As well as Germany intending to publicly reveal their new strategy for the Afghanistan war, President Sarkozy has stated France will not be sending any more front line troops.
Didn't Bob (Ainsworth) say he had assurances from European countries that they would contribute towards the extra military the US desire?
On Monday President Sarkozy reaffirmed he will send groups of 'trainers'. "If we want to reinforce the training force for the Afghan army, to regulate Afghan police, to realise the work of civil security, then why not," he said.
There are around 3,500 French soldiers fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan. There are over 10,000 British troops.
It appears Mr Brown's international conference on Afghanistan, taking place tomorrow in London, is already slowly disintegrating although the outcome has already been decided. He may decided to stay out of the way in Northern Ireland and leave the hosting to one of his ministers.
Posts
11 comments:
The French not wanting to fight and leaving the Brits and Yanks to do it all for them....
Who'd have thought it?
Allez les Francais.
Now this is a French decision not an EU decision. Anti-EU nuts please note!
I use to think the French were the whores of Europe.
I've since changed my opinion to the UK being the whore to their American pimps, while the French, having that little bit more of self respect and elan are the courtesans.
Champagne or beer and the pox anybody?
No Cold Steel. If you've been watching the Iraq Inquiry the French were the ones who insisted that 1441 was enough enough evidence to make the Iraq war legal and they held out, only to be over-called by Bush and his poodle Blair.
The French certainly are showing independence of thought Strathturret. Today gave evidence of that. Quite surprising because the French position during the run up to the Iraq war wasn't much reported in the UK press. For obvious reasons of course.
Ah Crinkly, of course France and the US aren't pals these days and I hope it stays that way. We need someone in Europe to stand up to the US.
Sadly we have lost that accolade and it will never be returned. We will forever be known as the sidekick of the US.
Hi Rosa - Having spent the last week or so grinding my way through Bob Woodwards trilogy of Bush at War I've a couple of little tasters re the Blair Chilcot event on Fri.
a) The Yanks told Blair they regarded the 45min scenario as a heap of hogwash. This was prior to it being declared in parliament.
b) The legality of the war with regard to UN 1441 rested on the interpretation of an 'and' or 'or' situation.
i.e. whether sheltering suspected terrorist, or supplying suspected terrorist were seperately enough to invoke an armed response or whether both had to apply.
Bush and his cronies didn't care; they were going to war anyway. But they were desperate to have the banner of 'coalition' fluttering over them.
Special relationship? Down boy... Dammit down you mangy mutt..just about sums it up.
Crinkly I do hope you've done a post about that. Off to check.
No you haven't. :( That's a shame.
I must admit I found listening to Goldsmith infuriating. All these highly intelligent grown men talking for hours about the exact meaning of words!
Invading another country is wrong period. Apply the test how would we like it if another country invaded us?
He was like a tape recorder Strathturret.
What I can't understand is why law is written with any ambiguity in the wording. Seems quite unsafe.
Of course lawyers make a fortune from misuse of language. They should be forced to write in plain English then there would be far fewer misunderstandings/interpretations.
That won't come to pass of course - must keep the legal profession financially rewarded.
Post a Comment