To Allies' - Reports

British military personnel arriving at Kandahar airfield in Afghanistan in 2014. Photograph: Cpl Andrew Morris/EPA

The UK is considering to bring the number of its troops deployed in Afghanistan to over 1,000 in response to President Donald Trump’s call on US allies to contribute more to the fight against the Taliban, The Independent reported on May 18.

According to the report, currently the UK has about 600 troops in Afghanistan, mainly based in Kabul training officers and not engaged in combat. The newspaper also noted that the UK has a small contingent of special forces.

The Independent reports (source):

The new deployment could see hundreds more return to Afghanistan. The UK withdrew almost all of its combat troops from the country in 2014.

Faced with a Taliban resurgence, the US, which has about 15,000 troops in the country supporting the Afghan military, asked the UK and other Nato countries last summer to send reinforcements. Britain responded with an extra 85.

Later in the year, Trump renewed the plea and the proposed new UK deployment is in response to that request by the US president. The hundreds more British troops are expected to be involved in training rather than combat.

The Ministry of Defence, which usually does not discuss troop deployments in advance, said only that the UK’s contribution was kept under constant review.

An MoD spokesperson said: “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.”

Reports about a possible increase in the number of NATO troops in the war-torn country comes amid the Taliban’s ongoing “Spring Offensive”.  The movement has already conducted a series of notable attacks on forces of the US-backed government and has even achieved some progress. MORE HERE

According to experts, if the US and its allies do not contribute significant efforts, the US-backed government will not be able to counter the Taliban’s advance on multiple fronts and the area controlled by its forces will shrink further.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Samantha Green

    Of course the US can counter. All Trump needs to do is send all forces currently deployed against Russia and N. Korea, which both defend ABORTION RIGHTS! At least we won’t be seeing these UK troops in the Baltic, Ukraine or Korea any time soon.

  • Jesus

    It is somewhat amusing seeing a “great power” not being able or capable to afford a large army, consisting of multiple divisions, armored or infantry……seeing these measly deployments of a few hundred troops at the time.
    Afghanistan is another Vietnam, Taliban asymmetric tactics can tie up tens or hundreds of thousand troops, without much light at the end of the tunnel.

    • hamster

      They’re able and capable, its just not necessarily cost effective to do so since the intent is not to simply colonize and annex territory. It’s ultimately the Afghans that are responsible for protecting themselves from Taliban insurgents.

      • Jesus

        They are not able to put together several armored divisions, look at Europe; look at Syria, a few hundred here,a few hundred there, not able to place boots on the ground in significant numbers.
        In Afghanistan the the effort was intended to defeat the Taliban, if you leave it to the Afghans most likely it will revert under Taliban influence. What is US and NATO doing in Afghanistan if they are not being proactive in defeating the Taliban insurgency? What is their purpose of them being there?

        • hamster

          “Not able” is not the same thing as “Not willing” or not thinking that something “cost effective” or “prudent”. They are certainly “Able”, if they wished, and if it was prudent to do so, to put massive amounts of boots on the ground.

          However, you cannot completely “eliminate” an insurgency. You can only contain one, perhaps for years or decades at a time, and over many generations, if the funding and ideological support dries up, an insurgency, or any kind of movement can fizzle out.

          The US and NATO are currently in afghanistan to train and equip the Afghan forces and build infrastructure and civil society until the Afghans are able to take on the Taliban themselves. Currently the Afghan forces are poorly trained and society is not yet robust enough to effectively country Taliban without foreign support. However, this does not mean that NATO and US are willing to provide indefinite support. At some point the Afghan government will need to be able to fend for itsself. However, these things take time, sometimes many decades.

          • Jesus

            How long have the Afghans been trained by NATO to fend for themselves?
            The Afghan army trained by NATO always needs more training, lol. NATO is there for other nefarious reasons
            Taliban has support of Pakistan, and US will not antagonize a nuclear power, especially with the explosive circumstances that currently prevail in the ME.

            US has about 80,000 SOF world wide, US devised the use of SOF after the fall of USSR, whereby any need for large standing units supposedly was no longer needed.

            “Not willing” = not being able to, it is ridiculous to place battalion size units near the Russian border, when Russia is assembling the 1st Guards tank army consisting of 4 divisions and supporting units.
            During the Cold War, US had hundreds of thousands of troops in Central Europe along with thousands of tanks.

          • Ronald

            Not without merit, or maybe prep for Iran.

          • JustPassingThrough

            “The US and NATO are currently in afghanistan to train and equip the
            Afghan forces and build infrastructure and civil society until the
            Afghans are able to take on the Taliban themselves.”

            they’ve been doing this for years with no success
            and you still believe that MSM hot air?

          • hamster

            Those things take time. Sometimes 17 years isn’t enough, particularly in a country with very rough terrain and a lack of civil society to begin with (after more than 20 years of constant warfare before that), these things are not easy to implement and there may be occasional setbacks.

            This oesn’t in any way indicate that the Taliban are a viable and sought after alternative for most Afghan people and tribes, the vast majority of whom despise the Taliban.

          • JustPassingThrough

            with all due disrespect, your answer is about the lamest anyone could come up with. something one would expect from a hamster or a guinea pig.

            you talk as if the u.s. and the “allies” had a right to be there in the first place. your arrogance and ignorance is only matched by your masters.

            the only reason the amis and the brits are there is for the poppies.

            MG are you naive and probably very young (at least mentally).

          • hamster

            Of course we had a right to be there. We asked the TAliban to hand over Bin Laden, they refusedd. We went in and kicked them out. Most Afghan people are greatful that the TAliban are gone and do not wish for them to return, irrespective of the problems with infrastructure and corruption that the AFghan government is plagued with.

            Furthermore it is the Taliban that has done an aboutface on the issue of poppies, which they help process into drugs and then profit off the taxation of poppy farmers. It is you who is naive and completely ignorant about a country that you have absolutely zero understanding of.

            It’s not a “lame” answer, its a very cogent one. Anyone with half a brain understands that battling insurgencies, particularly in a country that doesnt have a very strong economy or central government is very difficult and takes time.

            Look at Turkey, one of the more prosperous ones. They still have an insurgency that they havent been able to entirely quell despite 4 decades of trying. But a moron like you would ay “but theyve been trying to YEARS, they might as well give up!”. Well it doesnt matter, it may take years, it may take decades, but from a turkish point of view if they can keep the insurgency under control and maintain the territorial integrity of their country indefinitely, they dont necessarily have to “defeat” the kurdish seperatists. They are not able to kill every last kurdish seperatist, but that’s the thing, they don’t need to. They just need to be able to keep them from gaining power and seceding. Whether they will be able to succeed or not in the long run is anyones guess and depends on a large number of factors.

            Here to, the success or failure, and the time tables of achieving a reasonable degree of stability to the point where the Afghans can fend for themselves depends on a large number of factors, and cannot easily be predicted.

          • JustPassingThrough

            you should consider a career writing pulp fiction. this is the most naive view of the world i’ve heard in a long time. you picked the correct avatar. lmao

            you are losing in afghanistan just like you’ve lost in all the other places you arrogantly sought to conquer. you can rave on all you like. the body bags will keep on coming home. those that live will be ground up in the VA system or commit suicide. so just keep telling yourself about how long it will take. maybe when you grow up you can take your turn in the meat grinder.

          • hamster

            This isn’t a response to anything I said. “Losing” is a very vague term. In your view we’ve been “losing” for over 17 years, and yet the Taliban do not control the major and important parts of Aghanistan for any extended period of time, are rife with infighting, and are only propped by elements of the Pakistani government, with much internal disagreement of whether or not to join in peace talks. If the “bodybags” are trickling at a rate of just 50 per year, then the Taliban has decades, if not centuries of fighting cut out for them. Good luck with that.

            I frankly could care less what you think of my worldview. You are woefully ignorant of the internal political dynamics of Afghanistan. Your opinion is worth less than dogshit. You calling anyone naive is like a bum calling someone poor.

          • JustPassingThrough

            naive little hamster spinning on his wheel. lol

          • hamster

            There’s nothing “naive” about what I said. I’m just going through a routine of proverbially spitting on your face and getting away with it. It’s a source of great pleasure for me.

        • You can call me Al

          Maybe the European nation are doing it because of the Yanker bullies and their threats. remember we had 30 + thousand in Afghanistan and then the Yanks slagged us off, when they lost the first time around.

        • Ronald

          Opium is the reason the US and UK are in Afghanistan, certainly not what brand of Wahhabi is best for the people that live there, the “fighting” is just a smoke screen for intel’s # l, Big Money.
          Did you ever hear of the East-India Company’s trade with China.

          • Jesus

            Yes I did, but nefarious I implied the drug business.

      • JustPassingThrough

        “They’re able and capable”
        show me
        they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.
        no more empire to squeeze “volunteers” out of.
        laughable.

        • hamster

          Show you how? I am not in charge of the armed forces.

          But the notion that they are “unable” to muster more forces, if need be, is just pure fantasy on your part.

          • JustPassingThrough

            every one of your post is beyond the fantastical. you are very naive and not very good at this job. …and definitely overpaid. grow up a bit and then come back. or better yet why not volunteer for afghan duty to put all your inane theories to the test.

          • hamster

            Im not getting “paid” to do anything. I am jsut stating my opinions based on what I know and learning along the way. I’m already fully grown up and im clearly smacking your dumbass around no problem in the intellectual sphere. You’re just foaming at the mouth and spouting off blithering hoping that I am going to go away.

            Don’t bother telling me what I should do. I do what I please bitch, and there’s not a thing you can or will do about it. Instead, why dont you go try doing something useful, like jacking off in a corner and crying yourself to sleep instead.

          • JustPassingThrough

            my, my it doesn’t take you long to lose it does it. another single syllable intellectual. you’re right no one would pay for the drivel you post.

            hamster really fits your intellectual level… a small hamster. lmao

          • hamster

            Take me long to lose what? I’m smacking you around no problem. Why would anything a nobody like yourself says make me “lose it”? Don’t think too highly of yourself and get back to brooding over why your life is such a mess and abject failure.

          • JustPassingThrough

            naive little hamster spinning around on his wheel. lol

          • hamster

            Go take your meds, and then get some fresh air. You’re frothing at the mouth and getting yourself worked up over nothing. I’m personally enjoying watching you get all bothered and provoked. Such a predictable little simpleton, born to be a fiesty little bitch, just like your mother. I guess in your family’s genetics.

          • JustPassingThrough

            you’re beginning to bore me, but then what can a hamster do. ciao

          • hamster

            ciao.

      • Bob
  • Joao Alfaiate

    Given the long term experience of the Brits in Afghanistan, how could they be so stupid as to imagine increasing troop strength will have the slightest long term impact? Doubt the Taliban are worried. From their point of view this is just more evidence the current “government” could not exist without foreign assistance. When such military support is withdrawn, as it eventually must be, the Afghan regime will be tossed into the dust bin of history, just like the Soviet supported government of a few decades ago.

    • You can call me Al

      The government no longer gives a toss what happens to our troops.

  • Smaug

    As Egyptian Prime Minister Nasser said: “US influence is like an iceberg, most of it is under the surface.
    Despite South Front’s efforts to downplay US/UK involvement, we’re very much involved. We train allied soldiers, give them weapons and munitions, create a deterrence effect, provide crucial air support (remember that very recent battle that cost the Taliban hundreds of soldiers).
    This is identical to US/French involvement in Syria, and the only reason we’re not more involved is because of our detestment if casualties in someone else’s war.

    • JustPassingThrough

      by the way is Yemen your war?

      • Mike

        Well he is wahhabi saudi troll, which explains his obsession and hatred of the Houthis.

    • Mike

      I guess, but that what saudi barbarian like you would post about, oh and nice one about the Taliban, I guess they are no longer under your salafist control. If true then you would be pains to explain the Taliban’s continual gain of territory, keep that BS coming.

  • Tim Hadfield

    Why do we want to be involved in America’s slow defeat in Afghanistan ?

    • JustPassingThrough

      because of the “special relationship” you have with the u.s.

  • JustPassingThrough

    ridiculous
    85 last year?
    need 315 more to reach 1000.
    women and children first.
    brits are bonkers.
    empire is over, idiots.

  • Peter Moy

    These several hundred extra troops would have trouble securing a violent, crime-infested American ghetto let alone a part of Afghanistan. A waste of resources and effort just to please the despicable, diabolical, murderers in the Pentagon.

  • Sinbad2

    Twice as many Americans receiving handouts from Germany etc.
    The US sends its troops OS because the US cannot afford to pay them, so stick them in say Poland, and Poland pays the wages.
    It’s a great scam.

    • JustPassingThrough

      The Poles love them.

      They are the saviors of the Poles.

      All the Poles want to be amis.
      Would you like to buy some apples? …please say yes 😸

  • Vitex

    They’re there to protect the heroin trade. Very profitable for the illuminati by all accounts. 2000 – Mullah Omar outlaws heroin. 2001 – International expeditionary force arrives. 2018 – global opioid epidemic