ianstone
06-14-2010, 04:35 PM
Changing The Guard In Afghanistan
http://sl.sky.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/0/4c4326bc-a9af-49a1-a079-2ea68f471246.Small.jpg (http://blogs.news.sky.com/profile/Adam%20Boulton)
Adam Boulton (http://blogs.news.sky.com/profile/Adam%20Boulton) June 14, 2010 4:22 PM
http://sl.sky.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/14/11ef1a45-b89f-4a11-ae82-d67cd4769bdc.Full.jpg
Following his visit Afghanistan last week, the Prime Minister has made his first statement (http://www1.sky.com/news/Cameron_Afghanistan_statement.pdf)on the war to the Commons.
A mood of studied calm and politeness characterised his exchanges with Harriet Harman, even though Cameron warned "we must be ready for further casualties over the summer months" and even though he is signalling a significant change of approach in Afghanistan.
As the Defence Secretary Liam Fox spelt out in his first major speech in office this morning, Afghanistan is "Britain's number one foreign affairs priority".
Last weekend, Fox let it be known that the Chief of Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup and the MoD's senior civil servant Bill Jeffrey are being moved on.
The new government consider that they were too complicit in Labour's under resourcing of the British contribution.
Cameron told the Commons that nobody now feels that the 3,500 troops originally sent into Helmand were enough.
But he politely praised Stirrup and Jeffrey for doing a "superb" and dedicated job.
So what is the Cameron strategy?
Britain is there, he insisted, for "national security" - the aim is to stabilise Afghanistan and to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists by protecting civilians and building up Afghan security forces.
To do that he recommended trying to "reintegrate" the Taliban.
In the short term he committed Britain to a political and military surge in Afghanistan.
But he tied that entirely to American strategy under General McChrystal.
The next 12 months or so are decisive.
Neither Obama nor Cameron has any appetite for long term entanglement at this high level,UQ.
http://sl.sky.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/0/4c4326bc-a9af-49a1-a079-2ea68f471246.Small.jpg (http://blogs.news.sky.com/profile/Adam%20Boulton)
Adam Boulton (http://blogs.news.sky.com/profile/Adam%20Boulton) June 14, 2010 4:22 PM
http://sl.sky.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/14/11ef1a45-b89f-4a11-ae82-d67cd4769bdc.Full.jpg
Following his visit Afghanistan last week, the Prime Minister has made his first statement (http://www1.sky.com/news/Cameron_Afghanistan_statement.pdf)on the war to the Commons.
A mood of studied calm and politeness characterised his exchanges with Harriet Harman, even though Cameron warned "we must be ready for further casualties over the summer months" and even though he is signalling a significant change of approach in Afghanistan.
As the Defence Secretary Liam Fox spelt out in his first major speech in office this morning, Afghanistan is "Britain's number one foreign affairs priority".
Last weekend, Fox let it be known that the Chief of Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup and the MoD's senior civil servant Bill Jeffrey are being moved on.
The new government consider that they were too complicit in Labour's under resourcing of the British contribution.
Cameron told the Commons that nobody now feels that the 3,500 troops originally sent into Helmand were enough.
But he politely praised Stirrup and Jeffrey for doing a "superb" and dedicated job.
So what is the Cameron strategy?
Britain is there, he insisted, for "national security" - the aim is to stabilise Afghanistan and to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists by protecting civilians and building up Afghan security forces.
To do that he recommended trying to "reintegrate" the Taliban.
In the short term he committed Britain to a political and military surge in Afghanistan.
But he tied that entirely to American strategy under General McChrystal.
The next 12 months or so are decisive.
Neither Obama nor Cameron has any appetite for long term entanglement at this high level,UQ.