Tonight:
4°c
Military chiefs are prepared for “scores, if not hundreds” more British soldiers to die in a new troop surge to win the Afghan war.
They expect the British military death toll to rise sharply under the masterplan drawn up by General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, to defeat the Taliban.
But they believe that if there is a clear and convincing strategy for success, the British public could be persuaded to back the military campaign.
Gen McChrystal is not only calling for many more troops, but he is also arguing for more risks to be taken by getting soldiers out of armoured vehicles to engage with locals on the streets to win their trust. While vital in the battle for “hearts and minds”, senior defence sources accept the cost of such tactics could be “scores, if not hundreds” more British soldiers dying.
Already 218 British service personnel have been killed in the conflict since 2001 and support for the war has plummeted in recent months after 41 deaths in July and August alone.
Gordon Brown has stepped up efforts to make the case for the military campaign on the grounds that it is needed to protect Britain from terrorism. But the Prime Minister will face an even bigger task to convince people to support a strategy likely to result in even heavier casualties. If US President Barack Obama agrees to the McChrystal strategy, Britain is expected to be asked to contribute about a further 1,000 troops, which would take its deployment to Afghanistan to about 10,000.
Washington is divided over the McChrystal proposals, which include tens of thousands more troops, to take the total Nato-led force to more than 100,000. The commander has warned that without the reinforcements, the war is set to end in failure.
Vice president Joe Biden has suggested reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan and focusing on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
British ministers are thought to be undecided over Gen McChrystal's strategy, though military chiefs are believed to be ready to implement it.
A key plank of the blueprint is to speed up training of the Afghan police and army to total 400,000. The aim to increase the size of the Afghan army from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011 would be completed by October next year.
Military commanders have been disappointed by the pace at which Afghan security forces have been able to take over security for hard-won areas.
British troops, who took land around Babaji in Helmand province, ahead of the August elections, are still holding it — longer than expected, according to a senior defence source. Ten British soldiers died in June and July to clear the area of the Taliban.
Reader views (20)
according to an advert for an up market broadsheet i read on the tube, the talibhan are paid $15 per day.
now i may be naieve (possibly am) but idealism is often tempered by base economic considerations. thus i'm not sure what it actually costs pro rata to kill a talibhan insurgent. but it may well be cheaper to offer say $25- $50 to each insurgent to lay down his weapons and go home, or perhaps swop sides. no doubt there are many complications i'm unaware of, BUT?
whilst discussing base economics, the coalition are busy wiping out poppy fields, at some considerable expense in manpower, etc. conventional medicine the world over uses the harvest of such, thus it might be a better proposition to actually buy the stuff at source and knock out the middle man, smuggling, street drug problems in the developed world and relieve the security services of the ominous task involved in policing the illicit trade. again no doubt i'm simplistivc in my thinking, BUT?
- M.O'Brien, london.uk, 28/09/2009 17:48
Report abuse
"...so how will we know if we have won."
You don't win wars like these, you just stop the bad guys thinking that THEY won.
- Rogan, Irving, 28/09/2009 16:59
Report abuse
The US elected a verifiable - by his own words - communist to power in November. Don't expect us to care about a few dead soldiers anymore - the end justifies the means.
- Trunk, US, 28/09/2009 16:38
Report abuse
I have friend here served in the US army and to this day he still has nightmares of colleagues lost, maimed in a war that was politically fuelled by the likes of Brown and all the others. Bring them home and deploy them to "fight" terrorism in the UK.
- Peter, Vienna, Austria, 28/09/2009 15:52
Report abuse
'Senior defence sources' ? Where is this twaddle coming from if not from the fevered imagination of your correspondent ? Of course likely casualty rates are calculated on the basis of any specific military operation but not something as vague as a 'troop surge'. Or is someone trying to get this incompetent government off the hook if the US decides to increase troop levels and Gordon Brown does not wish to contribute ?
- P Walnut, Chelmsford, 28/09/2009 14:37
Report abuse
Hitler was ahead of his time. Had he been in power in 2009 the lily-livered readers that post here would have been appeasing him. Now that our soldiers are there, and being killed, we owe it to them to support them, resource them and see them through to victory against a country that threatens our own well-being through its terrorism and its drug trade. In addition to fighting that war, we should be re-doubling our efforts to stop the drug trade here so that the funds dry up for the terrorists.
- Peace Maker, Battersea, 28/09/2009 14:01
Report abuse
Hundreds of killed implies thousands of wounded. I think someone is losing the plot here. Democracy is not the answer, it is the welfare of the Afghan people that will win against insurgents and that means civil development and the necessary level of military force to protect that development. We have been trying to go against the grain of the country by supporting a central government of questionable legitimacy while what Afghans want is to be governed in the traditional tribal way. We cannot leave them now until their own local forces are built up to the point where they can defend the population and themselves against the Taliban. If that means more troops then so be it. If it means breaking the country up into ethnic divisions the better to establish legitimate (local) government then that's OK too. It does not imply heavier casualties.
- Peter Haldane, London, 28/09/2009 14:00
Report abuse
Send Brown out there to fight,he seems to think this war is necessary.
- Steve, London, 28/09/2009 13:58
Report abuse
We don't know what we are fighting for in Afghanistan - so how will we know if we have won.
- Posdis, Oxford, 28/09/2009 13:49
Report abuse
Military Forces should be allowed to restore Law and Order in this Country.
System in the United Kingdom is not working .administered by self serving Bureaucrats obssessed with targets and ticking boxes
- Barry Deane, Richmond, United Kingdom, 28/09/2009 13:22
Report abuse
Further evidence that the establishment has gone mad. There is no point in dealing with a terrorist threat overseas. If one turns a blind eye to hate preachers in the UK and then compounds this by introducing new laws to protect these people from criticism.
If the Taliban choose to execute televisions by hanging them from trees. Let them get on with it. We should wake up to the realities of that potential threat within our own shores. The mistake we have made is to allow them to be funded by heroin crops and now protection money for supply convoys from Pakistan. Stop worrying about hearts and minds and supporting corrupt elections and politicians. Destroy the heroin poppy crops, starve the Taliban of funds and get our soldiers out now.
- Harry H, London UK, 28/09/2009 13:15
Report abuse
Military chiefs are prepared for “scores, if not hundreds” more British soldiers to die in a new troop surge to win the Afghan war...... I must say that is very big of them, I shall look at them in an entirely different light, and, that certainly will not be positive! What did a German general have to say about British troops in WW1, I think it was 'lions led by donkeys' It would appear nothing ever changes!
- Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, London., 28/09/2009 12:44
Report abuse
The whole thing is nonsensical. Whats it all about. They went there to hunt down the enemy of the US,Bin Laden but, Seeing as Bin is presumed to be in another country, why on earth are we risking the lives of our soldiers by sending them to fight against a non existent enemy of the UK. Bring the troops home NOW Gordon.
T H Leeds
- Thomas Hayes, Leeds UK, 28/09/2009 12:35
Report abuse
Every member of this governing party who put our troops in Afghanistan must now commit to increasing the troops equipment and firefighting budgets - to the highest limits possible. Each time any Labour MP feels like using taxpayers money for any luxury, or unnecessary expenses, should use these young men and womens injuries and deaths to remind them just where public money SHOULD be going.
- Susan, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, 28/09/2009 12:33
Report abuse
This is insane.
- J Miller, England, 28/09/2009 12:25
Report abuse
Bring our troops home and send the Afghans in the UK back to replace them!
- Manny Goldstein, London, England, 28/09/2009 12:25
Report abuse
Why ? Why ? Why ?
We could not succeed in that country at Height of our Empire.
Even the Russians got a bloody nose !!!
Have we learned nothing from the past ?
- Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD, 28/09/2009 12:09
Report abuse
Why should our troops die trying to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan when all the Afghans and Iraqis want to do is come and live here! Bring our troops home NOW before any more lose their lives.
- Sue, Orpington, Kent, 28/09/2009 12:01
Report abuse
I Think its time that we got out and stoped propping-up that drug-fuelled goverment..
- Michael Franklin-Harris, london, 28/09/2009 11:25
Report abuse
Afghanistan is not worth it. Bring the soldiers back home and let's look after our borders and track down and deport / kill those within them that would attack us. Give aid to help the Government of Pakistan fight the terrorists in the border regions.
- Ab, London, 28/09/2009 09:56
Report abuse
