On a related front, American officials moved to reassure Pakistan that a new aid package did not impinge on its sovereignty. That program, giving $7.5 billion over five years, requires assurances of civilian control of Pakistan’s security forces, but House and Senate leaders released a joint statement clarifying its intent. Pakistan’s visiting foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, expressed satisfaction, and Mr. Obama plans to sign the legislation by Friday.
The British troop announcement renewed attention on the contribution of NATO allies, which have long resisted American pressure to do more in Afghanistan. American officials said that if Mr. Obama approved more forces, they expected NATO to increase its participation as well, if not in combat troops then in training, equipment or economic assistance.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will meet with fellow NATO ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, next week, although without a final decision from Mr. Obama it will be harder to lobby then for more resources, officials said. Any appeals are likely to face resistance. The Dutch have said that they are pulling out of Afghanistan in 2010, and the Canadians plan to leave in 2011.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American and allied commander in Afghanistan, has submitted a request for 40,000 more troops on top of the 68,000 Americans already authorized to be there. About 35,000 troops from other NATO countries are also in Afghanistan.
Mr. Brown’s announcement comes at a time of rising opposition in Britain to the war, which appeared to be one reason the proposed increase was for only some of the 1,500 to 2,000 troops that British commanders had recommended. In outlining the strategy in a tense, 70-minute exchange in the House of Commons, Mr. Brown said his plans were intended to mesh with American war policy.
Photo
Mr. Brown spoke with Mr. Obama over a video link last week and met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at his official country residence, Chequers, on Monday. Last month, Mr. Brown met separately in London with General McChrystal and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the overall American commander for Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
But the keynote to Mr. Brown’s war plan was an insistent caution. He said he approved the new deployment on condition that enough equipment, including helicopters, be available to support British troops. Another requirement, he said, would be that other allies stepped up.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“Everyone must accept that they’re part of a coalition, and they’ve got to show it,” Mr. Brown said.
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.
The exchanges in the House of Commons reflected unease about the war in Britain. Eighty-four British soldiers have died in Afghanistan this year, more than a third of all of Britain’s losses since 2001 and more than all military deaths suffered in 2009 by other European nations in Afghanistan.
Before announcing the troop increase, Mr. Brown read the names of 37 British soldiers killed during the Commons’ 12-week summer recess. More than a dozen lawmakers then stood to denounce the war, or to mock the idea that combat responsibilities would eventually be handed over to the Afghan forces.
Sir Peter Tapsell, a member of the Conservative opposition, said, “Anybody who believes that an Afghan army composed of different ethnic groups is going to defeat the Taliban is living in a political cloud-cuckoo-land.”
But Mr. Brown said that three-quarters of all terrorist plots uncovered in Britain in recent years had links to Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. By persisting with the war effort, he said, “We are protecting the streets of Britain.”
Beyond demanding greater allied involvement, Mr. Brown said, the overall war strategy will involve a new “contract” with Mr. Karzai, an idea he said had developed “after the fullest possible consultation” with American leaders and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Mr. Brown said the pact would require an equitable solution to the disputed August presidential election, including the possibility of a runoff between Mr. Karzai and his main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. The Afghan government would also have to take action to curb corruption while increasing its security forces and deploying them in contested areas.
Part of any new strategy may involve distinguishing among Taliban factions. Mrs. Clinton alluded to that in an interview with ABC News while traveling in Moscow on Wednesday. “Our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, defeat Al Qaeda and its extremist allies,” she said. “But not every Taliban is an extremist ally.”
That thesis generated criticism in Washington. “I’m worried that we’re going to see ‘new’ analysis that justifies a more limited war strategy on the basis that we can now tolerate” the Taliban, Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing.
He criticized “the continued drift” by the White House, saying, “It is unfair to our forces in theater to fight a war while the strategy remains in limbo.”
Gordon Brown: "creo que la decisión que estamos anunciado es consistente con lo que los americanos decidirán".


El Primer Ministro del Reino Unido, Gordon Brown, ha anunciado que un total de 500 soldados británicos serán enviados a Afganistán; esto se sumaría a las ya 9.000 tropas británicas desplegadas en territorio afgano.

"Creo que la decisión que estamos anunciado es consistente con lo que los americanos decidirán", declaró Brown ayer. Su decisión fue aparentemente hecha a fin de "corresponder las demandas cambiantes de la campaña, que requiere mayor concentración de nuestras fuerzas en la Provincia de Helmand".

Un pedido para enviar un adicional de 2.000 tropas había sido rechazado previamente.

Tras su declaración, reportes de los medios sugirieron que la decisión fue hecha basándose en el consentimiento de los Estados Unidos en enviar al menos 45.000 –aunque no más de 65.000– tropas adicionales a Afganistán. La Casa Blanca luego negó que se hubiera llegado a un acuerdo, o que el presidente Barack Obama hubiera alcanzado alguna decisión con respecto a enviar más tropas.

"No pondría ningún peso detrás del hecho de que una decisión haya sido hecha, cuando el presidente aún debe tomar una decisión. He visto el reporte. No es cierto, ni en general ni específicamente. El presidente no ha tomado una decisión", informó el Secretario de Prensa, Robert Gibbs, en un comunicado emitido por la Casa Blanca.

En septiembre se reportó que el General comandante en Afganistán, Stanley A. McChrystal, había solicitado que se enviara un total de 40.000 soldados más a Afganistán. "Fallar en lograr la iniciativa y revertir el aceleramiento insurgente en un corto plazo –mientras que la capacidad de seguridad afgana madura– arriesga un desenlace en el que derrotar a la insurgencia no sea posible". Esta solicitud, según informó el ''Washington Post'', fue enviada a la Casa Blanca en agosto y Obama se encuentra analizándola.

Actualmente hay alrededor de 70.000 efectivos norteamericanos en Afganistán, junto con otras 35.000 tropas provenientes de otros países.