Nato in Afghanistan -'European nations must not turn 'coward.'

[Ths]

My mistake.

I think we are dealing with a real European problem:
Germany needs to take its proper place in Europe. Militarily as well as economically. We have come a long way, but there is still some to go.

As to keeping Germany out of Iraq, I'm reminded of an old joke Sir Arthur Harris once told:
The mid-upper gunner and the tail gunner on a Lancaster were irish and on a mission they were discussing politics. As nightfighters started coming in the pilot ordered them to knock it off, but the tail gunner wanted the last word:
"You can say about De Valera what You want; but he kept us out of this lot!"

 

[Waylander]

The war in Iraq was against most of the opinion of our population.
It is my understanding of democracy that the government takes this into account.

A-stan is another thing. Most people here think that the NATO should do its best to rebuild this country.
Bu not that many people think that we shoudl send pure combat troops. This might not be right but is also a normal public opinion which you have to take into account.

 

[Ths]

Waylander:

That's where You are wrong: Between elections, there is nothing above nor aside the parliament. That is the ideal - as politicians want to be reelected they will listen to popular opinion.

Especially with security and foreign policy it is difficult for the public to form a qualified opinion because so much of the relevant information is classified.
For instance the american voter could not form an opinion on Nixons opening to China, as the whole game concerned exchange of highly sensitive information about the soviet war preparations.

On economic policy the general public has the opportunity to form an informed opinion, that they don't is another matter. Take the Danish votes on the European Union.

 

[eckherl]

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:

The French always have an excuse, just like going into Lebanon, Chirac wanted to call all the shots over there, but wanted to send the least amount of troops over there. It looks like the British, U.S and the Canadians will do the brunt of the fighting. There are alot of Americans who feel that the U.S should rethink our partnership involving NATO, this is a prime example why.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

If anything, the U.S. should do as much as possible (of course to a degree) to strengthen its ties in NATO and to strengthen NATO's overal power. It was one of the founding countries and was really the only Allied superpower that stood up to the Soviets after WWII and through the Cold War.

I like most of what Mercenary said. On the issue of Pakistan, an alliance with them, or with any Middle Eastern country that is open to a world of democracy and terror-free (or at least appears to be), is crucial to winning militarily and politically in the war on terror. If anything needs to be done to stop the movement of Taliban across the border, it would be to station troops or, preferably, to train the Afghan Border Police to focus more on that border. However, that would be difficult considering that the Taliban wouldn't stop crossing without a fight and would surely put up strong resistance against any military force that was put in place to control it.

Good point about the Soviets. They committed around a total of 600,000 soldiers to their Afghan war, in addition to hundreds of 'copters and tanks. They still lost. The guerilla warfare that the Taliban wage is a powerful one that is strongly funded. They still get large amounts of money, equipment, and manpower from sympathetic countries or fronts of various kinds. They live among civilians. Someone you knew a year ago to be a western-friendly man could have easily been convinced to join the Taliban. That's how strong their cause is and how popular it still is, despite the Iraq and Afghan wars.

This war will be a hard one that will require more direct NATO involvement to both undertake military operations and to participate in the rebuilding of the country.

I forgot who said it but earlier someone mentioned that most NATO countries are still concerned about a conflict with the Russians. In my opinion, a NATO commitment to the Middle East war on terror doesn't mean you pull in every soldier and tank that is in a country. NATO reserves would most definitely stay behind to act as, if it makes European NATO countries happier, a defenses against Russian aggression. I believe that those days are over and NATO countries should be worrying more about terrorist activity than Russian aggression.

 

[eckherl]

If anything, the U.S. should do as much as possible (of course to a degree) to strengthen its ties in NATO and to strengthen NATO's overal power. It was one of the founding countries and was really the only Allied superpower that stood up to the Soviets after WWII and through the Cold War.

I like most of what Mercenary said. On the issue of Pakistan, an alliance with them, or with any Middle Eastern country that is open to a world of democracy and terror-free (or at least appears to be), is crucial to winning militarily and politically in the war on terror. If anything needs to be done to stop the movement of Taliban across the border, it would be to station troops or, preferably, to train the Afghan Border Police to focus more on that border. However, that would be difficult considering that the Taliban wouldn't stop crossing without a fight and would surely put up strong resistance against any military force that was put in place to control it.

Good point about the Soviets. They committed around a total of 600,000 soldiers to their Afghan war, in addition to hundreds of 'copters and tanks. They still lost. The guerilla warfare that the Taliban wage is a powerful one that is strongly funded. They still get large amounts of money, equipment, and manpower from sympathetic countries or fronts of any kind. They live among civilians. Someone you knew a year ago to be a western-friendly man could have easily been convinced to join the Taliban. That's how strong their cause is and how popular is still is, despite the Iraq and Afghan wars.

This war will be a hard one that will require more direct NATO involvement to both undertake military operations and to participate in the rebuilding of the country.

Okay - you just said it, NATO was founded due to the cold war, the cold war is over, times have changed, a lot of the European countries that we Americans have put our ass on the line for do not like us, after 911 it was Europeans (French) who were stating that we got what we deserved, we invade Iraq and all of a sudden we are the bastards of the Universe, NATO can`t even go into Afganistan with out bickering with each other, may be it is time for the U.S to re evaluate it`s role with NATO, do they not have the great European Union.

 

[Grand Danois]

Okay - you just said it, NATO was founded due to the cold war, the cold war is over, times have changed, a lot of the European countries that we Americans have put our ass on the line for do not like us, after 911 it was Europeans (French) who were stating that we got what we deserved, we invade Iraq and all of a sudden we are the bastards of the Universe, NATO can`t even go into Afganistan with out bickering with each other, may be it is time for the U.S to re evaluate it`s role with NATO, do they not have the great European Union.

An American withdrawal would certainly energize the EU politically and militarily. But that strength would then be totally outside of US influence.

Americas huge influence in European defense matters, and an European defense policy with the spine and courage you are looking for, are opposites.

Can't have both.

 

[eckherl]

An American withdrawal would certainly energize the EU politically and militarily. But that strength would then be totally outside of US influence.

Americas huge influence in European defense matters, and an European defense policy with the spine and courage you are looking for, are opposites.

Can't have both.

Do you really think that we have much influence as it stands now, with European leaders like Chirac playing games. NATO decided to go into Afganistan, if they did not want to give a full commitment then they should of stayed out, I suspect because my country did the bulk of the fighting and rooted out the majority of the Taliban that some of those countries thought that it would be smooth sailing from here on out.

 

[Grand Danois]

Do you really think that we have much influence as it stands now, with European leaders like Chirac playing games. NATO decided to go into Afganistan, if they did not want to give a full commitment then they should of stayed out, I suspect because my country did the bulk of the fighting and rooted out the majority of the Taliban that some of those countries thought that it would be smooth sailing from here on out.

More than you think. Many nations are hedging their defense and hence also their procurement on the US. They are quite strong Atlanticist even after the Cold War. This is quite an obstacle for those who wish Europe to stand on its own, including an independent EU foreign/military policy.

The French were also odd during the Cold War. And IMV also in EU context.

NATO didn't have to go into Afghanistan at all. Why did it?

The fighting this year was expected. Yet UK, CA, Holland and Denmark committed to this with troops that weren't in theatre at the time... At least in the two latter countries this was flagged to the public beforehand.

The Germans have historical issues, and they are still moving away from conscription. They also have troops on readiness as Kosovo may need it soon.

The Spanish and Italians (and to some extent the French) had their available expeditionary forces sent off to Lebanon.

What was requested by NATO was not as much as combat troops as helos for airmobility and logistics to theatre - and proper coordination of the latter.

For example six EH101 TTT which Denmark should have recieved from the production line will be handed over to the Brits as they need them for airmobility in Afghanistan.

However, political constraints wrt mission on contingents were only slightly relaxed. And it buggers me to see the Canadians take the casualties whilst some odd European parliament is micromanaging their contingent.

 

[eckherl]

More than you think. Many nations are hedging their defense and hence also their procurement on the US. They are quite strong Atlanticist even after the Cold War. This is quite an obstacle for those who wish Europe to stand on its own, including an independent EU foreign/military policy.

The French were also odd during the Cold War. And IMV also in EU context.

NATO didn't have to go into Afghanistan at all. Why did it?

The fighting this year was expected. Yet UK, CA, Holland and Denmark committed to this with troops that weren't in theatre at the time... At least in the two latter countries this was flagged to the public beforehand.

The Germans have historical issues, and they are still moving away from conscription. They also have troops on readiness as Kosovo may need it soon.

The Spanish and Italians (and to some extent the French) had their available expeditionary forces sent off to Lebanon.

What was requested by NATO was not as much as combat troops as helos for airmobility and logistics to theatre - and proper coordination of the latter.

For example six EH101 TTT which Denmark should have recieved from the production line will be handed over to the Brits as they need them for airmobility in Afghanistan.

However, political constraints wrt mission on contingents were only slightly relaxed. And it buggers me to see the Canadians take the casualties whilst some odd European parliament is micromanaging their contingent.

I can see your point - I am not upset over the commitment from Germany, I was rather shocked that they actually committed to it due to their government, and yes Canada has been in the front lines with the U.S and British soldiers and performing at a excellant level. But I think that you can agree that France could play a bigger role in this instead of lip service. I figured that some of the former Warsaw pact countries would place a strong relationship with the U.S but didn`t figure on the likes of some of the NATO alliance countries, alot of us over here figured that because of the Iraqi war that this is eroding away at the friendship that we once had. The U.S is really in big trouble if we do not get help in Iraq, this is a catch 22 situation for us.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

The Cold War is over but, as someone said earlier, Eastern bloc countries are still worried that the Russians will invade. I don't agree with the reason but I understand that they feel they need to keep a defensive military at home. That is, however, not the reason they shouldn't involve themselves more in Afghan fighting.

It's slightly amusing how Denmark, Sweden, and other small countries can commit without argument troops and equipment while larger NATO countries (i.e. France) have political problems and reasons for not going in.

Italy, Spain, and France sent their expeditionary forces to Lebannon because they didn't like what Israel was doing and hoped to calm the Israel attack. That was a political mission, not a military one.

If it's true Germany committed warplanes to the Afghan war, that's enough for me.

Like I said before, the Soviet-Afghan war is one of the things that demoralizes certain countries from wanting to send troops in. They saw what a disaster that war ended up leading to for the Soviets and how the Taliban made it out on top at the end.

 

[Grand Danois]

Italy, Spain, and France sent their expeditionary forces to Lebannon because they didn't like what Israel was doing and hoped to calm the Israel attack. That was a political mission, not a military one.

Just an opininon on this. Italy, Spain and France sent troops to Lebanon in order to follow their own agendas. That is true. But these agendas are not to annoy Israel - that is collateral damage.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

Their own agenda was to take a position on peacekeeping by protecting Lebanese civilians caught in the conflict. That's what I meant.

 

[Waylander]

One of the problems is that the US had the best support of the NATO after 9/11 they could hope of.
This changed right before the Iraq operation.
It is not like the US gave a damn about the opinion of most european countries and instead started to lie in front of the security council.
This changed most of the public opinion.
And this public opinion is now the problem in most countries which don't want to send troops.
If you would have asked for more than logistic support, guards for your german bases and special forces for A-stan you would have got it right after 9/11. I am sure of this.
I know that this was possible due to the time this would have required (A shame for the military capabilties of some countries especially including germany).
But it shows you something about the change of public opinion.

You should also remember that the US heavily rely on their european NATO bases.
They are for sure able to compensate the loss of them but nevertheless it would hurt.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

NATO allies should contribute more to some area of operations. Whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other conflict, any additional contribution would be appreciated. The U.S. isn't asking for NATO to fully commit to the Iraq war. I think it's asking for additional on-site support in Afghanistan and some logistical support in Iraq.

That isn't much to ask. Again, this is all part of the treaty. They are obliged to assist a NATO country that is attacked. That's the whole point of NATO and why it was created. Maybe I'm missing something but there shouldn't be any political problems from this. When you join NATO, you know what other countries are involved in and the risks that could lead you to war for an ally. That is why you join in the first place, for protection.

Now I'm not saying NATO countries haven't contributed thus far. They have to an appreciative, though slightly disappointing, degree.

 

[Waylander]

Iraq is not even near to being a NATO mission. Who wanted to be a part of the coalation of the willing should now do its part.
I would not like to see one lonely germany soldier dieing there.

I agree that a good solution should be found to the situation in A-stan. T
he question is what could be done?
A QRF consisting of the countries with more quiet regions?
More civil funds?
Regular based troops in the south of the countries which do not operate there till now?
If you do not want to raise the number of troops (And for example we are operating at the limit of 3.000 soldiers) you have to exchange some engineers, pioneers, etc. for combat troops.
Is this the right way?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Iraq is not even near to being a NATO mission. Who wanted to be a part of the coalation of the willing should now do its part.
I would not like to see one lonely germany soldier dieing there.

I agree that a good solution should be found to the situation in A-stan. T
he question is what could be done?
A QRF consisting of the countries with more quiet regions?
More civil funds?
Regular based troops in the south of the countries which do not operate there till now?
If you do not want to raise the number of troops (And for example we are operating at the limit of 3.000 soldiers) you have to exchange some engineers, pioneers, etc. for combat troops.
Is this the right way?

It would be interesting to see how many troops each country has deployed operationaly at the moment.

For example 3,000 German troops in A-stan, but I think there are also deployments in Bosnia/Kosovo as well?

Also rotating the front lines could be considered, e.g. a base level of deployment, but each major country steps up to the plate for 6-12 months to place a combat brigade for operations in the south. Just something to consider.

 

[Waylander]

ISAF Afghanistan: 2983
KFOR Kosovo: 2915
UNIFIL Lebanon: 1003
EUFOR Bosnia: 883
EUFOR Congo: 736
OEF Horn of Africa: 296

The rest is not very countable
UNMIS Sudan: 37
Active Endeavour: 23
UNOMIG Georgia: 11
UNMEE Ethopia: 2

There are also some other non public OEF missions like of the KSK (Special Forces), Kampfschwimmer (SEALs), etc. which ar enot included.

For each soldier on a mission there is one preparing for the next contingent and one which just left a mission.
There are also the NATO and EU battleforces for which soldiers have to be ready all the time as well as the QRFs for Kosovo.

Sad to say but the Bundeswehr is operating at the border of what she is able to do. The original training at home is already suffering. And we need too much support and staff units for each combat unit. Not to forget that we still have a conscriptors army and these normal conscriptors are not going to oversea missions.
In the end not enough boots on the ground. Not enough funding. Not enough modern structures. And politicians which are fast at saying yes to oversea missions without thinking about what could happen and what could be necessary.

 

[Whiskyjack]

For each soldier on a mission there is one preparing for the next contingent and one which just left a mission.
There are also the NATO and EU battleforces for which soldiers have to be ready all the time as well as the QRFs for Kosovo.

Sad to say but the Bundeswehr is operating at the border of what she is able to do. The original training at home is already suffering. And we need too much support and staff units for each combat unit. Not to forget that we still have a conscriptors army and these normal conscriptors are not going to oversea missions.
In the end not enough boots on the ground. Not enough funding. Not enough modern structures. And politicians which are fast at saying yes to oversea missions without thinking about what could happen and what could be necessary.

I generally go with 60% deployable, 40% training, base etc. As you say of the 60% only 20% are actually deployed at any one time to allow for sustained ops.

Are there any plans to turn the Bundeswehr into a professional force?

 

[Waylander]

These units are going to be fully operational without conscriptors.

- 1st Armored Division (1. Panzerdivision)
- Division for Special Operations (DSO, Airborn Infantry, KSK,...)
- Division for Airmobile Operations (DLO, Airmobile Infantry,Transport/Attack Helicopters,...)
- The German-French Brigade (Light combined arms brigade)
- Most of our Navy and Air Force
- Most of our Mountain Infantry

Most other units are divided into fully operational parts and parts with conscriptors especially the light

But as always not enough fundings, personal, bureaucracy, to many dumb transformation ideas, etc.
Many units for example does not train enough at their oiriginal tasks of combined arms warfare because tankmen, artillery guys, combat engineers, etc. are on some foot patrols around the world.
But we are not the only ones with these problems. If you talk to some GIs, danish soldiers, dutch guys,...