Nato sending mixed message on Afghanistan

[vijayshimla]

I really feel that Nato- other than Britain is having a very short sighted view of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Despite being hard-pressed by ever growing number of Taliban, who can get replenishments from a vast pool, Non British members of Nato have still not come to realise that it is not a war for control of Afghanistan, it is the war for the very existance of the civilisation as we know it.Victory of taliban in Afghanistan will be a trigger for reversion to dark ages.

 

[Sea Toby]

Its called UN Peacekeeper shock. Many of the European nations haven't been shot at as UN Peacekeepers before. Their leaders, both military and political, not to mention their public, cannot understand why their troops are being shot at. Nevermind, they are participating in a UN, NATO, and EU scantioned war against the Taliban and Al Queida. Like you said, they're not willing to wage war.


Yes, the British, Canadians, and from what I have read the Polish are under no illusions. Unfortunately, it seems the other nations cannot comprehend this is a war, not a police action. There is a difference between peace making and peace keeping.

Frankly, I hope some of these forces in the back get struck hard, in the long run defence spending in Europe will go up, not down as it has been in the recent past for most of the European nations.

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes, the British, Canadians, and from what I have read the Polish are under no illusions. Unfortunately, it seems the other nations cannot comprehend this is a war, not a police action. There is a difference between peace making and peace keeping.

FYI the Danes and the Dutch have absolutely no illusions about this.

Blue helmet peacekeeping is often more dangerous. Denmark suffered far more dead and wounded on the balkans in the 90's than we have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

 

[.pt]

Sea Toby,

That remark about other nations forces in afghanistan, is not a good way to win friends and allies.
Perhaps you forget that another option that these countries have, is to just pull out of afghanistan alltogether, and leave the Us and British alone?
Not that i advocate this course of action, but the political climate may lead to this, if many casualties are suffered.
As for the spending, unless some big threat sudenly apears, have no ilusions, the ongoing cuts are here to stay, in the short term.In the medium term, as more and more shortcomings apear, some investment will be badly needed.
.pt

 

[Red aRRow]

The U.S. should have stayed the course in Afghanistan as, I believe, it was more of a righteous cause than going into a stupid illegal war against Iraq. Staying for the long term in Afghanistan and developing it along the lines of the Marshall Plan (maybe wishful thinking) would have resulted in the uprooting of right wing extremist forces from there as extremism takes a foundation in mostly poor and down trodden sections of society and is directly related to economic problems.
Stretching her troops by getting involved in an illegal war over false and concocted evidence was a stupid mistake by the U.S. and it is coming back to bite us all.

 

[tomahawk6]

The U.S. should have stayed the course in Afghanistan as, I believe, it was more of a righteous cause than going into a stupid illegal war against Iraq. Staying for the long term in Afghanistan and developing it along the lines of the Marshall Plan (maybe wishful thinking) would have resulted in the uprooting of right wing extremist forces from there as extremism takes a foundation in mostly poor and down trodden sections of society and is directly related to economic problems.
Stretching her troops by getting involved in an illegal war over false and concocted evidence was a stupid mistake by the U.S. and it is coming back to bite us all.

Iraq was not illegal they were in violation of 17 UN resolutions. Anyway we werent going to put 100,000 troops into Afghanistan. We wanted as small a footprint as possible.

In my opinion NATO has outlived its usefulness. If closed it down we could free up alot of people now stuck in staff jobs that could be better used as advisors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[contedicavour]

Its called UN Peacekeeper shock. Many of the European nations haven't been shot at as UN Peacekeepers before. Their leaders, both military and political, not to mention their public, cannot understand why their troops are being shot at. Nevermind, they are participating in a UN, NATO, and EU scantioned war against the Taliban and Al Queida. Like you said, they're not willing to wage war.


Yes, the British, Canadians, and from what I have read the Polish are under no illusions. Unfortunately, it seems the other nations cannot comprehend this is a war, not a police action. There is a difference between peace making and peace keeping.

Frankly, I hope some of these forces in the back get struck hard, in the long run defence spending in Europe will go up, not down as it has been in the recent past for most of the European nations.

I don't know which European countries you have in mind, but as far as Italy is concerned, we're doing our bit of peacekeeping in dangerous places... over 2,000 combat troops in Afghanistan, still approx 1,600 in Iraq, 2,000 (and increasing) in Lebanon, not to mention over 4,500 still in the Balkans and 300 in Sudan (south Sudan, not Darfur).
We've lost already 25 soldiers in Iraq and 5 in Afghanistan. In proportion to number of troops fielded, this is enough to qualify as "struck hard".
Anyway, the key reason why several countries hesitate to send more troops, is that the overall strategy to rebuild Afghanistan's government is weak. The govt can't decide anything as it has too many warlords inside it ; the govt doesn't control anything beyond Kabul ... True, we must support it as we have no other solution at hand, but seriously are we planning to stay there for how many years before the Afghans get their act together and defend their country from extremist Pushtun elements ???

 

[Red aRRow]

Iraq was not illegal they were in violation of 17 UN resolutions. Anyway we werent going to put 100,000 troops into Afghanistan. We wanted as small a footprint as possible.

Yeah right. So who's next Israel (over 65+ violations!!!) or maybe India for violating multiple U.N. resolutions(regarding Palestine and Kashmir)??
Iraq wasn't about any principle or violation of U.N. resolutions. It was a unilateral terroristic move by the so called coalition of the willing without any U.N. mandate. Hundreds of thousands have died as a result of this misadventure.


I referred to Afghanistan as 'righteous' as in comparison to Iraq and also because this was the unfinished business left over after the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan. America left its allies, the Mujahideen, in the lurch and the country without any financial assistance which resulted in the power vacuum being filled by zealots such as the Taliban and subsequently AQ who, ironically, are the continuation of the very people which the CIA was supporting during the Afghan Jihad. Talk about actions coming to bite back eh.
The non commital of U.S. even now at this stage to the Afghan imbroglio is an evidence of the wrong priorities some people seem to have in the world's circle of power.

 

[Grand Danois]

In my opinion NATO has outlived its usefulness. If closed it down we could free up alot of people now stuck in staff jobs that could be better used as advisors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Exactly how has NATO outlived its usefulness? Is that from a US perspective only? The US gains both influence in Europe from its participation and strengthens and shapes the defense policies in Europe. Not to mention the political ties.

Considering that NATO is the current framework of defense and security cooperation in Europe, I don't think a replacement would look much different.

 

[Sea Toby]

The United States with a population of 300 million have over 100,000 army troops involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely a nation of Germany could match this percentage, with a population of close to 90 million, they could send over 20,000 army troops, not the wimpish 2,000. Its not just Germany either, Italy with a population near 60 million could send a similar percentage of over 15,000 army troops..... The ante isn't the same, is it? Only the British seem to have a clue.

 

[Todjaeger]

The United States with a population of 300 million have over 100,000 army troops involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely a nation of Germany could match this percentage, with a population of close to 90 million, they could send over 20,000 army troops, not the wimpish 2,000. Its not just Germany either, Italy with a population near 60 million could send a similar percentage of over 15,000 army troops..... The ante isn't the same, is it? Only the British seem to have a clue.

Sea Toby, keep in mind the bulk our forces are in Iraq, 125k+ (or is it 135k+ now? it went up recently by 15k) not Afghanistan. There are a total of approximately 20,000 International (including US) troops in Afghanistan. Basically the US has 6-7 troops in Iraq for each International soldier in Afghanistan.

Also keep in mind that the decision to invade Iraq was a political one, not a military decision. That is one of the reasons why Iraq is not a UN or NATO mission. It is also a reason why a number of nations that are in NATO have deployed troops to Afghanistan, where there was agreement on the need for force, and not contributed to Iraq, because those nations didn't perceive Iraq to be a threat. Canada comes to mind in this regard.

I would also like to take the time to point out, particularly since Iraq has been referenced repeatedly, that this discussion is becoming more a political debate, and less a military one. Can we get back to a discussion on what is being done in Afghanistan, or perhaps what isn't being done but should? Please?

 

[contedicavour]

The United States with a population of 300 million have over 100,000 army troops involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely a nation of Germany could match this percentage, with a population of close to 90 million, they could send over 20,000 army troops, not the wimpish 2,000. Its not just Germany either, Italy with a population near 60 million could send a similar percentage of over 15,000 army troops..... The ante isn't the same, is it? Only the British seem to have a clue.

Oh come on... we do have a total of over 15,000 troops deployed on overseas missions (just add to my previous list the Carabinieri military police and you're there). Frankly that's a lot because :
(i) for every soldier deployed you've got another resting from previous tour of duty and another training => 45,000 dedicated for 15,000 deployed
(ii) another 15,000+ are in the 3 NATO and EU rapid reaction - earmarked brigades, very often training with other NATO countries
(iii) our armed forces are still supposed to defend our country's borders and be around for natural catastrophies (such as flooding right now) or back-up for police forces in some turbulent areas where organized crime sometimes creates problems
Reminder : we've got 120,000 soldiers in the army (another 70,000 in air force and navy)
Conclusion : we're stretched enough like this, especially for a country with no permanent seat in the UN Security Council and with no direct interests in most of the countries where we are operating peacekeeping forces.

 

[contedicavour]

Exactly how has NATO outlived its usefulness? Is that from a US perspective only? The US gains both influence in Europe from its participation and strengthens and shapes the defense policies in Europe. Not to mention the political ties.

Considering that NATO is the current framework of defense and security cooperation in Europe, I don't think a replacement would look much different.

Agree. And NATO is useful because of the planning staff dedicated to multinational operations. Who else has experience in getting tens of different armies to cooperate together in mid- to high-threat scenarios ? That is, unless the US armed forces don't need back-up from European ones. Hardly likely given how stretched they are right now.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

NATO is useless?
Do you think the US would do well if they have to leave all their bases and the bases of their NATO-allies in europe? I don't think so.

We should deploy 20.000 troops?
There are round about 10.000 of our forces all around the world and as contedicavour said there is one soldier in training and one on after deployment duty for every man in another country.
Remember we are still a conscriptors army which main task is to defend our country and if it should happen that NATO is attacked we are able to field and equip more than a million soldiers in quite a small time window to defend us and our allies.
What do you think I would I say if I have to go to Iraq or A-stan during my time as a conscriptor to help cleaning up the mess the US caused?

BTW the US spend nearly the same amount of money for their armed forces like we have for our whole budget of state.

 

[contedicavour]

NATO is useless?
Do you think the US would do well if they have to leave all their bases and the bases of their NATO-allies in europe? I don't think so.

We should deploy 20.000 troops?
There are round about 10.000 of our forces all around the world and as contedicavour said there is one soldier in training and one on after deployment duty for every man in another country.
Remember we are still a conscriptors army which main task is to defend our country and if it should happen that NATO is attacked we are able to field and equip more than a million soldiers in quite a small time window to defend us and our allies.
What do you think I would I say if I have to go to Iraq or A-stan during my time as a conscriptor to help cleaning up the mess the US caused?

BTW the US spend nearly the same amount of money for their armed forces like we have for our whole budget of state.

Hello Waylander, are there plans to professionalize part or all of the German armed forces ? We have completed the process in Italy, but at a huge cost : (i) almost 70% of defence budget goes on salaries and (ii) we're down from 320,000 conscripts to 190,000 professional soldiers.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

Parts of our army consist of non conscripts or will be in the near future.

The biggest of them are:
- 1. Panzerdivision (armoured division)
- Division Spezielle Operationen (Airborn infantry, KSK, deep recon infantry, light infantry, etc.)
- Division Luftbewegliche Operation (airmobile operations)
- Supporting units (Techs, engineers, MP, logistics, etc.)

Due to their nature air force and naval forces also consist of many non conscript soldiers and most of them are deployable without problems.
We are in the process of dividing our army into reaction forces and stabilization units.

Topic:
Most of the population in germany is against big deployments of troops as part of an offensive force and also the actions of the US, especially in Iraq, are not well seen.
This is how democrathy works. It is the decision of our people and not the decision of our allies and friends.
Did the US cared about the millions of people in europe who demonstrated against the war in Iraq? Did you cared about the critics of your actions during the war?
NO.
And now while we are not sure about deploying more troops we are wrong?

 

[contedicavour]

Waylander, thks for the information.

I'm supportive of the US when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, but I fully agree with you that we are democracies and the will of the people must be respected. We can't be condamned because we aren't increasing troop numbers over there.

cheers

 

[kams]

My two cents..
Iraq and Afghanistan are not comparable. You are fighting in Afghanistan so that you don't have to fight in your homeland. The defination of victory for Taliban and NATO are very different. For Taliban, the mere fact that NATO is asking for more troops (and not getting it) is a propaganda victory. This will halp them in convincing the population of Afghanistan that Taliban is winning and more will join Taliban.

NATO needs to act decisevely and fast. Needs to act now or this will turn in to another IRAQ (suicide bombers, IED).

 

[contedicavour]

I'd just add that IMHO the primary objective of NATO / US / allied forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan is helping to build a self-sufficient stable government (as democratic and multi-ethnic as possible).
Unfortunately there is only so much we can do with our soldiers... since if the governments in place aren't recognized by large bits of their populations (because of religious or tribal differences), then the primary answer is not military, rather economic and social (helping find common grounds for common rules on justice for example).
The current feeling in large parts of Europe is that we are fighting to prop up a government that risks collapsing (or presiding over civil war) the moment we leave.
If I were to propose a solution, it would be to tolerate a lesser degree of democracy and centralized government and hand power more openly to those leaders who really can restore order (Uzbek, Tajik and Herat-based former generals/warlords, not only Pushtuns, in Afghanistan, for example, and Shiri and Dawa parties in a heavily federal Iraq with 4 regions - Baghdad, Shiite, Kurd and Sunni). That way an overwhelming majority would find a stake in restoring order.
Only then it would be fully productive to help out with military, police, and other forms of presence on the field. Otherwise we'll spend our time fighting and not being able to spend a dollar rebuilding hospitals, schools, roads, etc

cheers

 

[.pt]

Well put conte.
But my feeling is that, in Iraq, it´s probably already too late to do that. Too much spilled blood and hatred is on the loose, and i don´t think there is a chance for peace between rival groups.
.pt