Grand Danois
Entertainer
I don't know for a fact, but I think they're meant as M113 replacements. Anything else wouldn't make sense.
NATO in Afghanistan
- Thread starter evilbrit
- Start date
Hopefully they aren't going to spend my tax-money on flying those old scrap metal boxes home!
More seriously, don't you guys think that they will stay? Why fly them home, if they are functional?
On a side note, Is the eagle IV also going to be deployed with the next "team"?
USMCsburns
New Member
Nato
This is kind of off-topic but... it kind of pisses me off that the European countries send almost no soldiers to Afghanistan. They just know the good old United States will do it for them... I think the U.S. needs to apply more pressure to the European Countries to send more troops.
This is kind of off-topic but... it kind of pisses me off that the European countries send almost no soldiers to Afghanistan. They just know the good old United States will do it for them... I think the U.S. needs to apply more pressure to the European Countries to send more troops.
Some European countries are contributing and sharing their fair part of the burden. Problems is that 4 big european countries aren't doing their share of the work. I think the reason for that aren't " the good old United States will do it for them..." but that the war is deeply unpopular amoung the populations of those countries.This is kind of off-topic but... it kind of pisses me off that the European countries send almost no soldiers to Afghanistan. They just know the good old United States will do it for them... I think the U.S. needs to apply more pressure to the European Countries to send more troops.
I will leave it to kato to crunch the numbers, as he has quite some way with them.
As a matter of fact "pressure" will achieve little to nothing. The dynamics of internal politics are in the current situation in most European countries the clearly dominating force. It is seen often as a war initiated by the USA, a war forgotten by the USA and now as a war almost lost by the USA.
Firn
As a matter of fact "pressure" will achieve little to nothing. The dynamics of internal politics are in the current situation in most European countries the clearly dominating force. It is seen often as a war initiated by the USA, a war forgotten by the USA and now as a war almost lost by the USA.
Firn
USA is not losing the war. If you look at death of US soldiers there are not losing alot soldiers maybe the highest was 50 a month that not bad. When you add it up the US lose over 800 soldiers in 7 years not bad at all. Losing any soldiers is not good . Good to see that NATO going to increase their soldiers. NATO doing a good job in Afghanistan. Need to come with a better way to deal the locals. NATO know they going have to deal with this in the long run.
:laugh
European NATO members currently have... let me look at the placemat... 30,845 soldiers in ISAF as of the last published one (22 Oct). The USA has 34,800 men in ISAF, Canada 2,830 men, non-NATO-nations are contributing 2,566 men.
Basically, the USA only has about as many men in ISAF as the rest of NATO combined.
For a war started by the USA, that's damn low. For a perhaps bitter comparison, the USA claims it rescued France in WW1 when it contributed considerably less than 20% of the men on the Allied side of the Western Front, and only got in when it was almost over anyway.
Do what for whom? Remember, NATO Europe is there (voluntarily) to support the USA in its effort, not the other way around. Look at Kosovo and Bosnia for comparison. The US contribution there is a laugh in comparison to the European contribution to ISAF.They just know the good old United States will do it for them... I think the U.S. needs to apply more pressure to the European Countries to send more troops.
And the men that certain European nations are contributing to ISAF in apparent large numbers for their size (*cough*Netherlands*cough*) were sourced by quite simply killing off pretty much all other, more important deployments.
Again, "fair part of the burden"? NATO isn't about sharing KIA numbers equally, and never was.
The "Big Four" currently have 19,255 soldiers in ISAF, which is somewhat higher than their population share within NATO Europe.
SURB
Member
And now they believe that political dialogue is the solution of problems,A man who was near the top of the list of most-wanted terrorists eight years ago, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has been invited to join the government.I think the current surge policy is just to put pressure on Talibans ,with whom they are involved in back channel talks.
Isn't this just like accepting defeat on the battle field.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Correction: the US currently have 68,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, the other half operates outside of ISAF in OEF-A. The reinforcement of 30,000 combat troops will bring this to 98,000...
Of which UK alone contributes 9,500-10,000 - in other words: the French/German/Italian non-atlanticist contribution combined will, cometh spring 2010, be 6.9% of the total force !!! (9,700/141,000).
For comparison: If Germany contributed like Denmark (750 total in Afghanistan, 630 in Helmand), it would have 10,800 troops in Afghanistan - it currently has about a two fifths of that and will have about 3.3% of the total troops in Afghanistan when spring arrives. Currently they contribute 4.4%...
so lets see... USA, pop 300 million, 68,000 soldiers, Germany, pop 79 million, 4,650 soldiers... I Germany pulled like the US, they'd have 18k troops in Afghanistan... and that's on the current count.
Btw, is 4,650 the mandated number or the deployed number? I believe the actually deployed is 3,500 for Germany?
Last edited:
However OEF-A is not ISAF. It may be a convenient tool for the USA to just switch troops between either forces back and forth, but OEF-A has a completely different mission, and is not supported by other forces. When comparing US and EU forces in Afghanistan, the only mission that "counts" is the one that both sides are "supporting". And that's ISAF, not OEF.
It will be interesting to see whether the reinforcement will (again) solely be to OEF, or whether the US ISAF contingent will actually be raised for once.
9,000 for the UK and 690 for Denmark according to placemat.
Except we have to consider more than just ISAF. There are missions that are "closer to home" and hence more important for the security of Europe.
Let's take a quick look over at KFOR. 12,662 soldiers, of which:
- 11.6% are US
- 0.06% are British (yep, 8 soldiers - guess where the others went)
- 1.9% are Danish
- 44.2% are German/French/Italian
Or how about a look at UNIFIL? 12,133 soldiers, of which:
- 0% are US
- 0% are British
- 1.2% are Danish
- 34.3% are German/French/Italian
How about EUFOR Althea? 1,953 soldiers, of which:
- 0% are US (obviously)
- 0.46% are British (yep, only 6 here too)
- 0% are Danish
- 22.2% are German/French/Italian
Let's not even go into UN DPKO as a whole - at least Germany/France/Italy make up a solid 5.3% there, the others are under 0.1%.
There is a correlation in the numbers above. That is that a certain country - whose last PM was called someone's poodle in his own country for an action like this - has shifted its manpower away from missions important to Europe, and towards a mission important for the USA. One could say following the US' route right at its heel. And a certain other country is trotting a step behind it.
Placemat says 4,365. And that's deployed as of October 22nd. The mandated maximum number is 4,500, both back then and now after the mandate has been renewed.
I knew the tendency, but not the exact numbers. Thanks for providing them.
Frankly this seems to be a rather naive view. The various special forces are a very very small element for special tasks. I would rank the importance to increase their numbers quite low on the long tasklist for Afghanistan.
Firn
[
Frankly this seems to be a rather naive view. The various special forces are a very very small element for special tasks. I would rank the importance to increase their numbers quite low on the long tasklist for Afghanistan.
The Taliban is on the run now. There is a need to increase special forces for this type of war. NATO/US forces will keep on facing the Taliban but in different way. They going change tactic to adopt to NATO forces thats common sense. One thing about insurgents they are farmers during the day and fighters in the nights. NATO forces must get used to mountains of Afghanistan and the locals ways of the peoples of Afghanistan. As far as the training of the Afghanistan Army, NATO must learn to let the Afghans united it own Army the way they know how stop trying to put there organization into the Army that go for the US
Frankly this seems to be a rather naive view. The various special forces are a very very small element for special tasks. I would rank the importance to increase their numbers quite low on the long tasklist for Afghanistan.
The Taliban is on the run now. There is a need to increase special forces for this type of war. NATO/US forces will keep on facing the Taliban but in different way. They going change tactic to adopt to NATO forces thats common sense. One thing about insurgents they are farmers during the day and fighters in the nights. NATO forces must get used to mountains of Afghanistan and the locals ways of the peoples of Afghanistan. As far as the training of the Afghanistan Army, NATO must learn to let the Afghans united it own Army the way they know how stop trying to put there organization into the Army that go for the US
KATO - I'm sure the Brits would JUMP at the opportunity of swapping with the German contingent covering KFOR, UNIFIL and EUFOR! Remind me again the casualty figures sustained across these LOW threat engagements?
The issue here is Afghanistan, a full-blown shooting war, not some low risk peace keeping mission. I think it's time we completed an in-theatre rotation, let the Canadians, Danes and Brit's swap locations with the Germans and French for twelve months.
The issue here is Afghanistan, a full-blown shooting war, not some low risk peace keeping mission. I think it's time we completed an in-theatre rotation, let the Canadians, Danes and Brit's swap locations with the Germans and French for twelve months.
If you look at the type attacks they are doing it not well planned attack. NATO/US forces are not facing real planned out attack. I'll give you a example like setting traps knowing how to get NATO/US forces to strike at wrong targets set up decoys. Like I said the insurgent have to adjust to the NATO/US forces. They don't have anti-aircraft weapons without this type of help they have to adjust. You have unmanned planes out there insurgents have to adjust to this as well.
More US Special forces coming
[
[
Just got information that US will increase Special Forces and NATO(UK) senting more Special OPs just what the doctor order very smart. Just got to talking to couple army buddies about that. And look what happen need them for some real operations to take the fight to the enemy.
Few things in life are fair, especially in war. The AO of the various partners were bartered when Afghanistan was mostly calm and widly considered to be practically won. In the last years things have changed alot in many parts of Afghanistan and lately also in the 'safe' sectors in north.
The current situation concerning troop numbers and their disposition is the result of the political choices of the countries involved. Britain did chose to send most of their troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and take them away from other important missions - the decision of other nations to follow the mentioned ISAF agreements was by far not the only reason Britain's (or Denmark's ) leaders acted this way.
While your idealistic idea of an in-theatre rotation seems fairer I think it would run counter to the strategic purpose of the mission. It would torn established relationships and disrupt greatly the COIN and rebuilding campaign.
Firn
Kato, with all due respect.
Comparing low threat Kosova with Helmand Afgh. is laughable. There is a difference between the important work of gettng Kosova back in working condition; Make sure some monastary doesn't get looted; Keep the idiots on one side of the river from getting into a fight with the idiots on the other side of the river etc.... And then getting into battle with an enemy that have proven quite ressilient, For Denmark's case; the battalion in Kosova; No wounded , 0 KIA (though one got killed in a traffic incident). The battalion in Helmand; many badly wounded and 30 killed in action and counting.
One thing is, As GD pointed out, that Germany, France, Itally and Spain aren't relatively to size. contributing a lot compared to US, UK Can, NL and DK, the soldiers contributed are not deployable to the areas where the battle is fought most intensively and where they, above everything else, are needed.
Comparing low threat Kosova with Helmand Afgh. is laughable. There is a difference between the important work of gettng Kosova back in working condition; Make sure some monastary doesn't get looted; Keep the idiots on one side of the river from getting into a fight with the idiots on the other side of the river etc.... And then getting into battle with an enemy that have proven quite ressilient, For Denmark's case; the battalion in Kosova; No wounded , 0 KIA (though one got killed in a traffic incident). The battalion in Helmand; many badly wounded and 30 killed in action and counting.
One thing is, As GD pointed out, that Germany, France, Itally and Spain aren't relatively to size. contributing a lot compared to US, UK Can, NL and DK, the soldiers contributed are not deployable to the areas where the battle is fought most intensively and where they, above everything else, are needed.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
@ Kato
A guick drive by reply from me.
EUFOR althea - as you know DK has an opt-put on EU defence. Nonetheless: 1,600-1,700 troops?
I believe you included the RDAF log coy in the UNIFIL count? If so, very up to date info you had there.
I believe the ISAF marpat listing for DK troops is the permanent 690 contingent in Helmand only, i.e. 1 mech coy, 1 recce sqn (coy), 1 MBT section, support units.
It does not include permanent PRT, which operate all over Afghanistan. Further, it does not include time-limited deployments, like Hercs for transport, AS-550s for recce/counter-IED, complete staffing of the field hospital in Camp Bastion, and special forces, which are present more often than not.
Of further note DK will stand up a mech btn for NRF-14 per 1. Jan 2010.
Lastly, the backdrop for me to include OEF-A is obviously to point out that the US is pulling the heavy load, though it becomes less if divided into specific mission sets.
A guick drive by reply from me.
EUFOR althea - as you know DK has an opt-put on EU defence. Nonetheless: 1,600-1,700 troops?
I believe you included the RDAF log coy in the UNIFIL count? If so, very up to date info you had there.
I believe the ISAF marpat listing for DK troops is the permanent 690 contingent in Helmand only, i.e. 1 mech coy, 1 recce sqn (coy), 1 MBT section, support units.
It does not include permanent PRT, which operate all over Afghanistan. Further, it does not include time-limited deployments, like Hercs for transport, AS-550s for recce/counter-IED, complete staffing of the field hospital in Camp Bastion, and special forces, which are present more often than not.
Of further note DK will stand up a mech btn for NRF-14 per 1. Jan 2010.
Lastly, the backdrop for me to include OEF-A is obviously to point out that the US is pulling the heavy load, though it becomes less if divided into specific mission sets.
Last edited: