Grand Danois
Entertainer
Actually ISAF is an UN assignment outsourced to NATO.icelord said:
See, the US did have an exit strategy.
Btw, Futurama rules.
Last edited:
Nato in Afghanistan -'European nations must not turn 'coward.'
- Thread starter riksavage
- Start date
See, the US did have an exit strategy.
Btw, Futurama rules.
abramsteve
New Member
Nah we rounded it to 5cents so no change sorry!icelord said:
I agree with you again Icelord! Your mind must be as muddled as mine mate!
I see a normalisation in terms of our armed forces here but it just takes more time.
Before 1991 nobody dreamed of german soldiers participating in foreign missions and than we went to Somalia. Many other missions followed with germany becoming one of the biggest troop supporter of UN missions. In Kosovo we again broke one rule and attacked another country (Which caused some constitutional problems). In Afghanistan our special forces participated right next to US, british, etc. in all the missions without exception.
You see there is a process but we are still just at the beginning. Other countrys like France, UK, Australia, etc. participated in oversea missions for decades we just for 15 years.
There is also another problem from bringing troops from the north to the south.
There are not that many pure combat troops in the north. The main body of our 3000 soldiers consist of engineers, medics, logistics, etc. If we wanted to send additional troops we would cross the border of the 3000 max.
The north is for sure not as hot as the southern regions but it is not quiet. RPG attacks, firefights, IEDs, etc. have increased over the last months and so sending our combat troops into the south would be a risk if the north went bad while we are away.
Before 1991 nobody dreamed of german soldiers participating in foreign missions and than we went to Somalia. Many other missions followed with germany becoming one of the biggest troop supporter of UN missions. In Kosovo we again broke one rule and attacked another country (Which caused some constitutional problems). In Afghanistan our special forces participated right next to US, british, etc. in all the missions without exception.
You see there is a process but we are still just at the beginning. Other countrys like France, UK, Australia, etc. participated in oversea missions for decades we just for 15 years.
There is also another problem from bringing troops from the north to the south.
There are not that many pure combat troops in the north. The main body of our 3000 soldiers consist of engineers, medics, logistics, etc. If we wanted to send additional troops we would cross the border of the 3000 max.
The north is for sure not as hot as the southern regions but it is not quiet. RPG attacks, firefights, IEDs, etc. have increased over the last months and so sending our combat troops into the south would be a risk if the north went bad while we are away.
The UN peacekeeping department organised a meeting to discuss troops for any future force in Darfur so the world body could move into Darfur as soon as Sudan agreed.
Norway offered 250 logistics experts and together with Sweden, a battalion of engineers while Tanzania, Nigeria and Bangladesh pledged infantry soldiers
But the force, approved by the UN Security Council, is still on paper only, with its goal of 22,500 soldiers and police.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20533991-1702,00.html
Well, thats a start...bloody swedes again
Norway offered 250 logistics experts and together with Sweden, a battalion of engineers while Tanzania, Nigeria and Bangladesh pledged infantry soldiers
But the force, approved by the UN Security Council, is still on paper only, with its goal of 22,500 soldiers and police.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20533991-1702,00.html
Well, thats a start...bloody swedes again
Grand Danois
Entertainer
If you got Ozzy Osborne to sing the Swedish national anthem and then played it backwards, you'd realise they have sold their souls to the devil in order to conquer the world!
Sometimes I could %§%$§ because of some of our politicans.
Not really thinking about our current missions and trying to take cover because of combat ground units for the south of A-stan but talking about Sudan.
Just seen in the newspaper...
I have the idea that many politicians don't even think about the possible results and effects of sending troops around the globe before saying yes and amen to it in the parliament.
As if it would have been impossible that there are also pure combat units needed in A-stan.
Not to talk of the possibility of the north also beginning to burn and we need help...
The fire fights, mortar attacks, IEDs, RPG salvos, etc. in the north are increasing with a scary rate.
I don't think that our government is able to hold their course much longer.
I'm very interested in the results of the NATO conference in Riga.
A very interesting article about the problems between us and the southern countries and about how our soldiers feel because of the political theater our government is playing.
Not really thinking about our current missions and trying to take cover because of combat ground units for the south of A-stan but talking about Sudan.
Just seen in the newspaper...
I have the idea that many politicians don't even think about the possible results and effects of sending troops around the globe before saying yes and amen to it in the parliament.
As if it would have been impossible that there are also pure combat units needed in A-stan.
Not to talk of the possibility of the north also beginning to burn and we need help...
The fire fights, mortar attacks, IEDs, RPG salvos, etc. in the north are increasing with a scary rate.
I don't think that our government is able to hold their course much longer.
I'm very interested in the results of the NATO conference in Riga.
A very interesting article about the problems between us and the southern countries and about how our soldiers feel because of the political theater our government is playing.
Last edited:
USNavySEAL3310
New Member
NATO was originally created to be a unified force of European nations to stand up against their Soviet aggressor. It was meant to be a defense force, a group of nations that would go to each others' aid.
The famous fifth article even says that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against them all. An attack was launched against the U.S. and so NATO nations, according to the treaty, are required to come to its assistance. This isn't asking a whole lot, it is what is expected of other NATO nations. What is being asked of NATO, as I interpret it, is a larger commitment to Afghanistan. Not the Iraq war, nothing with Iran (at the moment), just Afghanistan. While the country isn't secure (except for Kabul), a larger NATO presence would definitely reduce the number of Taliban and al Qaeda equipment and personnel that travel through the region and so helping the war on terror on a larger scale. A larger NATO presence would definitely help in the long run with Afghanistan's government.
Have to run, will post more later.
The famous fifth article even says that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against them all. An attack was launched against the U.S. and so NATO nations, according to the treaty, are required to come to its assistance. This isn't asking a whole lot, it is what is expected of other NATO nations. What is being asked of NATO, as I interpret it, is a larger commitment to Afghanistan. Not the Iraq war, nothing with Iran (at the moment), just Afghanistan. While the country isn't secure (except for Kabul), a larger NATO presence would definitely reduce the number of Taliban and al Qaeda equipment and personnel that travel through the region and so helping the war on terror on a larger scale. A larger NATO presence would definitely help in the long run with Afghanistan's government.
Have to run, will post more later.
USNavySEAL3310
There is always a lot of political blustering before a summit - partly to save the face of the partiesw that have to make adjustments.
No doubt Germany will have to consider their earlier stand on some points. Tony Blair is in Denmark today - presumeably to iron out some details that has cropped up in Afghanistan and Iraq.
More important: I think the Nato strategy for the North Atlantic is being adjusted and some deals are to be struck between Denmark and Great Britain - that is also the reason why the leader of the opposition in Denmark is invited, so the deals will hold after a general election.
There is always a lot of political blustering before a summit - partly to save the face of the partiesw that have to make adjustments.
No doubt Germany will have to consider their earlier stand on some points. Tony Blair is in Denmark today - presumeably to iron out some details that has cropped up in Afghanistan and Iraq.
More important: I think the Nato strategy for the North Atlantic is being adjusted and some deals are to be struck between Denmark and Great Britain - that is also the reason why the leader of the opposition in Denmark is invited, so the deals will hold after a general election.
USNavySEAL3310
New Member
I wasn't talking about the political blustering. I was talking about the military obligations that NATO members owe to an attacked nation. That's one of the main points, if the the most important point, that makes the NATO alliance so powerful. If you're part of NATO, from there on it's just military obligation. The 'political blustering' would take place upon trying to get into the alliance.
I read earlier about what other people said about some European countries, mainly Germany, not participating as much as some would like. They don't have to contribute as much as the U.S. in this particular scenario because this is mainly a U.S.-led campaign. The attack was against the U.S. and so it has first dibs on attacking. Other NATO nations would have to contribute a lot more if the attacked nation has difficulties retaliating but that's not true in this case.
I think as long as other NATO allies contribute militarily a little here and there, such as Germany's small air campaign, then we're all set for the moment. After all, I think this is the first time NATO has been called up to fight. The Soviet invasion never happened so this is a good campaign for NATO countries to get a little involved in.
I read earlier about what other people said about some European countries, mainly Germany, not participating as much as some would like. They don't have to contribute as much as the U.S. in this particular scenario because this is mainly a U.S.-led campaign. The attack was against the U.S. and so it has first dibs on attacking. Other NATO nations would have to contribute a lot more if the attacked nation has difficulties retaliating but that's not true in this case.
I think as long as other NATO allies contribute militarily a little here and there, such as Germany's small air campaign, then we're all set for the moment. After all, I think this is the first time NATO has been called up to fight. The Soviet invasion never happened so this is a good campaign for NATO countries to get a little involved in.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #31
Two tier system - no change!
News reports coming in reference revised rules of engagement stating that countries stationed in the North (Germany, France etc.) will now support the units in the South in the event of ‘an emergency, and on request,’ sounds like a weak compromise to me.
We are still witnessing Spain, Germany and France insisting on caveats restricting their troops from being deployed directly into combat zones when and where the overall commander (Richard’s) sees fit. I still stand-by my original comment reference a two-tier system in NATO, those that will and those that won’t step-up to the plate when required without the need to jump through endless diplomatic hoops.
According to incumbent commander in Afghanistan, General Richard’s, this is the first operation he has ever commanded without an in-country operational reserve! Apparently the French refused to deploy their designated reserve battalion assigned to NATO because of the worry of a sudden deterioration in the Balkans!nfloorl:
News reports coming in reference revised rules of engagement stating that countries stationed in the North (Germany, France etc.) will now support the units in the South in the event of ‘an emergency, and on request,’ sounds like a weak compromise to me.
We are still witnessing Spain, Germany and France insisting on caveats restricting their troops from being deployed directly into combat zones when and where the overall commander (Richard’s) sees fit. I still stand-by my original comment reference a two-tier system in NATO, those that will and those that won’t step-up to the plate when required without the need to jump through endless diplomatic hoops.
According to incumbent commander in Afghanistan, General Richard’s, this is the first operation he has ever commanded without an in-country operational reserve! Apparently the French refused to deploy their designated reserve battalion assigned to NATO because of the worry of a sudden deterioration in the Balkans!
nfloorl:I think the 2. tier solution is a bit different:
There is the northern tier Poland, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the UK and Canada(?). To these nations Russia is still to some extend a concern; which is countered by integrating their forces more closely. This means that if Germany is opting out it could leave some element out - that is if we train together and fight together abroad as well - which seems the best way of doing things.
The mediterainian countries have other problems originating in the northern african countries.
The German task is generally to be the operational reserve. The problem here is that the commitment to reserve is actually the heaviest; because if anything happens the reserve will be involved, whereas if you have your balliwick to take care of you might not be to involved in what happens to your neighbour.
There is the northern tier Poland, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the UK and Canada(?). To these nations Russia is still to some extend a concern; which is countered by integrating their forces more closely. This means that if Germany is opting out it could leave some element out - that is if we train together and fight together abroad as well - which seems the best way of doing things.
The mediterainian countries have other problems originating in the northern african countries.
The German task is generally to be the operational reserve. The problem here is that the commitment to reserve is actually the heaviest; because if anything happens the reserve will be involved, whereas if you have your balliwick to take care of you might not be to involved in what happens to your neighbour.
Just remember that at first all countries started in Kabul and it is not like all countries were eager to go out and controle the rest of the country. Germany was the first nation starting to install PRTs outside of Kabul and is now responsible for over 40% of the Afghani population.
This may sound like an excuse and it is used like this by our government but there is for sure a small amount of truth in the statement that the german behaviour in the north is responsible for some of the better climate there.
We all have our QRFs ready to go there and you just have to look at the violence and riots last to see why it is necessary to have a QRF ready to go.
And helping other countries during an emergency and on request is nothing new. This article existed from the beginning on.
One of our problems is that we are operating at the 3.000 troop border.
If we would send our combat troops to the south there would be not enough security forces in the north.
We would need to raise our troop border but for this I doubt there would be a majority in the parliament.
This may sound like an excuse and it is used like this by our government but there is for sure a small amount of truth in the statement that the german behaviour in the north is responsible for some of the better climate there.
This is nothing to laugh about. The balcony is fir sure not near to be safe espcecially the Kosovo.
We all have our QRFs ready to go there and you just have to look at the violence and riots last to see why it is necessary to have a QRF ready to go.
And helping other countries during an emergency and on request is nothing new. This article existed from the beginning on.
One of our problems is that we are operating at the 3.000 troop border.
If we would send our combat troops to the south there would be not enough security forces in the north.
We would need to raise our troop border but for this I doubt there would be a majority in the parliament.
I fully appreciate the difficulties - politically and otherwise - and the amount of damage Schröder has done (any connection with his father having been general secretary of NATO - any insights?) - we've had our share of ¤/&¤/& socialdemocrats that played the field and risked our security.
The point being that Afghanistan and Iraq in the bigger scheme of things are pretty insignificant. I'm talking of keeping Russia in its place and exorcising any grandiose idea they may have: Afghanistan would have been a wonderfull opportunity.
The Baltic countries, Poland and Denmark with the British and Canadian (and have they carried their share) in overall command and the Germans with the hardhitting reserve. As it is, it is not to bad after all.
The encouraging factor is that it is the allies of Germany that urge for increased German robustness - indicating the past is not forgotten; but forgiven.
The point being that Afghanistan and Iraq in the bigger scheme of things are pretty insignificant. I'm talking of keeping Russia in its place and exorcising any grandiose idea they may have: Afghanistan would have been a wonderfull opportunity.
The Baltic countries, Poland and Denmark with the British and Canadian (and have they carried their share) in overall command and the Germans with the hardhitting reserve. As it is, it is not to bad after all.
The encouraging factor is that it is the allies of Germany that urge for increased German robustness - indicating the past is not forgotten; but forgiven.
This is the problem. For decades germany has been pacified. It is now one of the most critical countries if it comes to military operations.
You would have a hard time to find any majority in our population which is for more foreign missions and for pure combat missions.
Not to talk of our parliament.
You cannot change this in some years. It is changing but not as fast as some NATO partners want it to change.
BTW, Schröders father died during WWII.
And he may not been a really good chancellor but that he kept us out of Iraq is something I am really glad of.
You would have a hard time to find any majority in our population which is for more foreign missions and for pure combat missions.
Not to talk of our parliament.
You cannot change this in some years. It is changing but not as fast as some NATO partners want it to change.
BTW, Schröders father died during WWII.
And he may not been a really good chancellor but that he kept us out of Iraq is something I am really glad of.
I believe that given the fact(s) that the Taliban are traveling freely crossing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan while the latter nation stillsupports the Taliban to some degree... NATO and the U.S. will fail to destroy the Tailban nor end the ongoing violence.
It's time to start engaging in cross-border raids into Pakistan and to hell with what their government thinks about it.
Secondly, the Soviets were in Afghanistan for over a decade fighting these same guerilla's using some of Thee most brutal tactics and weapons imaginable (from poisoning villager's drinking wells to dropping Fuel Air Explosive Bombs and rocket warheads to chemical warfare with no regard to cilivian death's while suffering numerous military casualities themselves and they still lost...the war. It was Russia's Vietnam in spades.
There is NO military solution to this fight alone.
But there has to be a workable and thoughtout strategy. The latter word never even entered into the equation when the U.S. Bush administration started the Iraq War. Does anyone seriously believe that Afghanistan will be any different?
NATO and the United States has to be willing to commit fully for this Afghanistan war and reconstruction for 15-years minimum anything less will be total failure. The only thing different this time around is the technology available, but the latter does not win wars.
It's time to start engaging in cross-border raids into Pakistan and to hell with what their government thinks about it.
Secondly, the Soviets were in Afghanistan for over a decade fighting these same guerilla's using some of Thee most brutal tactics and weapons imaginable (from poisoning villager's drinking wells to dropping Fuel Air Explosive Bombs and rocket warheads to chemical warfare with no regard to cilivian death's while suffering numerous military casualities themselves and they still lost...the war. It was Russia's Vietnam in spades.
There is NO military solution to this fight alone.
But there has to be a workable and thoughtout strategy. The latter word never even entered into the equation when the U.S. Bush administration started the Iraq War. Does anyone seriously believe that Afghanistan will be any different?
NATO and the United States has to be willing to commit fully for this Afghanistan war and reconstruction for 15-years minimum anything less will be total failure. The only thing different this time around is the technology available, but the latter does not win wars.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
NATO said that at the recent summit something along the lines that they will be committed in Aghanistan for at least a decade.
According to the papers here in DK, an interesting strategy being discussed in defense academic circles, is to go for the money ie financing of Taliban. That means the opium/heroine.
The concept is not to destroy the opium fields, but to replace and disrupt the warlord-style protection/financing/smuggling operation that the Talibs have going right now.
You simply buy up and destroy the opium. The Taliban will see much less cash and lose influence.
As the conditions permit, you then replace the opium with more profitable ways to make a living and shut down the production of the opium concurrently.
Kills the financing and influence of taliban with much less friction fom the locals.
Situation is much different than in Iraq.
According to the papers here in DK, an interesting strategy being discussed in defense academic circles, is to go for the money ie financing of Taliban. That means the opium/heroine.
The concept is not to destroy the opium fields, but to replace and disrupt the warlord-style protection/financing/smuggling operation that the Talibs have going right now.
You simply buy up and destroy the opium. The Taliban will see much less cash and lose influence.
As the conditions permit, you then replace the opium with more profitable ways to make a living and shut down the production of the opium concurrently.
Kills the financing and influence of taliban with much less friction fom the locals.
Situation is much different than in Iraq.
The conundrum of Afghanistan is as simple as it is unsolveable:
You need to rebuild their infrastructure, with this I primarely mean irrigation. The Tora Bora tunnels are in reality irrigation tunnels - some of them dating back to Alexander the Great. It could be done using local labour.
This reconstruction cannot take place as long as drug lords and Taliban do their utmost to disrupt the rebuild.
That is you can't rebuild because of Taliban and you can't destroy Taliban because the country isn't rebuild.
The suggestion that Taliban is priced out of the market seems to be a way out. Then offer better prices for other crops.
Pricely the way Alexander the Great won the area.
You need to rebuild their infrastructure, with this I primarely mean irrigation. The Tora Bora tunnels are in reality irrigation tunnels - some of them dating back to Alexander the Great. It could be done using local labour.
This reconstruction cannot take place as long as drug lords and Taliban do their utmost to disrupt the rebuild.
That is you can't rebuild because of Taliban and you can't destroy Taliban because the country isn't rebuild.
The suggestion that Taliban is priced out of the market seems to be a way out. Then offer better prices for other crops.
Pricely the way Alexander the Great won the area.