Struggling troops 'need support'

Some experts say troops in Afghanistan need more support

The RAF crash killing 14 British personnel at the weekend was the latest piece of bad news to come out of Afghanistan.

But several military experts say the UK should not be tempted to pull the troops out and it is clear that their numbers should be bolstered.

Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter, said from mid-2002 the international community took its eye off Afghanistan because it was more focused on Iraq.

"If they had provided Afghanistan with sufficient troops back then, we wouldn't be in this current situation.

"For British forces to try to police an area three times the size of Wales with a single infantry battalion of around 700 troops is a complete non-starter."

Nato support

Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells, visiting the Afghan capital of Kabul, suggested some of the other Nato countries with military deployment in Afghanistan ought to be "pulling their weight".

He said: "There are many nations out here who are part of this effort, but I think there has to be much more emphasis on ensuring that they are putting in the assets, the air cover, the soldiers on the ground, the transportation to ensure that those men and women on the frontline have got the support that they require."

For Mr Tusa, such comments cast doubt on the level of support.

"If everything's fine why do you need more forces?

"It sounds like an admission that more support is needed."

If we had sent a huge fighting force in the first place the enemy would have ran to the hills Major Charles Heyman

The new head of the British Army told the Guardian newspaper that his troops "are fighting at the limit of their capacity".

Speaking before the 14 personnel were killed in Afghanistan when their aircraft crashed, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said: "We are running hot, certainly running hot.

"Can we cope? I pause. I say 'just'."

Major Charles Heyman, editor of Armed Forces of the UK, said the British soldiers in Afghanistan were doing an excellent job, but there was only so much the existing force could do by itself.

"It's worth remembering what Field Marshal Slim said during the Second World War: 'the more you use, the less you lose'.

"And he was talking about soldiers on the ground.

"So, an option to consider is to reinforce the troops immediately with at least three battalions of around 2,000 fighting soldiers.

Limited spare capacity

"But there is very little in the way of British infantry to spare, so we need to turn to our European colleagues.

"If they can't get more troops, the British may have to maintain security in a smaller area than they are currently operating in."

Dr Andrew Dorman, a senior lecturer in defence studies at King's College London, said south Afghanistan, where British forces are based, is particularly volatile.

"In the south there's a greater allegiance to the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

"There's been far less central control for decades in that region and it's also next to the Pakistan border, which makes it easier for insurgents to operate from."

'No withdrawal'

However, despite the difficulties faced, he agreed that the British forces should not be pulled out.

Dr Dorman said: "It would not be in our interests to withdraw, as the Taleban and al-Qaeda would take over.

"The challenge is to now manage public opinion that this is the case."

Maj Heyman said a withdrawal would be a major defeat.

"It would damage the West's ability to confront and deal with organisations like al-Qaeda and this would be irreversible.

"The public is now asking whether our politicians got us into the right conflict and are they doing the right things to make sure we're successful.

"The risks were not appreciated six months ago.

"I hate to say I told you so, but if we had sent a huge fighting force in the first place the enemy would have run to the hills."