Poland to send more troops to Afghanistan

[SO19]

Poland to send more troops to Afghanistan
By Matthew Day in Warsaw
(Filed: 14/09/2006)

Audio: Patrick Bishop on the frontline with British troops in Kandahar: http://podcast.telegraph.co.uk/uafghan.mp3

Poland has responded to Nato calls for more troops to bolster its mission in Afghanistan by announcing it will commit at least 1,000 soldiers - but not until next year.

However, there was confusion as to whether the deployment would actually boost the overall number of Nato soldiers on the ground or was merely part of a planned rotation.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington, Radek Sikorski, the Polish defence minister, said: “as of February next year over 1,000 Polish soldiers are going to be serving in Afghanistan.”

Mr Sikorski added that the force, a mechanized battalion that will bolster the 100-strong Polish force already in the country, will be stationed at Bagram air base and will take part in operations primarily in the east of the country.

More than 30 British troops have died in bloody clashes with resurgent Taliban forces in the restive south since the Army arrived the area in force earlier this summer.

One Nato official said the Polish deployment was routine and had been arranged before the alliance’s urgent appeal for an additional 2,500 troops to boost its forces.

“This is part of a regular reinforcement and rotation that had been planned previously,” a Nato spokesman, Lt. Col. Goetz Haffke, said from Nato’s Allied Joint Force Command Headquarters in Brunssum, Netherlands.

Still, the Nato secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, welcomed the announcement, calling it a “very important step” in the alliance’s operations in Afghanistan.

A total of 4,500 British troops are currently stationed in the south of Afghanistan where they have met fierce resistance from the Taliban and allied warlords and the local drugs mafia.

Nato member states currently have around 18,500 troops in Afghanistan with non-Nato countries contributing a further 1,500.

[SO19]

The extra troops for Afghanistan that aren't 'extra' at all
15.09.06


Polish Troops: One thousand will go to
Afghanistan but won't get to the volatile
south

Nato faces fresh embarrassment over its Afghan mission after a high-profile announcement of 1,000 extra troops was exposed as overblown spin.

Hours after commanders failed to get alliance members to commit reinforcements to fight the Taliban in the south, Poland's defence minister appeared to come to the rescue by promising 1,000 soldiers.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer seized on the news, calling it a "very important step".

But has it emerged that the Polish troops had long been expected as part of a planned rotation and will not arrive until February, despite frontline commanders' pleas for extra manpower now.

To make matters worse, the Poles will be restricted to peacekeeping in the relatively calm east around the capital Kabul, rather than joining the fighting in the volatile south.

Poland also wants Nato to pay for their transport to the region.

Defence minister Radoslaw Sikorski let slip that Nato chiefs asked him to announce the long-planned move to give the impression of progress and encourage other allies to join the mission.

Mr Sikorski told journalists during a visit to Washington: "Nato's secretary general asked me to make the decision public today because it will help him mobilise more forces."

Diplomats at Nato headquarters revealed that Warsaw was looking for financial help from other Nato allies to cover the cost of flying the soldiers to Afghanistan.

The episode adds to the impression that Nato is struggling to maintain its first security operation outside Europe, with member states reluctant to put their troops at risk.

The 57-year-old alliance has taken responsibility for Afghanistan's security from the U.S-led coalition, and has 18,500 troops in the country.

Earlier this year it moved 8,000 mainly British and Canadian troops into the lawless south of the country on what was billed as a reconstruction and stabilisation mission.

But they have faced far tougher opposition than expected from Taliban fighters in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, with 35 British soldiers being killed in the past six months in what commanders claim is the hardest sustained fighting for UK troops since the Second World War.

Amid complaints of shortages of troops, aircraft and helicopters, Nato chiefs are now trying to get 2,500 more soldiers, but no member states have agreed to help.

A failure to produce enough firepower to rout the Taliban - which lacks sophisticated weaponry or any air support - would raise serious questions over Nato's abilities.

Meanwhile attacks by the Taliban in previously peaceful areas of western Afghanistan have raised fears of a new front.

Militants firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns seized a police compound in Farah Province - the second such attack in two days. Clashes left four dead.

Nato chiefs fear fighting in the south may have pushed Taliban units into western areas untouched by recent violence.

Supreme commander U.S. General James L. Jones stressed in a speech yesterday that the Taliban was not the only enemy in Afghanistan.

He said Al Qaeda elements and criminal gangs linked to the lucrative drugs trade were also major players, contributing to the lawlessness.

He warned that blaming all the violence on the resurgence of the Taliban was wrong and its fighting capabilities should not be exaggerated.

Meanwhile, Ukraine added to Nato woes by shelving plans to join the western alliance, blaming opposition at home and a desire to preserve links with Russia.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do

[jones1975]

Well wot can i say they are going to send their troops who have no combat experience what so ever to a region where our troops have been in country getting in engagements since they got out there.

Not only that they have the cheek to ask nato to get them in to the area wot will they want next us to pay them for the privelage of going over there.

If anything they will do more damage than good.

[Alfa]

Yes it's disappointing, when I first heard this I thought it was great news but it's starting to look like more empty posturing from our NATO "allies"

[druadan]

Although I am in no position to give an educated viewpoint of the various armed forces of Europe, in my opinion it is countries such as Poland, with less money and less developed armies. who should be responsible for the peace keeping and reconstruction in peaceful areas. It is the stronger nations, Germany and France especially, the Dutch perhaps, who should be supporting us and the Yanks in the volatile areas.

[jones1975]

I quite agree why isit nato if its only us brits that are sending our troops into the hell of engagements.

Firstly we have been training and fighting against terrorism for years in N ireland and haveing spent 3 yrs out there myself it sums it.

Our troops are the best in the world regardless of wot ever unit para marine or infantry etc i know there is alot of rivalry i was an irish guard and it was the same with us with the welsh jocks etc.

no matter wot the brittish troops out there are in an engagement and why the hell aren,t the bloody germans or whoever else sending there lot out.

nato seems tome tobe one sided our boys.

[druadan]

Jones, I've mentioned elsewhere, no offence intended as you seem genuine, but please take just that extra minute over your typing to make your posts more readable. I know it seems petty, but on a forum it makes the difference between someone skipping over your opinions or taking them onboard. No offence mate.