NATO in Afghanistan

[Waylander]

As usual the left wing politicians and media is scepticle about the QRF and the others have a positive feeling about it.

I have no doubt that the QRF is coming and it looks like most of it will consist of the Panzergrenadierbataillon 292 which is part of the 1. Panzerdivision. Planning is already on it's way.

The German Army Federation (in fact the labour union of our soldiers) tends more and more to spit out hot air and stupid comments.
Most active and former soldiers I know don't think very well of them and most are just members because of the good advocate insurance.

Positively is that most of the interviews I have seen were positive about the idea of replacing the QRF from Norway with german soldiers especially the youth has this opinion.

Another hint that this country is getting closer and closer to normality even if it is a slow and long process...

What is right is that there are some issues with the equipment down there. Like everybody else we are low on helicopters which can operate there and the current restructuring of our mortar units seems to have caused a problem with the shelf live of our combat ammo. Looks like we need to buy somme 120mm mortar rounds from our allies. Nothing spectacular and nothing which would hamper our ability to form this QRF.

 

[kato]

I have no doubt that the QRF is coming and it looks like most of it will consist of the Panzergrenadierbataillon 292 which is part of the 1. Panzerdivision. Planning is already on it's way.

PzGrenBtl 212.

292 is a Jäger Btl in D/F-Brigade.

What is right is that there are some issues with the equipment down there. Like everybody else we are low on helicopters which can operate there

What's kinda funny there is that Germany is the only military provider of Helos to my knowledge in RC North.

and the current restructuring of our mortar units seems to have caused a problem with the shelf live of our combat ammo.

You mean the fact that 212 doesn't have a mortar coy at all in present structure? :unknown

riksavage:

Well, Gertz... he's only doing his job. Which is to squeeze as much money for soldiers as possible out of the government. Just what any other union leader would do too. The Bundeswehrverband, despite its name, is exactly that - a labor union for soldiers, with 212,000 members across all ranks.
And, btw, he only criticizes two primary points:

• no helo-transportable APCs deployed in AFG (since Mungo are currently being modified to deal with the harsh terrain)
• intervention forces (in Germany!) not equipped with communication devices compatible with allied forces in AFG (... and since we're sending Intervention Forces for the QRF ...)
  Unlike Harald Kujat, former General Inspector of the Bw, he does not criticize a "lack of deployed long-range weapon systems" or a "lack of C4I systems".

 

[Waylander]

Ah shit, I was not sure about the number but was in a hurry and didn't look it up. I knew it would come down on me...

I mentioned the helicopters because the whole ISAF operation in A-stan is low on helicopters not only the north.
And as you stated at least we are providing helicopters...
Nevertheless I would like to see some additional funding for more CH-53GS versions. The number of GS compared to the G copters is IMHO still too low.

As for the mortar issue.
I have read in the media that our ammo is just too old. And that might be the case because our current mortar support is a mess since somebody with a big brain decided to kill the mortars of the PzGren bns before the new Mortar system on Wiesel 2 chassis is ready.
I think they were just too tightfisted to give some money for new mortar ammo because of the low number of active mortar units in the BW.
Our current ammo is cleared for training and for use if WWIII would break out but it is not cleared for overshooting friendly forces or civilians during an operation like the one in A-stan.

But it shouldn't be the problem to find some guys in the PzGren community which still have their mortar-ATNs and give them some mortars out of depot or just use mortar crews from some other units.
And if we can't get our hands on some damn new 120mm mortar ammo till summer than we should maybe execute some guys of the BWB...

I have no problem with Gertz trying to get additional funding for the BW.
What I can't stand anymore is his whining about the possibility of our soldiers getting hurt or killed in this QRF.
They are soldiers dammit. They signed a contract and I don't see one lonely reason why we shouldn't do for other nations what these nations have done for us.
How many casualties did Norway had exactly during their QRF duties...?

 

[kato]

Nevertheless I would like to see some additional funding for more CH-53GS versions. The number of GS compared to the G copters is IMHO still too low.

Nah, GS is too "specialized". If the GA version upgrades would go forward, now that would be some step. Focus is on that (there won't be more GS), and introduction planned in 2010. The parts for the GA upgrade are being bought since mid 2007, so this is definitely going forward.
Excellent PDF on the German CH-53: http://www.diesigns.com/down/HHK_CH-53.pdf

Of course, the primary problem at the moment is the supply of spare parts from the US. Because that supply isn't flowing. There's two out of the twenty GS grounded for lack of spare parts at the moment.

But it shouldn't be the problem to find some guys in the PzGren community which still have their mortar-ATNs and give them some mortars out of depot or just use mortar crews from some other units.

Actually, i've also heard some rumours that part of the QRF would be Fallschirmjäger. Maybe they'll get a mortar platoon from there?
As for the ammo - we gave the US something like 100 million 5.56mm rounds for Iraq in 2003 from our war reserve. Time for some reciprocal action?

How many casualties did Norway had exactly during their QRF duties...?

ermm... somewhere between one and three iirc.

 

[Waylander]

Really?
I thought that they had no casualties out of the QRF itself. Maybe from other parts of their deployment?
And I am talking about dead personal and not about wounded (Which is still bad enough). The old problem if one talks about casualties.

You got me with the CH-53 but it is still freaky to know that they started buying the stuff years after we entered A-stan and even years after we entered the north and took responsibility there.

Mortars from the Fallschirmjäger of the DSO would defenitely be an option. They should have some ready to go I suppose.
And with the ammo I also think that it shouldn't be a problem to get it. Somebody out of NATO is going to have some rounds for us.

 

[kato]

• One dead, one seriously injured in a road bomb attack that was sort of a reaction to Harekate Yolo II, in early November 07.
• One Norwegian Ranger killed in a firefight alongside ANA troops in July 07.
• One officer wounded on a patrol in Faryab province in June 07.
• Four soldiers (two seriously, two light) wounded by a IED in May 07 (one Finnish soldier killed in the same attack).

All soldiers in these incidents were from the Meymaneh base, where the Norwegian QRF is stationed. Incidents happened from within 100 meters of the base (May incident) out to long-range patrols 10 hours out.

Third Norwegian death was in 2004 somewhere near Kabul, where a soldier was killed by a RPG.

 

[eckherl]

It`s pretty much been decided that the U.S will be sending a additional 3,000 U.S Marines, they are calling it a mini surge.

Hopefully Mr. Gates will use caution on what he states instead of making idiotic statements that he decided to unleash in regards to the capabilities of British soldiers, we cannot afford to have countries deciding to leave or not give support to Afhganistan. Alot of European countries have made sacrifices in this region and they do deserve respect instead of geting ridiculed for their tactics that they decide to use.

 

[Waylander]

• One dead, one seriously injured in a road bomb attack that was sort of a reaction to Harekate Yolo II, in early November 07.
• One Norwegian Ranger killed in a firefight alongside ANA troops in July 07.
• One officer wounded on a patrol in Faryab province in June 07.
• Four soldiers (two seriously, two light) wounded by a IED in May 07 (one Finnish soldier killed in the same attack).

All soldiers in these incidents were from the Meymaneh base, where the Norwegian QRF is stationed. Incidents happened from within 100 meters of the base (May incident) out to long-range patrols 10 hours out.

Third Norwegian death was in 2004 somewhere near Kabul, where a soldier was killed by a RPG.

Ok, I stand corrected. And shame on me that I thought that they didn't suffer any dead personal during their QRF duty.
Nevertheless this is not a much bigger quality of the threat than what our troops are already facing be it bombs near to the camp or firefights of long range patrols.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It`s pretty much been decided that the U.S will be sending a additional 3,000 U.S Marines, they are calling it a mini surge.

Hopefully Mr. Gates will use caution on what he states instead of making idiotic statements they he decided to unleash in regards to the capabilities of British soldiers, we cannot afford to have countries deciding to leave or not give support to Afhganistan. Alot of European countries have made sacrifices in this region and they do deserve respect instead of geting ridiculed for their tactics that they decide to use.

Well you may get an aditional detatchment of Australian troops, bolstered by ourn new PM's desision to withdraw from iraq, so long as we dont get told our tactics are crap and we dont know how to do COIN work.:

A full battalion battle group is not out of the question with an mechanised/motorized RAR battlaion, SASR/4RAR (specwarries) detatchment, 155's, M1A1 AIM MBT's, engineer coy, healvy lift helo's, light helo's & F/A-18 HUG's. All we need is som attack helo's, maybe we could borrow some marrines? We should be able to totaly take over from the Dutch. Anyway there is at least some good news for NATO command reguarding member/partner state participation. Its great to hear the Germans will be takeing over the QRF, the professionalism and capability you guys will bring to the theater will surely have a significant impact.

 

[Grand Danois]

It`s pretty much been decided that the U.S will be sending a additional 3,000 U.S Marines, they are calling it a mini surge.

Hopefully Mr. Gates will use caution on what he states instead of making idiotic statements that he decided to unleash in regards to the capabilities of British soldiers, we cannot afford to have countries deciding to leave or not give support to Afhganistan. Alot of European countries have made sacrifices in this region and they do deserve respect instead of geting ridiculed for their tactics that they decide to use.

Well, Mr. Gates comments on his allies, where given in a context where he sought authorization for deploying 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan, and should be seen as such. Not as genuine critique. Of course every man and his dog who doesn't like his nations' close relationship with the U.S. and who has been looking for a place to put in a knife, has done so. Moreover, the media, always loving an easy story about disagreement, has been happy to portray it as such.

IMV it was a case of staffers to Mr. Gates (or Mr. Gates?) who made an argument meant for Washington, and forgot the rest of the World has an opinion on this as well. I guess, or hope, that he has picked up that part now.

2008 is an interesting year for NATO and Afghanistan. Will 2008 be the year the French will reenter as an active NATO member, deploying in numbers to Afghanistan, for the price of an increased role of EU in NATO.

We'll know when the year is over.

 

[riksavage]

The UK is about to announce the next rotation of troops, which for the first time since WWII will see the entire Para Reg deployed - 1,2,3 and elements of the 4th (V) Battalion plus 1800 soldiers from the Royal Scot's Infantry & SDG Cavalry Reg.

We will also see Typhoon entering the fray in the CAS role.

2008 will be a make or break year for both Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that NATO steps-up to the plate!

 

[Waylander]

Okay, media here is reporting that our government plans to increase our committment by more than 1.000 soldiers.
It also looks like they want to take responsibility for more territory. Not in the south but in the west.
And they also want our parliament to approve the mandate for up to two years and not only for one year like they do it now.

Looks like a compromise has been reached at the NATO meeting.

 

[kato]

I wonder how they're planning to get around the structural difficulties.

According to SPON, Germany would "expand RC(N) westwards" to include (at least) Badghis province.

Badghis currently has a single PRT, operated by Spain - having that "taken over" by potential German forces would leave Spain with operating the FSB for RC(W) at Herat only?.

 

[Waylander]

Maybe they shift some forces back to Kabul?
It looks like the French want to go to the south and some Spanish troops back at Kabul would free some French manpower which is currently located there.

In the end I have no idea.

 

[kato]

Might be interesting literature for those here who can read German (well, Austrian).

"Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan"

a comparative study of PRT concepts by Markus Gauster, Austrian National Defense Academy / Austrian Ministry of Defense. Dated 10/06. 142 pages.

http://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/mg_prt_studie_okt_2006.pdf

 

[phreeky]

There are a few news stories re Aus in NATO, but this one quotes the Defence Minister more than the others I could find so I've used this one.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australia-kept-in-dark-by-nato/2008/02/10/1202578601368.html

DEFENCE Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has returned from a high-level NATO meeting in Lithuania saying he was shocked to discover that Australia had sent troops to Afghanistan without being given access to key strategy documents.

He told The Age last night he was amazed when he found out NATO had prepared a comprehensive document on how the war should be fought but that Australia would not have access to it.

Mr Fitzgibbon said he was also astounded to discover that no Australian defence minister had ever attended the crucial meetings of NATO defence ministers.

Even though Australia is not one of the US-Europe military alliance's 26 members, it is fighting in Afghanistan with the International Security Assistance Force under a NATO umbrella.

"The former government was sending our kids to war on an unconditional, ask-no-questions basis. I'm amazed by that," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

He said he found it extraordinary that the previous government committed troops without access to all available information including the prospects for success in the campaign.

"It amazes me. Australian men and women are making a significant contribution of 1000 personnel, including 300 special forces. That is a high-value commitment.

"We've lost four young Australians and NATO has not reciprocated by providing us with strategy documents.

"I believe I fixed the problem. I did tell them that situation was not sustainable."

Mr Fitzgibbon was then invited to attend the high-level NATO meeting and he was promised a copy of the strategy document. He will also attend the next meeting in Budapest in April.

"We will be better informed and more involved in the process than we have been before," he said.

Mr Fitzgibbon said that while he told NATO its members should send many more troops to Afghanistan and some member nations should remove restrictions on their involvement so that they could do more of the fighting, he saw no justification for sending more Australian troops there.

He said Australia wanted a much broader approach in Afghanistan that would improve governance, train more Afghan troops and deal with heroin production.

I find it terrible that Aus has all this time committed substantial (for us) forces but still not had access to info. I wonder whether certain NATO members were against giving the info, or maybe it was never asked for?

Additionally, this article quotes the Defence Minister as stating that "he saw no justification for sending more Australian troops there".

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

There are a few news stories re Aus in NATO, but this one quotes the Defence Minister more than the others I could find so I've used this one.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australia-kept-in-dark-by-nato/2008/02/10/1202578601368.html



I find it terrible that Aus has all this time committed substantial (for us) forces but still not had access to info. I wonder whether certain NATO members were against giving the info, or maybe it was never asked for?

Additionally, this article quotes the Defence Minister as stating that "he saw no justification for sending more Australian troops there".

Just remember there the new defmin will continually be looking for milaeage on the whole "look at the past incompetence" line. I doubt the document was critical to the ADF's commitment and the tactics used. We are no strangers to COIN work and have been doing it consitently for 50 years, so i doubt there would be anything in the document that we didnt allready know. The fact tat the new defmin has been able to "rectify the problem" so easilly indicates that all we had to do was ask in the first place.

As for no need for more troops, if and when the Australian contingent is out of iraq and the dutch leave Anbar then we can and should increase our commitment to a full combined arms battalion battle group with fixed wing air support.

 

[phreeky]

Just remember there the new defmin will continually be looking for milaeage on the whole "look at the past incompetence" line. I doubt the document was critical to the ADF's commitment and the tactics used. We are no strangers to COIN work and have been doing it consitently for 50 years, so i doubt there would be anything in the document that we didnt allready know. The fact tat the new defmin has been able to "rectify the problem" so easilly indicates that all we had to do was ask in the first place.

Well it's hard to leave politics aside when talking about defence IMO. I'd like to believe there was need for access to such information, but I'd put nothing past a politician either. One thing that makes it sound quite genuine however is the similar requests from Sweden and Finland, according to this article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/14/2162569.htm?section=australia

NATO spokesman James Appathurai says other countries have raised similar concerns and NATO's chief has now ordered better access be given to Coalition partners, including Australia.

"First, let there be no doubt that NATO values very, very highly what Australia is doing," he said.

"I myself when accompanying the Secretary-General have seen Australian troops in the field. They're doing a great job.

"Of course, there are differences between members and non-members, but we want to minimise those as much as we can and particularly on the ground where it matters the most.

"So, we are looking intensively, as we have been doing for quite some time because this is not new to us, to see if we can remove the final barriers wherever we can to information sharing between our soldiers."

Mr Appathurai says the problem is not new to NATO, and they are looking to remove barriers to information sharing between soldiers.

"Countries like Sweden and Finland, for example, that are very heavily deployed with us in Afghanistan but are not NATO members, have raised this issue in the past," he said.

As for no need for more troops, if and when the Australian contingent is out of iraq and the dutch leave Anbar then we can and should increase our commitment to a full combined arms battalion battle group with fixed wing air support.

Yeah well I don't really know a lot about the army's resources - both human and equipment - when it comes to sustainable deployment levels. No doubt they're doing a good thing in Afghanistan, but as shown in East Timor we still do have some issues closer to home and would hope we're not directing resources elsewhere for political reasons.

 

[recce.k1]

Just remember there the new defmin will continually be looking for milaeage on the whole "look at the past incompetence" line. I doubt the document was critical to the ADF's commitment and the tactics used. We are no strangers to COIN work and have been doing it consitently for 50 years, so i doubt there would be anything in the document that we didnt allready know. The fact tat the new defmin has been able to "rectify the problem" so easilly indicates that all we had to do was ask in the first place.

Absolutely. I have no opinion on the previous and current defmins, except to say the previous defmin is now the leader of the Opposition. Therefore much political point scoring has and will be made by the current defmin on previous "incompetence" as this will be a tactic to undermine the credibility of the Opposition leader, and if this perception sticks in the public arena then all the better for the current defmin and new govt etc (think of the recent ho-ha about the Super Hornet and other related defence aquisitions). This tactic is well practiced over here.

I find it hard to believe that "The former government was sending our kids to war on an unconditional, ask-no-questions basis. I'm amazed by that,". That's a simplistic soundbite and the Journos should be digging deeper rather than accept such a statement at face value, (eg what would have been Nelson's response)? No doubt the former govt was briefed well, especially by the US.

However if the present defmin has been able to get invited to attend higher-level Nato meetings then politics aside, that can only be a good thing.

 

[Yasin20]

i dont see why increase it i recon afghanistan looks more peacefull then iraq i dont see the need that nato needs to increase more nato troops it should leave it the way it is its already doing a good job