An initial contingent of 55 marines will be deployed in November, the first of four six-month rotations of 55 troops.
Tongan Prime Minister Feleti Sevele said the deployment would help to ease unemployment in his nation of 104,000 people, and foster closer ties between
Brigadier Tauaika 'Uta'atu, the Tongan defence services commander said, "This is an invitation from the British Army who saw our soldiers work in Iraq and then - Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to our prime minister and asked for support. This is something we think is an honour to be a part of."
'Uta'atu said the British government would pay $4 million to cover Tongan costs the first year, including uniforms, ammunition, accommodation, travel expenses and a daily stipend for each soldier in
Tongan officers chose the location for the deployment from among four sites during a visit to
"It looks safer than
The next step must be to stop foot patrols in
A report here from the Guardian about an American company in Helmand.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jul/29/afghanistan-war-us-military
The resistance is able to slow the advance of NATO with mines or IEDs as the Pentagon calls them. The risk these soldiers have to live with is the regular incidents of their comrades stepping on a mine and having their legs blown off.
Posted by: Ad | July 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM
"Tonga's government has agreed to deploy 275 soldiers to Afghanistan over the next two years. They will help guard the British garrison of Camp Bastion in Helmand Province."
At the risk of raising more derision from the regulars... I don't understand this. If Britain is arranging - and paying - for the deployment of more troops, how is that an exit strategy? Looks more like outsourcing.
Posted by: DG | July 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM
The British Empire was the example all wish to follow with the absolute minimum of risk and expense for the maximum reward.
Withdrawal of the kind meant here, is the aggressors keep control but don't risk their own to do it.
As with the US's heavy use of mercenaries, the British are falling back on their traditional use of cheap and invariably non white skinned people who, if they are maimed or killed are not British soldiers.
Their injuries or deaths will mean no more to us than the injuries and deaths of the populace of the countries we rape and thieve from and of course if they misbehave and do anything even the lazy perceive to be nasty, well they aren't British soldiers, are they old chap?
Chalk another one up to the traditional order of things.
White man's burden and all that.
Posted by: HuwOS | July 30, 2010 at 02:54 PM
"Withdrawal of the kind meant here, is the aggressors keep control but don't risk their own to do it."
I thought that the argument for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan was based on the assumption that it's impossible to control it by military means?
Posted by: D.G. | July 30, 2010 at 09:46 PM
Alarming evidence today of a five fold increase of instances where limbs were blown off. When will we get regular news on the serious injuries?
Posted by: Paul Flynn | July 30, 2010 at 11:43 PM
"I thought that the argument for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan was based on the assumption that it's impossible to control it by military means?"
It's like the argument against torture DG.
There's the overall moral reason for stopping or even the possibility of not starting doing something evil, then for those with no morals there's the practical reasons,
eg. torture doesn't work and Afghanistan is actually impossible to control militarily.
Unfortunately for the immoral fantasists, their policies tend to be based on the hope that with this little tweak or that little tweak then it will work.
Torture will work if we don't call it torture.
Torture will work if we get other countries to do it.
Occupation will work if we bribe the Afghans.
Occupation will work if we get brown skinned people to do it.
Posted by: HuwOS | July 31, 2010 at 04:44 PM