UK troops 'should do longer Afghan tours'

VICTORY over the Taleban in Afghanistan would be achieved more quickly if British troops lengthened their tours of duty, according to the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan.

General Dan McNeill, of the United States army, said longer tours would lead to a swifter victory against the insurgents, which could, in turn, result in a cut in the number of international troops as early as 2011.

He said soldiers on 15-month tours had outperformed British troops, who spend six months at a time in Afghanistan, and he revealed he had met British defence chiefs to discuss ways of improving the UK's counter-insurgency strategy.

He said: "Tour length does matter. If you can embrace a tour length that keeps your force on the ground for a longer period of time, but at the same time does not jeopardise the health of your volunteer force, you are likely to see better results in counter-insurgency operations."

The general, who is nearing the end of a marathon 17-month stint in Kabul, said longer tours were key to winning the counter-insurgency because they let soldiers develop a better understanding of the country.

Violence has increased across Afghanistan during his tenure, but he insisted the soldiers getting the best results were US troops on 15-month tours in the east of the country. British troops are mainly based in Helmand, in the south.

He said: "Counter-insurgency doctrine, applied in its purest form and having tremendous effects, is done best in Afghanistan in the east. The 15-month tour lengths contributed to that by allowing US soldiers, and their leaders, to establish and maintain relationships with the terrain, with the indigenous people and their leaders, and with the enemy – and then, over time, to fully exploit those relationships to the advantage of the alliance.

"Onerous as it was to the families and soldiers, it produced some good results."

Gen McNeill's remarks follow claims earlier this year by Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, that British, Canadian and Dutch troops do not know how to fight counter-insurgency operations.

British colonial officers in the 19th century used to spend years at a time in remote Afghan frontier posts, but Gen McNeill admitted longer tours today would put more strain on families and increase pressure on an already overstretched force.

"Everybody else's army has to figure out what works for them," he said. "Repetitive tour lengths, short dwell times back (home] is not necessarily in the best interests of the health of the force. I would simply point out that tour length does matter when you are fighting a counter-insurgency."

On the orders of President George Bush, US troops in eastern Afghanistan are switching in August from 15- to 12-month tours, to reduce the strain on soldiers. But they will still spend about twice as long on each tour as their UK counterparts.

British soldiers usually spend six months in Afghanistan, but the massive demand on the UK's armed forces means thousands of troops are getting less time at home in between operations.

Many of those currently in Helmand are on their second tour of Afghanistan, after enduring six months of ferocious fighting in the summer of 2006.

Lt Col Robin Matthews, the British forces' spokesman in Afghanistan, said senior officers worked hard to share what was learned from one tour to the next. He said: "An ongoing and comprehensive liaison is conducted between the in-place headquarters and that which will take over from it."

The Ministry of Defence said: "Personnel in a number of key appointments have had their tours lengths extended to allow for greater continuity, particularly in posts that involve building relationships with local Afghans. However, in order to allow a good balance between time spent on operations, training and at home, the majority of our forces will continue to undertake six month deployments."