UK diverts war funds as it eyes Afghan exit

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-afghan-pullout...-131416105.html

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain said on Wednesday it would use money once earmarked for its military mission in Afghanistan to fund tax cuts, a move that underlines a 2015 withdrawal date and that hints at significant troop drawdowns soon.

British finance minister George Osborne said spending on the Afghan conflict would be 2.4 billion pounds ($3.8 billion) less than expected in the years up to 2015.

"UK forces will cease combat operations by the end of 2014. As a consequence ... the cost of operations ... are expected to be a total of 2.4 billion pounds lower than planned over the remainder of the parliament," Osborne told parliament while presenting his annual budget.

A Treasury official said the cash would pay for tax cuts, part of plans to stimulate Britain's sagging economy.

The current parliament ends in 2015 and Britain has long said it would withdraw the bulk of its 9,500 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

It has said it will withdraw 500 soldiers this year but has not revealed its plans for reducing troop numbers after that.

The diversion of funding could mean it envisages a significant drawdown of forces during 2013.

According to official figures, Britain has spent at least 13.3 billion pounds on the conflict since 2001, in addition to normal defence spending.

Pressure has grown in recent months for the return of British troops after a series of setbacks, including the killing earlier this month of six soldiers in an explosion in southern Helmand province, where most British troops are based.

"It really does headline now the fact that they really are going to withdraw by the end of 2014 and the withdrawal is going to be phased," said Charles Heyman, defence analyst and editor of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom.

"It was a bit of an aspiration last year. This year it really means something, and the withdrawal is properly casted," he added, predicting a drawdown of between 3,000 and 4,000 troops by the end 2013.

Speaking to parliament on Wednesday, Prime Minister David Cameron said he would look for opportunities next year to pull troops back from the Afghan front line.

"What I discussed with President Obama in America is making sure that in 2013 if there are opportunities to change the nature of the mission and be more in support rather than a direct combat role, then that's something that I think everyone would want to see," said Cameron, who was in Washington last week.

He has previously said he wanted to avoid a "cliff-edge" withdrawal of a large number of troops at the end of 2014.

Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, who commands U.S. and NATO forces there, will make recommendations about how quickly the United States should pull out of the country in the last three months of this year [ID:nL1E8EK5EO].

we defeated the talibs and killed bin laden lol, job done lets go home

No the job isn't done! Once again the heads of government aren't listening to the people in the know. Mainly the commanders and troops on the ground.

I'm here I know whats going on a troop withdrawn without and stable government will end in another civil war among tribes and either the Taliban will regain control or something worse. Finish a job for once you dont built half a house and expect it to last.

So what? Why not let brown people kill other brown people all day long if that's what they want. And why not let them make an Islamic dictatorship what ever government if that's their choice. And even if it's not, why give a F. It's not like you were any more successful last time round you tried to pull something down there. As far as I am concerned the west should leave them all alone and let them handle their own business. Best case scenario. They get their taliban nation. The western world gets a reprieve from terrorism and pointless fighting in their god forsaken land. It's a win-win.

One day the west will realize it can't just go around fixing everyone elses societies and problems to conform to "western" standards.

We did leave them alone when the russians pulled out, we pulled out all support against better judgement of the CIA, in what case happen the taliban took over most of the country killed thousands, let the terrorist training in there country for attacks on the United States, Britain, Spain, and Russia to name just a few.

Nation building and Counter-insurgency operations isn't a push button in 3 minutes its done kinda thing it takes years, South America was won that easily it took 25 plus years to win. Way far South America will take longer do to the drug trade there. Africa will be atleast 10yrs before good is seen there and the tide is changed there and its taken more than 50yrs there.

Reckon its only the Tories looking to scrape money from wherever they can to line the pockets of themselves and their fat cat friends who've beneficently greatly from this year's Budget.

Also trying to get votes ahead of 2015, though THAT election Labour's set to get a landslide.

Because the West knows what's good for the rest of the world. We got it right. Letting the rest of the world burn itself will cause more damage than us "minding our own business".

How many people who killed in their own internal affairs is completely irrelevant. As for terrorism ask your self this. Why are these terrorists out to get the west in the first place? Surely it can't be something we did. Things like meddling in the internal affairs of their countries, imposing our west centric standards on them under threat of sanctions, supporting military rebellions and revolutions, founding random nations where we see fit and giving them what ever lands we see fit, supporting one nation against others to suit our political goals... You know.

As far as I am concerned the west should declare a policy of absolute non interference in the affairs of Africa and the middle east and do so publicly and with commitment. Once that is done, the terrorists won't have any good reason to attack. After all, a terrorist is just a protester that feels there is no other way he can get the message across.

There it is again. Why the hell does the west feel the need to go nation building anywhere? Just pull out and declare the whole area a no go zone for all eternity. No nation building, no occupations, no sanctions, no support for one side or the other.


In other words. Give them what they want in exchange for leaving us the F alone.
And if what they want is to burn the house down. Well its their bloody house to burn down in the first place.

not getting it since the day he was born, and still not failing to disappoint.

I was being wholly sarcastic. Granted, you may not know me enough to recognise my mood through my posting style, but lack of capitals and proper grammar usually means I'm being facetious, as well as sarcastic.

I too believe that Afghanistan can't be stabilised without a continuing foreign military presence.

Psschaw. So what if a couple of terrorists blow up a couple of buildings, crash a few planes. Just turn up the volume on your iPod, manufactured in a third world hell hole.

I'm going to pretend I didn't read that cause I've lost not only friends in 9/11 with the FDNY but have lost a good number of friends in the mideast in conflicts. I lost a guy almost two weeks ago I was in his wedding right before we left the states.

its randc, you should just ignore whatever he says

lol no that isn't how it works. what they want is just to do whatever the fuck they like within "their borders" which is basically the "ummah."

You expect Purpelia to ever "get it?" That's going to be a long wait.