Are UK troops overstretched?

Royal Marines are due in Kabul on Saturday

The deployment of up to 1,500 British troops in Afghanistan during the next few weeks has sparked fears about dwindling Army resources. BBC News Online investigates.

Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, a former captain in the Scots Guards, says a British peace-keeping force could seriously overstretch the Army.

He told the BBC he had "deep misgivings" about the numbers involved and their purpose.

But a leading defence analyst said the Army could probably cope with the numbers, although he said the mission was potentially "fraught with danger".

British troops are stationed all around the globe including Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Brunei, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Sierra Leone, with military teams or advisers in 25 countries.

There are serious concerns now that we are asking British troops endlessly to do jobs which are taking them beyond the capacity to do them

Iain Duncan Smith
Conservative leader

Defence secretary Geoff Hoon, who has tried to allay fears over Army resources, announced the deployment to MPs on Wednesday.

The troops will aim to bring stability to Afghanistan and to ensure a period of order while a new administration takes over from the Taleban.

But Mr Duncan Smith, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, said the timescale of the mission had to be clarified "because of the heavy level of overstretching that exists at the moment".

Echoing former defence chief of staff Lord Guthrie, he said: "There are serious concerns now that we are asking British troops endlessly to do jobs which are taking them beyond the capacity to do them.

'Very dangerous'

"I know that our troops will do what they're asked, but we at some point have to ask the question if we are overusing them in this sense and if they're able to do their best."

The Conservative leader said he would always support British troops once engaged, and hoped they would have powers to defend themselves.

But Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, told BBC News Online: "For between 1,000 and 1,500 troops, there's no doubt it causes a problem, but probably not an insurmountable problem.

Hoon is due to give more details on deployment

"If it was 5,000, then that would be totally different because they would have to be changed after three months and we haven't got enough to do that."

Mr Hoon had previously moved to allay fears on this issue by promising a time-limit on troops involvement.

But Mr Heyman detects other possible difficulties in the mission.

Robust powers

He said: "This is fraught with every danger under the sun. It appears as if the Northern Alliance is still not happy and it would be very dangerous to put them in that situation.

"The ordinary people in Kabul want them to be there, but we really don't know what the Northern Alliance's attitude is."

Mr Heyman said the British role in Afghanistan was actually a "peace support operation", more dangerous than a peace-keeping mission, which only required the forces to sit between two sides.

But he agreed with Mr Duncan Smith about the powers required.

"They need robust rules of engagement to make sure that the mandate from the UN can be carried out."