The New York Times has a report today on the intense British debate over troop levels in Afghanistan. The U.K. has over 9,000 soldiers serving in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the second-largest deployment after that of the United States. There are nearly as many British troops as there are troops from continental Europe’s Big Four (France, Germany, Italy, and Spain) combined.
The United States, Great Britain, and Canada are bearing the overwhelming burden of military operations against the Taliban, with almost 85 percent of coalition casualties coming from English-speaking countries. Britain has sacrificed 220 servicemen in the campaign, more than the total lost by all other European countries combined (213).
British generals have called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to send up to 2,000 extra troops to Afghanistan. Despite the already sizable deployment, there simply are not enough British forces to hold territory in Helmand Province taken from the Taliban, and there is no sign that other European countries will step up to the plate. So far, Brown and the mandarins in Whitehall have resisted, not least because their high-spending government has gutted defense spending and is also sensitive to rising anti-war sentiment within the ruling Labour Party.
There is no doubt mounting tension between British commanders on the ground and Downing Street over the Brown government’s refusal to adequately fund, equip, and man the Afghan war. The most prominent supporter of a British troop surge has been Sir Richard Dannatt, who recently retired as chief of the General Staff of the British Army. Sir Richard has just been appointed as a defence adviser to the Conservative Party, which is likely to take power at the next general election.
Before stepping down, General Dannatt delivered a superb speech on the Afghanistan campaign at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. He declared that the war can be won, provided the necessary military and political resources are committed to it.
“We should be under no illusion: We are at war, and if we want to succeed, which we must, we must get onto a war-like footing — and as I said to the Officer Cadets being commissioned from Sandhurst last Christmas, ‘You enter an Army that is at War — even if not everyone in our nation realizes that.’ . . . [W]e must ensure that we succeed in the current campaign,” Dannatt said.
“Success in Afghanistan is not discretionary — it will set the agenda for the future — and we must do whatever is necessary to succeed. This must be demonstrated by a strengthened and enduring national, political, industrial, cross-Whitehall, and departmental commitment to delivering success in Afghanistan — we need to get onto a war-like footing. It is very much in our national interest to do this. If this means an uplift in Afghan-specific capabilities, so be it.”
Dannatt’s words should be heeded by the White House as well. The war in Afghanistan is overwhelmingly an Anglosphere-led military operation, with the Anglo-American “special relationship” as its engine. Both London and Washington must commit to additional troop levels if the war is to succeed. A loss to the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies is unthinkable, and the United States and Great Britain must ensure that victory is secured over a brutal and barbaric enemy that continues to threaten the security of the free world.
– Nile Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.