Frontline fighters or peace-keepers?

• UK strategy in Afghanistan not agreed as troops to be deployed in May

• US requests 2,000 of 5,000 soldiers help hunt al-Qaeda soldiers and Taliban

• Government hesitant over 'risky' mission in violent southern provinces

Key quote

"It is our view that countering the booming drug trade is at the heart of turning around the deteriorating security situation in southern Afghanistan" - British officer

Story in full BRITAIN'S planned troop deployment to Afghanistan is in chaos due to internal wrangling within NATO and what is perceived as the government's reluctance to commit itself to another risky military adventure.

Although Britain is due to take over command in the south of Afghanistan in May, military commanders are still waiting for news of how many troops will be sent and what they will be doing when they arrive.

The situation has been complicated by requests from the United States for British forces to be involved in operations against al-Qaeda remnants along the Pakistan border, and by uncertainty over the participation of Dutch troops in the deployment. But military sources also say that the government has been prevaricating over how many British troops should be sent to Afghanistan because it is worried that another deployment may prove unpopular with the public.

The Ministry of Defence was initially planning to send up to 5,000 troops to the region, including members of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, but it has now scaled back those plans.

Soldiers say they are receiving conflicting information about Britain's plans: "The plan appears to be set in sand," one observed.

British ministers and army commanders want the British contingent to concentrate on peacekeeping and counter-drugs operations as part of a NATO force in Helmand province.

But US commanders have asked their British counterparts to divert about 2,000 troops from peacekeeping duties to fight al-Qaeda soldiers along the Pakistan border. Pressure from Washington has been building since before Christmas.

"The Americans want us to go hunting gooks [al-Qaeda] with them," a British officer involved in planning the NATO mission told The Scotsman. "We have a more sophisticated view of the situation on the ground and it is our view that countering the booming drug trade is at the heart of turning around the deteriorating security situation in southern Afghanistan."

British commanders see winning over the "hearts and minds" of tribes in southern Afghanistan as being crucial to defeating the resurgent Taleban and al-Qaeda groups that have staged a series of deadly suicide bombings around Kandahar over the past week.

US forces have hit back, launching a controversial attack on a village near the Afghan border in Pakistan last week. The target was al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, but while he escaped, at least 13 local people died.

Pakistani authorities said yesterday that four or five foreign militants were killed in the attack on Damadola. They included Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, 52, an Egyptian, cited by the US Justice Department as an explosives expert and poisons instructor who trained hundreds of mujahideen at a terrorist camp in eastern Afghanistan before the hardline Taleban regime was ousted in late 2001.

Among the other foreigners possibly killed were Abu Obaidah al-Masri, the al-Qaeda chief responsible for attacks on US forces in eastern Afghanistan who was based in Kunar province; and Abdul Rehman al-Maghribi, a Moroccan and relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law.

Military sources have told The Scotsman the dispute between British and American commanders involves the possible role of an elite contingent of paratroopers and special forces troops, backed by Army Air Corps Apache attack helicopters.

While the 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, is to operate in Helmand province on reconstruction projects and providing security for Afghan government officials, a large contingent of Special Air Service (SAS) troops and the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, are to be deployed in southern Afghanistan as a rapid reaction force. The Americans want this force to fight alongside their troops on the border, while the British want to hold it back to operate in their zone.

The differences over strategy between London and Washington are the latest problem to beset the proposed expansion of NATO's peacekeeping mission into southern Afghanistan.

A Dutch fact-finding trip is in southern Afghanistan this week, to report back to the country's parliament ahead of a vote on deploying more than 1,000 troops to the country. Reports that Afghan officials advised the Dutch to "bring plenty of body bags" did nothing to re-assure them about the prospects for the mission.

British officers say a negative vote by the Dutch would force a major rethink of NATO plans because they were due to take over control of the violent Uruzgan province. Options under consideration including sending an additional British battalion to take their place, finding another NATO nation to fill the gap or asking the US for troops.

"None of these options look good because they could all delay the NATO move into the south" said the British officer.

"At this short notice it is very difficult to find that number of troops and get them trained and equipped for a potentially hazardous operation. You can't just leave a place like Uruzgan in a vacuum, NATO needs to tackle it or the province will become a no-go area and base for people trying to cause trouble across the whole of the south."