UK sends 1000 more troops to Afghanistan

Now we have an idea what the reduction of troops in Iraq was intended to accomplish.

From the Guardian:

The defence secretary, Des Browne, is expected to announce on Monday a fresh deployment of more than 1,000 extra troops and equipment to Afghanistan to combat an expected spring offensive by the Taliban .

The increase in forces was reported to the cabinet yesterday amid what was described as a heavy discussion about the situation in the country and the efforts needed to shore up the government in Kabul. The new military push is expected to cost the Treasury £250m.

Next week's announcement follows a Nato-led review of its Afghan deployment and the Bush government's announcement last week to spend an extra £5.4bn to bolster its Afghan effort.

Nato currently has 35,000 troops in Afghanistan of which 5,000 are British, stationed in Helmand province, a one-time Taliban stronghold still responsible for 60% of Afghan opium production.

The deeper British commitment comes only a day after Tony Blair told MPs of plans for a 1,600 cut in British forces in southern Iraq by the summer to roughly 7,100, with further planned reductions later in the year. It also comes after the Italian coalition government led by Romano Prodi resigned on Tuesday after it lost a vote in parliament largely over its plans to retain nearly 2,000 troops in Afghanistan.

...

It appears to be a strategic redeployment to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Taliban's planned spring offensive. The Taliban have been unusually eager to give battle in situations that are unfavorable to them and have suffered unsustainable casualties from the heavier fire power of the NATO forces. The poorly trained light infantry is no match for the well trained NATO and Afghan forces much less the heavy weapons systems that can be brought to bare on them once fixed by our infantry.