The Anglosphere leads the fight in Afghanistan

The Australian Prime Minister announced last night that he plans to double the number of Australian troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2008. Australia currently has 550 troops in Afghanistan and expects the number to increase to approximately 1,000. The majority of the new troop deployments will be made up of Special Forces. They will be sent to the Uruzgan province where they will provide security for Australian reconstruction efforts and disrupt Taliban operations in the area.

The increased Australian deployment will be well received by the Bush administration and NATO commanders who have been calling for increased commitments from coalition partners. It is also a reflection of Howard’s desire to put his money where his mouth is. He had been critical of countries not contributing enough to the war on terror and therefore felt the need to show Australia’s commitment. Although the increase from 550 to 1,000 may not match the numerical commitments of Germany, Italy and France (who have contributed 2700, 1800 and 975 troops respectively), the significant characteristic of the Australian troops is that they are deployed in the dangerous regions of the country.  The German, Italian and French governments have largely refused to put their troops in harm’s way except in emergency situations.

It is noteworthy that most of the heavy-lifting in Afghanistan is being undertaken by Anglosphere nations - the USA, Great Britain, Australia and, of course, Stephen Harper's Canada - which lost six men over the weekend.  Canada has lost fifty members of its armed services in Afghanistan.

The importance of the Anglosphere - which (exceptionally) sided with Israel during last summer's conflict with Hezbollah - will be a recurring theme of BritainAndAmerica.com.

Comments

[JF]

Perhaps it's time to formalize the Anglosphere as a replacement for NATO in the military sphere and for the UN in the sphere of international legitimacy.

[Oba of Benin]

Whilst one welcomes the Aussie contibution, it does not go far enough. The British have 6000 troops whilst the canadians have 2500. Surely Mr tough talk can contribute more than just 1000 'heavy lifting' troops.

[AussieBum]

The British are welcome to be part of the Anglosphere JF as long as we don't have to have those 15 Royal Navy sailors!

[malcolm]

The Australian army is very small Oba. A commitment of 1,000 troops is very significant for them. Good for Howard,we still have a chance of winning in Afghanistan, these troops have given us a better chance. We need more 'though, the failure of NATO countries to respond properly and the debacle in Iraq makes it far more difficult now than it would have been 3-4 years ago.

[Oba of Benin]

Dear Malcolm, i would like to be adressed as 'your Highness'.

Wikipedia states that the Australian Army has 25,241 troops. I am sure sending an extra 1000 troops wouldn't hurt. Even if it does hurt, a leading proponent of the war on terror ought to increase the strength of its armed forces before lecturing others.

[TomTom]

Since the majority of the Australian uplift are Special Forces it is unlikely to be a great number since few armies have large reserves of such forces. The French had a very sad experience with three of their Special Forces captured by Taleban and other troops were unable to rescue them

The Germans have KSK Special Forces in Afghanistan; they were there under the Schroeder Government too but secretly. In fact German KSK troops are being used just as the SAS used to be, secretly with no press knowledge.

The USA should consider that this "Anglosphere" is actually the White component of the British Empire which US policy succeeded in destroying. The one component of the British Empire which would make a huge difference is the one which has most to gain in Afghanistan and would cause most antagonism with Pakistan.

The "Anglosphere" is a US invitation to join an American incarnation of the British Empire c. 1940 - when each of those nations, including New Zealand and India, came to Britain's aid and without Indian Army troops Britain would have been in very bad shape in North Africa, Italy, Burma, Singapore....since India provided the world's largest volunteer army of 5 million men. It was the Indian Army that Britain used in Iraq in 1922 and in 1941

[Umbrella man]

TomTom mentions Pakistan. The war on terror would be in a lot of trouble if it wasn't for President Musharraf. If the Anglosphere doesn't include people like him there'll be no successful war on terror.

[TomTom]

NO...membership is not one man..it is a nation, and Pakistan as a nation cannot be trusted.

Pakistan is the source of many of our problems - both Bhutto and his obsession with an A-Bomb and A Q Khan getting centrifuge plans and parts from Urenco in Holland - owned by the British/German/Dutch Governments - this one fact provided N Korea and Iran with nuclear technology because Pakistan stole the know-how from Urenco.

India is the prize not Pakistan. Pakistan is a witches' brew

Answering Oba of Benin why Australia has few Special Forces

[freedom2]

Pakistan has lost more troops on the "war on terror" than most nations we (Pakistan) should stop killing our own citizens and our neighbours and pull out of Bush's "War on terror" now!

[TomTom]

Maybe you will but it is a farce to claim that Pakistan is a nation when the border regions are out of control. The country is a heaving mass and Britain should block all remittances and all direct flights to Pakistan and control all access.

If it does not come to its senses Pakistan is headed for destruction. It has failed since 1947 to stabilise its politics or its economy and would be in real trouble without remittances from Britain, USA, Germany and the Gulf states

[JF]

TomTom, while I agree that the US has long been a supporter of self-determination with the result being the destruction of the British Empire, I wonder if you would prefer British dominion over your former colonies. I believe Britain is better off today without them.

AussieBum, in addition to leaving out those 15, I think we might want to leave out New Zealand as well.

[TomTom]

I wonder if you would prefer British dominion over your former colonies. I believe Britain is better off today without them.

I don't know if Britain is better off today without Canada, Australia, New Zealand....in fact a case could be made for closer links between them, much closer as Canadians like Max Beaverbrook envisaged. Without these countries in close association - only Canada was a Dominion under the legislation - the country had a better sense of purpose. I speak as one with relatives in each of those countries.

The aspect that is most peculiar however is to have Hollywood invite us to join in a rewrite of our own autobiography

[Alexander Drake]

No point leaving out New Zealand, JF - they'll come running back when it becomes apparent it's a problem that they can't defend themselves from the air anymore. The RNZAF doesn't have any combat planes anymore. Their last squadron was based in Australia for training purposes, but was shut down when funding was cut.

In the meantime, Unzud plays a useful role in Pacific affairs, and Britain has handed over its remaining Pacific role to the Kiwis entirely.

Besides which, it is unsound to have a Realm outside the anglosphere, even if it is still currently "Helengrad".

[JF]

TomTom, I'm quite sure that FDR's policy of destroying the British Empire was not directed at the "White" Anglosphere, but rather the various colonies in Asia and Africa. That said, given that the "White" Anglosphere is composed solely of democracies, there's little stopping you from forming a closer union. I suspect there would be more popular support for that than for the EU, at least.

Alexander Drake, then let them come running back. They'll never reform so long as they can get away with it...

[Edmac]

The Anglo-sphere is a stupid idea. America is the primary threat to world-civilisation. It needs to be utterly destroyed. Britain should rally the old commonwealth countries, bring them into the orbit of a new European superpower and use all means at our collective European disposal to completely eradicate the American menace from the world. Russia could be a useful ally in this.

[JF]

Edmac,

It would indeed be interesting to see the outcome of a war between a nation that spends on its military nearly as much as the rest of the world combined (i.e. the US) vs. a disunited, pacifist continent stripped of NATO resources.

On the other hand, I suspect it would be easier to rout your community (the radical Muslim community) in Londonistan.

[Robyn O]

My son is one of the Aussie troops that will be deployed in Afghanistan to support U.S. led coalition forces. I don't want him to be there but it is his job. Don't bag Aussie forces, Oba. Why don't you go there to Afghanistan and see what it is like first hand? Aussie troops also have a strong presence in the Asia Pacific region and we are doing our best to support the U.S. in Afghanistan. Be thankful that red-blooded Aussies are prepared to put that red blood on the line for folks such as YOU.
Proud Mum. Brisbane, Queensland. Australia.

[Kevin Sampson]

"European superpower"

LOL!

[Teddy Bear]

Robyn - May your son return safe and sound, and know that the intelligent beings in the world are very proud and thankful of him. Let him know also that the mainstream media in general does not represent intelligent beings.

[Jorge P]

European Super Power??
Even if that was realistic, we all know what happens when nom-Anglo Europeans get too much power.
Keep on entertaining your fantasies of getting cozy with the Russians Edmac.
As a Canadian, I'll chose America against 10 EU's as my ally.