# Brits getting Wobbly on A'Stan



## onewingwonder (14 Dec 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4521318.stm


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Dec 2005)

Not a real surprise. The UK is having all it can handle with its Iraq deployment. As for the other members of NATO not stepping up I suppose we should be glad the Russians didnt try to invade western europe.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2402732005


----------



## Kendrick (14 Dec 2005)

Well... I guess it's to be expected.  With everything run by, and for, politics, conflicts are all about costs, investments, and return.


----------



## oyaguy (15 Dec 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I suppose we should be glad the Russians didnt try to invade western europe.



Given their performance in Chechnya, that might be kind of amusing.


----------



## COBRA-6 (15 Dec 2005)

> Foreign ministers agreed to provide 6,000 troops for the move south at a meeting last week in Brussels, with most coming from Britain - which will lead the alliance's forces - and Canada.
> 
> But as so often in the past since Nato took over leadership of the Afghan peacekeeping mission - which it calls its number one priority - the details of this commitment had not been resolved.
> 
> Only the Canadian part of the plan is on track, with about half their 2,000 promised troops already in place in Kandahar.



Go Canada!


----------



## KevinB (15 Dec 2005)

They may want to go count heads in Khandahar...

Unless they are counting ex-pat PSD pers there is no way there are 1000 troops in country yet.


----------



## Goldsmith (15 Dec 2005)

wow, how impressive are the dutch, you'd think they might have something to prove after Srebrenica


----------



## jimmy742 (15 Dec 2005)

The Dutch vacillation is political, as it was at Srebrenica, and not a question of military effectiveness I'm sure. Besides, our politicians and public are just as sensitive to casualties as they are.

If anything, we should be a little concerned. We have or will have no Apaches, medium lift etc..in theatre.  The Dutch and Brits do. If they scale back, we are more vulnerable and less capable. We'd be requesting what the Dutch are requesting. 

So much for "well equipped".


----------



## career_radio-checker (18 Dec 2005)

Kendrick said:
			
		

> Well... I guess it's to be expected.   With everything run by, and for, politics, conflicts are all about costs, investments, and return.



Curious, does anyone have a rough guess-timate on how much it costs to have a 2000 Canadian contingent in Kandahar for 6 months?


----------



## Daidalous (18 Dec 2005)

Lets say it costs  10,000 a month per solider, which includes things like Monthly pay, over seas pay, food, water, ammunition, kit  etc.  It would cost  20 000 000 a month just for personal.   Then you have to throw in the cost of flying a Airbus at a wild guess of 200,000 for crew, fuel and repair or the Antanov at 1 million per shot,  every week to Mirage for mission resupply, 1.6 million per month  (if you sent 3 airbuses and a antonov per month) . Then lord only know how much we pay every month of truck fuel and other expenses related to camp operations.


So my rougher than not shaving for 3 days guess is    25 million a month.


With a grand total  of  150 million for the tour.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (18 Dec 2005)

i just recieved an email from an American friend of mine there and he said when i asked him about this that the Brits ae cutting back but there CAS is still coming and the American CAS is staying for longer. He thinks the reason the Brits are cutting back is because the amount of troops we are only sending in and that they didn't need that much for the area there going into.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> They may want to go count heads in Khandahar...
> 
> Unless they are counting ex-pat PSD pers there is no way there are 1000 troops in country yet.



Kev - I sign the DSR every day, and the figure ain't far off.  Think TAVs etc.

Dave


----------



## KevinB (20 Dec 2005)

WOW -- quite the tail...


----------



## silentbutdeadly (20 Dec 2005)

hmmmmmm?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> WOW -- quite the tail...



To be fair, a better way to say it would be WOW - quite the advance party.  Those 2000 troops arriving in Feb need somewhere to live and work, and vehicles, radios and ammo with which to fight.  The numbers of course include those who load planes   and those who offload ships, neither of which are actually in-country per se, although they are under command.  

Oh yeah, and Franko.

Dave


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2005)

Ah I see we are having a bit of fun with numbers in the deployed in support of issue.

I saw a huge contingent at the ISAF market last Friday, I dont think I had fully appreciated all who where in country beyond the PRT and TAT/Whatever/Franko'ish components.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2006)

Seems the Brits aren't the only ones worrying...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17732947%255E31477,00.html

"AUSTRALIA will not put its 200-strong military reconstruction team in harm's way in Afghanistan until NATO sends an extra 6000 troops to the troubled country.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said yesterday he was waiting for a resolution to Dutch indecision on numbers of reinforcements it will send as part of NATO's plan to boost its forces. 

"We have decided in principle to send the team, but we are awaiting NATO's next step on who they will send into the southern provinces," Senator Hill said. 

"As the Australian reconstruction team will rely primarily on the NATO force for security, we want to know who is going to put in, and what their timelines will be."  (...)


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2006)

Sad that military units cannot provide their own security. I can understand a security element for a civie reconstruction team, but for a military unit engaged in reconstruction to require still another unit for security is absurd, at least to this old war horse. I learned a long time ago that if you require security from outside your unit you are simply asking for trouble.


----------



## british_soldier (7 Jan 2006)

Hello lads, this is my first post here, i was only messing around on the internet and i found this sitead this thread. I am currently in the british army, and to be specific the British Parachute Regiment, we are going to Afghanistan and to the Helmand province. I read that BBC articleand as you all probably know articles have their inaccurices,and this was no excepion. To say we'recutting back on troops and not taking Apache helicopters takesthe piss really.It is fair to say that the politicans are doing what they do best-shit themselves. This tour is defintley going to happen, at worst it may be delayed a couple of months but we are going out there and who ever wants to take is on is going to get the good news. Cheers.


----------



## MJP (10 Jan 2006)

Good to hear your still coming....I guess we'll see you on the ground sometime in the next few months.  Cheers bud.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2006)

British deployment detailed



> Around 3,300 British Forces Will Deploy to the South of Afghanistan This Year
> 
> 
> (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Jan. 26, 2006)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.17178889.1138375508.Q9o7VMOa9dUAAFVPRvY&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Jan 2006)

Talking with a mate the other day,his Unit is going over and it's Terry Unit.


----------



## big bad john (2 Feb 2006)

The Netherlands finally decided also.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/02/20060202-dutchvote.html

Dutch legislators OK sending troops to Afghanistan
Last Updated Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:42:52 EST 
CBC News
The Dutch parliament voted Thursday to follow through on its commitment to send up to 1,400 soldiers to troubled southern Afghanistan. 


INDEPTH: Afghanistan

The lengthy parliamentary debate took place in front of standing-room only crowds, as legislators argued the merits of the Afghan mission to Uruzgan. 

It is a turbulent region where U.S. troops and Afghan government forces have come under repeated attacks from insurgents. In January, Canadian diploma Glyn Berry was killed and three Canadian soldiers were injured in a bombing attack. 

Dutch critics said any attempt to rebuild the area is doomed to failure, while others said the Dutch have an obligation to NATO. Public opinion in the Netherlands is evenly divided. 

"The mission has been called a reconstruction mission, but in reality it is a fighting mission," Farah Karimi of the Green Left party said Thursday. "If the Americans were unable to do any reconstruction, why would we be more successful?" 

Observers say the spectre of Srebrenica lurked over the debate. Eleven years ago, 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men were killed by Bosnian Serbs while Dutch peacekeepers, under-equipped and with no clear mission, did nothing. 

Defenders of the Afghan mission say it won't happen this time. 

Despite groups of vocal protesters gathered outside, lawmakers ultimately agreed the country's troops would join Canadian and British forces. 

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's government was able to approve the troop deployment after its main rival, the opposition Labour party, earlier this week decided to support the proposal. 

Defence Minister Henk Kamp said an advance team would likely leave for Uruzgan on March 1, while the main contingent would be deployed Aug. 1. That's two months later than originally scheduled. 

NATO previously said it would go ahead with the mission even if parliament in The Hague vetoed Dutch involvement.


----------



## big bad john (2 Feb 2006)

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C03%5Cstory_3-2-2006_pg4_14


Danish govt okays more Afghan troops

* Afghan FM hopes Netherlands will approve sending more troops

COPENHAGEN/ PRAGUE: Denmark’s parliament on Thursday decided to send 200 more troops to the NATO-led international force in Afghanistan. 

The troops are to leave in May or June and will be based in Afghanistan’s troubled south, where NATO will take over peacekeeping from US forces. 

The parliament approved the move by 107 votes in favour to 10 against, with 62 members absent. NATO-member Denmark currently has 160 soldiers based in the Afghan capital Kabul. 

Meanwhile, the upper chamber of Czech parliament on Thursday approved the deployment of troops to Afghanistan. 

Of the 68 lawmakers present in the 81-seat Senate, 65 voted in favour of the move, one was against and two abstained. 

If approved by the parliament’s lower chamber, up to 120 troops will join the US-led operation against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. 

The lower chamber of the parliament is scheduled to discuss the deployment on Friday. 

The Czech Republic currently has 61 soldiers in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led peacekeeping force. 

Meanwhile, Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah said he was hopeful the Dutch parliament would approve the dispatch of 1,400 additional troops to Afghanistan’s restive south.

The parliament was due to decide on Thursday, after weeks of wrangling, on the deployment which is considered key to NATO’s efforts to expand peacekeeping and reconstruction work in the volatile southern part of the country. 

“I hope the Dutch parliament will approve the decision of Dutch government to send troops to Afghanistan. I am optimistic,” Abdullah told reporters hours after returning from a key conference in London on Afghanistan’s future.

The NATO expansion would however go ahead even without the Dutch approval, with the gap filled by troops from other NATO members, the minister said. “If the Dutch parliament approves the decision, it is good. But if not, they will be replaced by other NATO troops from other NATO members,” he said.

The Dutch forces are expected to go to Uruzgan province, the site of several attacks against foreign troops. NATO plans to increase its force to some 18,500 troops later this year to be able to move into volatile southern regions.

The deployment in the insurgency-hit south is seen as a key step in the international community’s efforts to stabilise and rebuild Afghanistan, extending the central government’s authority across the war-shattered country.

Abdullah said the London conference this week at which Afghanistan’s international donors pledged 10.5 billion dollars for the country and endorsed its five-year development plan showed the “spirit of true partnership between Afghanistan and the international community”. 

“It was a demonstration of support for our shared aim to build a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan,” he said.

Destitute and war-shattered Afghanistan is trying to rebuild after decades of war which ended with the removal in late 2001 of the hardline Taliban regime, remnants of which have launched a guerrilla-like insurgency that sees regular deadly attacks. agencies


----------

