Report: White House Worried By UK Debate Over Af/Pak

By Steve Hynd

The Financial Times has a report today in which an anonymous Obama administration official admits to being worried about vocal British opposition to the continued and escalating Afghan occupation. The White House is particularly worried about how it might affect US opinion.

�It�s hard to see our most capable partner struggling in this debate,� the official said. �When it happens in a country like Germany, you think, �well, that�s Germany and they have special difficulties in light of the upcoming [German] elections�, but when it happens in London it hits hard.�

The official added: �If we are going to have to backfill European countries that decide to leave, could we sustain that with US public opinion? That�s an open question.�

Bruce Riedel, an analyst at the Brookings Institution who pulled together the Obama administration�s policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan this year, said: �The British are crucial to the Nato mission in Afghanistan.

�Public opinion here will be affected negatively against the war if our key ally in Helmand starts to look for a path out.�

Conversely, he said, a boost to UK forces would send a signal to the US domestic audience and to both the Taliban and Pakistan that �we won�t cut and run�.

The head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has obligingly told reporters that "we can have effect where we have boots on the ground" - a comment that has been picked up by the neoconservative Daily Telegraph as calling for more UK troops, even though Dannatt actually didn't make any such call. Gordon Brown is prevaricating. With Conservatives mainly calling for more equipment rather than more soldiers and the British treasury piggy-bank already busted, he'd far rather not pour more Sterling into the Afghan bottomless hole but may yet have no choice under pressure from opposition and across the pond.

Brown isn't the only European leader counting coppers for domestic programs and thinking hard about foreign occupations on the basis of wishful-thinking strategies. And reluctance to dig deep financially may yet sink "clear, hold and build". As the FT reveals:

Even apart from the push to keep foreign troops in theatre, the US is experiencing difficulty in raising the financing for the expanded Afghan police and army, which the country�s battered economy is unable to sustain itself. �The estimates already say roughly $2bn a year to support the Afghan National Army,� said the official, adding that Washington had not �even come close� to hopes it would raise $500m (�354m, �304m) in funding at this year�s Nato summit. �I don�t know where the money is going to come from, and it doesn�t matter if you have the best strategy in the world if it�s not sustainable.�

Prominent British experts on foreign policy and military matters such as Peter Beaumont, Rory Stewart and Correlli Barnett have all come out in the last week or two to make a bipartisan argument for withdrawal. With July shaping up to be the deadliest month of the eight year Afghan occupation so far, already matching the previous highest full-month toll, British opinion looks likely to continue to polarise - and US opinion to follow.