Afternoon:
10°c
Afghan troop surge ‘could mean greater British losses’
Nicholas Cecil, Deputy Political Editor5 Oct 2009
The British death toll in Afghanistan may rise under plans to deploy more troops to defeat the Taliban insurgency, Liam Fox warned today.
The shadow defence secretary fears that things “may get worse before they get better” as Nato forces step up the battle for “hearts and minds” in the war-torn country.
US General Stanley McChrystal has called for tens of thousands more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.
Dr Fox said: “It will take time to turn around a failing strategy. And it's unlikely that we'll be able to do this without increasing our resources, and a heightened level of military activity with all the risks of increased casualties. Things may get worse before they get better.”
But the Ministry of Defence stressed that the British Army's chief General Sir David Richards does not believe that a troop surge would lead to more soldiers being killed.
An MoD spokesman said: “The Chief of the General Staff has said, if he was required to send more troops by the McChrystal review, it is his view it would result in fewer casualties.”
Dr Fox spoke out after Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth was put on the spot during a visit to Afghanistan when a bomb disposal expert asked him to send more troops for stretched frontline services.
During an inspection of anti-mine techniques at Camp Bastion, Mr Ainsworth asked Staff Sgt Kim Hughes, hailed by comrades for his expertise in disarming Taliban explosives: “So what's your top desire here from right at the chalkface — what would you have more of today?”
He replied: “More troops on the ground.” He stressed that British forces in Afghanistan were currently “stretched”, adding: “If you give us more troops, we can form a counter-IED [improvised bomb] taskforce to train ground troops better.”
Sgt Hughes, 30, of 11 Regiment EOD, said later: “Clearly more troops are needed on the ground — but then the same could be said for equipment.”
Mr Ainsworth and Home Secretary Alan Johnson were today visiting Islamabad, Pakistan, amid heightened security after five people were killed by a suicide bomber in the UN food aid offices.
Reader views (2)
Afghan troop surge ‘could mean greater British losses’
Well, duh! A troop surge would be pointless if they weren't going to employ those troops, and in an active combat zone that means going into harm's way. These are not conscripts being sent, but volunteer professionals. They understand what's involved so how about letting them get on with their jobs!? If you want to argue the politics, then talk about that in the appropriate setting. The soldiers know what they are doing, but if you keep pulling them this way and that with each new political intervention you ARE going to endanger them.
- Rogan, Irving, 05/10/2009 18:49
Report abuse
Why don't we let the Afghans have their civil war in peace? We can beef up our own security but let them blow each other up. Not our soldiers.
- Sue Rochester, London, 05/10/2009 15:12
Report abuse
