D-Day Approaches

The world will shortly discover whether Barrack Obama is going to send 10, 20, 30 or 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Whichever figure he chooses the cost to the U.S Treasury is estimated at a conservative $1 million per soldier per year to keep him fed, watered and equipped.

The size of the scale of the Allied operation in Afghanistan is already one of mind blowing numbers, it's long passed what I refer to as 'number blindness' the point where the commas and zeroes are beyond the reference points of most of us. There are currently more than 62,000 Allied Troops under NATO command operating in Afghanistan, they come from 41 countries and the numbers range from 30,000 from the U.S.A down to one from Austria. Mind you, one from Austria was enough to get World War Two started!

General Stanley McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops on the ground, so that will be in excess of 100,000 for a country that has a population of 31,000,000. That compares with the total U.K armed forces of 187,000 for a population of 65,000,000 so I guess the maths do work.

It's hard to see how the U.K could follow the Americans lead and commit even more soldiers, marines or whatever to a conflict that has, as I have said previously, seen public opinion sway against our involvement. The recent speech by Gordon Brown where he claimed that the war against terrorism should be seen as a success because it is negating the attacks on the U.K didn't go down to well over here. The danger with the U.K expanding its presence is that it leads to the radicalisation of more British born Muslims who, whilst they may be in a tiny minority, are aware that it only takes one suicide bomber to cause death and destruction.

Of course Barack Obama is in a lose-lose situation. If he commits fewer troops than has been requested he will be seen as letting down those who are already there, the impression will be that he doesn't believe the requests of those on the ground. If he commits a large number then there is the risk that this will result in more casualties and the feeling that the war is being lost. Up until now he has been regarded as dithering by his opponents but the truth is that he needs an exit strategy as well as means of getting the troops in there to begin with.

It is questionable whether the war, which recently passed it's eighth anniversary, can be won, but it must be because the alternative is that the country becomes a base for worldwide acts of terrorism. The rebels, insurgents, terrorists, call them what you like, have history, terrain and local knowledge on their side but with good intelligence they will over time be defeated, but that defeat will come at a heavy price and the length it takes to secure that victory might be considerable. The other argument is to leave things as they are but that increases the risk that the Taliban will enter Pakistan or other countries in the area.

Over to you Mr President.