10 September 2006
More British soldiers will go to Afghanistan
Britain has agreed to send more troops to die in Afghanistan if the other NATO countries refuse to beef up their numbers in the country. How's that for a great negotiating position: you should send more men, but if you don't, then we will carry the burden.
Not that the Exile blames the likes of Germany and Spain for their refusal to have anything to do with this lunacy. The fault lies with a craven Parliament that allows the government to act as America's poodle.
While all this is going on, a former aid to the British commander in Southern Afghanistan, Captain Leo Docherty, has resigned his commission in protest at the war. "All those people whose homes have been destroyed and sons killed are going to turn against the British,” he said. “It’s a pretty clear equation — if people are losing homes and poppy fields, they will go and fight. I certainly would."
It is against this background that the new army chief, General Sir Richard Dannett, has admitted that the British army can only just cope with the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, more British soldiers are off to become bullet stoppers just to prove that Britain is America's loyal ally in a war that nobody else wants anything to do with, and which the British army seems to be turning against. Is that about how things stand?