Gordon Brown Set to Reinforce Troops in Afghanistan

Thousands more troops could be sent to Afghanistan within months, under an emergency review of the UK mission being carried out by the Ministry of defense.

The news of a possible troop surge comes after eight British soldiers were killed within 24 hours, leading to fresh calls from senior military and political figures for urgent reinforcements - and an end to Treasury constraints on spending on the Afghan war. Fifteen British soldiers have died during the first 11 days of July, with the total of 184 deaths surpassing the 179 who were killed in Iraq. A soldier who died in an explosion on Thursday has been named as Daniel Hume, 22, from 4th Bn, The Rifles.

The emotive images of the soldiers' coffins being repatriated have intensified pressure on ministers to show the loss of life is for a cause that can be won.

There is also growing sensitivity in Whitehall to charges that lives are being put at risk because of attempts in the Treasury to rein in spending.

An MoD source confirmed last night that ministers were "re-examining" troop numbers in Helmand following the bloodiest day for British ground troops since the start of current operations.

"Troop levels are under review. They could go up, depending on events on the ground," said a defence spokesman. It is believed that the maximum extra deployment would be 2,000.

Last month, UK military chiefs were dismayed to learn that their requests for 2,000 more troops had been turned down because of a Treasury spending cap.

An extra 700 service personnel were recently sent to Helmand province on a temporary basis to provide security ahead of Afghanistan's presidential elections next month, taking the total British force to nearly 9,000.

In a letter released to Commons select committee chairmen before an appearance before parliament's liaison committee this week, Gordon Brown admitted that the past few days had been "extraordinarily difficult", but he also made clear that troop numbers could be increased so that successes against the Taliban could be built on. "We will, of course, continue to review our force levels, based on the advice of our commanders and discussions with allies," the PM wrote.

The apparent willingness to consider more troops will be seen as a sign of Brown's determination to show real progress in Afghanistan before the general election. Barack Obama is also known to have told commanders he wants demonstrable results within a year.

The change of thinking comes as the new US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, is preparing to publish a major review of operations within the coming weeks.

Former Tory foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said Brown had no option but to order the MoD to loosen financial controls: "The needs of combat operations are always additional to normal MoD funding. We did not defeat Hitler by deciding what we could afford."

Left-wing Labour MP Jon Cruddas today calls on ministers to scrap plans for the multi-billion-pound new Trident missile system and to switch resources to "protect soldiers on the front line".

Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey said public patience with the Afghanistan mission was limited. "The public will understand us making sacrifices if there is a sense of progress, but if there is no sign of it soon they will become impatient."

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "The price of failure in Afghanistan is too great to contemplate. But we must give our armed forces the equipment they need. The decision to cut the helicopter budget in 2004 was disastrous"

Anti-war campaigners announced yesterday that they will stage an emergency protest outside Downing Street tomorrow calling for British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan.

An increase in the number of British troops will please President Obama, who increased the US deployment in Afghanistan by 17,000 to 55,000 in February.

Obama has repeatedly stated his commitment to win in Afghanistan, citing the specter of an Islamist takeover of Pakistan's nuclear bomb as a prospect that could not countenanced.

Diplomatic sources say that a change in the wider Nato and US strategy - including still more US forces - will be outlined in a new Civil-Military Plan, presently at a draft stage. It represents the recognition by McChrystal and his advisers that the mission in Afghanistan has been blighted by historic errors, not least the decision to split responsibilities for five key post-conflict roles to five different nations - including rebuilding the police, counter-narcotics and reconstruction - which is blamed for creating a sense of muddle. "We are going to see a connectivity in efforts that we have not seen before in Afghanistan when McChrystal signs off on this," said a military source.

The MoD's projected figures for the coming year, given to parliament last week, suggest the bill for the Afghan war will rise by more than £1bn compared with last year, a jump of more than a third, swallowing almost all the savings made by withdrawing from Iraq and raising questions about how long it can be maintained.

So far, much of the cost of the operation has been met from Treasury reserves rather than from within the defence budget itself. A recent paper by Malcolm Chalmers of the RUSI estimated that defence budgets may already have to be cut by between 10% and 15% over the six years from 2010 as part of government attempts to bring down the deficit.

This year's rise was triggered by additional security costs around the Afghan elections, as well as a 200-strong expert team brought in to counter roadside bombs and urgent operational requirements such as modifications to helicopters, Tornado aircraft and other force protection measures.

Although Gordon Brown told the Commons only three months ago that the war was expected to cost about £3bn this year, the figures show that is already out of date, with up to £3.4bn projected for this year.