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

[USNavySEAL3310]

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?

On the political scheme of things, it would be good to, like the U.S. did with Pakistan, 'win over' other Mid-East or near Mid-East countries to help. This can't be a total European and American endeavor. The more help NATO gets from Mid-East nations the better off the war will be in the long run, both politically and militarily.

I like the idea of having NATO units, making up the majority of groups with Afghan military behind them to learn, sail out to the area around Kabul and begin securing the outskirts of Kabul and ridding them of terror activity. This will help provide a strong foundation for the Afghan military.

 

[Waylander]

As long as nearly every Warlord pays more than the Afghani army or police it is not that easy to get enough good and reliable men.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

That's why NATO forces should lead the attack and set an example. It won't be easy to turn around Afghanistan, obviously, but it is essential if the war on terror is to progress and turn up positive results.

Their government should do more to fix that by acquiring the funds, making patriotic speeches, starting anti-terror/warlord publicity, etc. Whatever is necessary to win over more of Afghanistan's population, they should do it. Maybe they don't know what's at stake for them and the coalition or how bad of a situation it could turn into but they need to act fast.

 

[Grand Danois]

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,...

The Danish Army currently has c. 1.300 personnel on missions in primarily Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.

On paper it is/will be configured for 2 primary deployments of 1.300 plus a further 100 on a variety of small missions.

Thus it is already running on full capacity despite having a shortfall of 1.100 personnel across all three services. (The economy is running in a very high gear and virtually zero unemployment.)

The Air Force is helping out with personnel usually assigned for base security working as VIP protection teams in Iraq. The Home Guard - a part time volunteer force with focus on guarding homeland infrastructure - is providing mechanics, cooks and other skilled personnel to help out. The first six will go out with the rotation to Afghanistan.

Now for an example of the time it takes to make a NATO NRF battlegroup ready.

The Danish Army is in the proces of making a battle group available for the NRF-10 rotation Jan-June 2008. The battle group is a reinforced batallion sized unit centered around an armoured batallion (ie they are grenadiers supported with Leo IIA5s). This is in addition to the above mentioned numbers of 1.400.

They started early 2006 and entered formal training and preparations July 2006. When they become NRF certified and in readiness for deployment in Jan 2008 they have been nationally certified (Allied Forces Standard) and NRF certified for joint and combined operations. The mission areas for this battle group will be "hot-dry" to "extreme hot-dry" environments ie places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

So for half a year of availability for rapid deployment it takes 2 years of workup and certification. Then ad the stand down afterwards.

Along the way prioritised new kit is inducted like more MOWAG EAGLE IV and new ammunition for the Leo's, like PELE, HE and cannister rounds, including rounds with climate insensitive propellants. This provides antipersonnel capability in the open and in urban areas.

IMV quite a feat for such a small military like the Danish.

 

[eckherl]

That's why NATO forces should lead the attack and set an example. It won't be easy to turn around Afghanistan, obviously, but it is essential if the war on terror is to progress and turn up positive results.

Their government should do more to fix that by acquiring the funds, making patriotic speeches, starting anti-terror/warlord publicity, etc. Whatever is necessary to win over more of Afghanistan's population, they should do it. Maybe they don't know what's at stake for them and the coalition or how bad of a situation it could turn into but they need to act fast.

NATO won`t take the lead and conduct a operation like that, the picture is not as bleak as some people make it out to be, if we place more troops over there and place even more pressure on Pakistan to quite harboring the Taliban
we can get control of some these issues. Afganistans government is doing everything that they possibly can to drum up more funds for rebuilding and re arming their military, things take time to gel together. You cannot look at Soviet past experiences and expect things to pan out like they had it over there, times have changed and they are responsible for destroying that country and all the people who did not want to take in the pro communist government that was being shoved down their throats. If we give the new Afganistan government enough support and time they can make a difference. A lot of Afgans do appreciate what we are trying to do over there. There is already a rumor that we are going to place more troops over there.

 

[Grand Danois]

As long as nearly every Warlord pays more than the Afghani army or police it is not that easy to get enough good and reliable men.

You won't even get good men if you paid them well. The (German trained) Afghan National Police (ANP) are already renowned for being partisan in tribal feuds - opium rackets. Basically an extension of the petty warlordism already going on.

You need an independent constabulary force and judiciary before you can make it a coherent society. That means tackling the opium issue and do it the way I suggested in a previous post. Buying the Taliban (and other warlords) out of the market.

 

[Grand Danois]

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.

Actually there has been some fallout of the Rumsfeldian old Europe - new Europe fuss, which I don't think Rumsfeld took into account at the time.

A bit complex to explain in a hurry - that'll be a job for tomorrow.

 

[Waylander]

I heard that the police training did not work out like we wanted. Not to talk of the lonely Afghani tank btl we trained. What a show. :shudder

I also think that Opium is the key and the problem.
You cannot hope to solve the problems of this country with all this opium (A-stan is still by far the biggest supplier of opium in the world) but you also cannot go into the offense against these opium fields.
All the Warlords which are getting richer and fatter because of the opium but hold still till now are going to join the resistance.

Paying the people there more for their corn than for opium is also not that easy. The Warlords will force them to continue planting opium and there ist just not enough money for a solution like this.
A very ugly problem.

 

[eckherl]

Actually there has been some fallout of the Rumsfeldian old Europe - new Europe fuss, which I don't think Rumsfeld took into account at the time.

A bit complex to explain in a hurry - that'll be a job for tomorrow.

Rumsfield should of been gone a long time ago, he surely did not help our cause with Europe, and our soldiers lost confidence in him a long time ago.

 

[Grand Danois]

I heard that the police training did not work out like we wanted. Not to talk of the lonely Afghani tank btl we trained. What a show. :shudder

I also think that Opium is the key and the problem.
You cannot hope to solve the problems of this country with all this opium (A-stan is still by far the biggest supplier of opium in the world) but you also cannot go into the offense against these opium fields.
All the Warlords which are getting richer and fatter because of the opium but hold still till now are going to join the resistance.

Paying the people there more for their corn than for opium is also not that easy. The Warlords will force them to continue planting opium and there ist just not enough money for a solution like this.
A very ugly problem.

It's a genuine catch 22.

I should say it is not the German training per se, that is at fault. It is when the ANP units get back to their province, they fall back to their usual behaviour governed by socio-politico-ethnic-sectarian-economic allegiances. IOW tribalism.

Some of it could be alleviated if these squad sized units (~30) where under supervision of an 'international', just like they are in the Afghan National Army (ANA). However, that is a lot of vulnerable exposure for a lot of Westerners - way too dangerous. And that is because of the proliferation of small arms. The state simply doesn't have a monopoly on violence in Afghanistan and this makes it hard to protect (and outgun) in case of even the smallest conflict of interest.

Soo complex.

 

[Grand Danois]

Rumsfield should of been gone a long time ago, he surely did not help our cause with Europe, and our soldiers lost confidence in him a long time ago.

Ah, but this is wrt to how Eastern Europe suddenly found it necessary to assert themselves towards 'old Europe'. It has to some extent precipitated a less convenient environment for US (and old Europe) interests. And the loss of the ideological leadership AFAIK the US is concerned.

This would have been the end result, as the democracies matured and interest were defined, but was hastened considerably by the Rumsfeldian remark.

And all this just because Rumsfeld wanted to annoy the European opponents of Iraq II.

Anyhow, I am aware that Rumsfeld never had that much popularity in US mil circles.

Cheers

 

[eckherl]

Ah, but this is wrt to how Eastern Europe suddenly found it necessary to assert themselves towards 'old Europe'. It has to some extent precipitated a less convenient environment for US (and old Europe) interests. And the loss of the ideological leadership AFAIK the US is concerned.

This would have been the end result, as the democracies matured and interest were defined, but was hastened considerably by the Rumsfeldian remark.

And all this just because Rumsfeld wanted to annoy the European opponents of Iraq II.

Anyhow, I am aware that Rumsfeld never had that much popularity in US mil circles.

Cheers

Well - he surely pissed everyone off didn`t he, so what do we do now to fix what the Bush party has ruined.

 

[TrangleC]

Every year about 500 000 afghan boys enter the socalled "potencial combatant age" of 15 years. This means every year a potencial army that outnumbers the western forces about 20 to 1 grows up.
This war was lost at the moment it became a war again.

All the western forces, not only the oh so cowardly Germans in the north should have concentrated on nation building and winning the hearts of the people there instead of kicking in doors and bomb villages in the totally futile attempt to clean the country of the Taliban.

Now the afghan population is lost. Hence the Taliban are stronger than ever.

Calling for more troops will do nothing to save this already sunken ship. The more you fight and the harder you grab the people the more resistance you will provoke, just like Princess Lea told Darth Vader.

If the german troops would join the Americans, British and Canadians in this ridiculous "let's play vietnam without all the trees"-shootout in the south, they would lose the rest of credibility and sympathy from the people in the north and the Taliban would easily gain support and open a new front there. They probably will do so anyway because even in the north the people start to get annoyed by the foreigners who came and promised to build up the country but didn't do much more than to hide in their camp and drink tea with drug lords in the north and behave like occupant assholes in the south.

If it wouldn't be so sad and pitiful i'd point my finger and taunt "I knew it better like before the Iraq invasion!" and maybe add a "ha-ha!" like Nelson from the Simpsons show.

It's not as if this mistakes would be made because the world is so complicated and the "decision-makers" underestimated it. It's quite simple. If you send soldiers to another country and they annoy the civilians in the attempt to root out a guerilla force, the civilians get angry and support the guerilla force and such a force with the support of the people cannot be defeated by conventional military force, unless you are willing to perform a genozide or something like that.

Americans i talked with always seem to think that overwhelming military and technological superiority can scare people in submission.
"We go in there with our cool weapons and our night vision goggles and our airforce, smart bombs and helicopters and whatever, kick some ass, push a few buttons, make some noise and make scary faces and the camel drivers (or whoever) will lay down and learn not to fuck with us! Yeah!"

But you know what? It doesn't work like this.
It didn't work in the last 10 000 years when the Persians, the Romans, Napoleon and the Nazis tried it (all people who had little ethical problems with genozides) and it doesn't work today.

When you piss off people, they strike back, no matter how much more and deadlier buttons to push you got. And the more you kill, the more will stand up against you.
Is that so hard to understand?
Wouldn't you defend yourself, the peope dear to you and your culture and souverenity even against a far superiour enemy if he goes too far?
Of course you would, so why shouldn't the camel drivers and goat shepherds do the same?

"We came to bring freedom and democracy." Doesn't make it better when all those people see of the foreigners are soldiers kicking in doors in the night and taking away their sons, fathers and brothers with bags on their heads for interiogation and some even to places like Guantanamo or Abu Greib.

This ridiculous and futile, purely revenge-lust driven attempt to hunt down the Taliban rendered the nation building efforts useless, especially because it determined the NATO forces policy towards the war (and drug-) lords who were needed as allies against the Taliban.
We threw away all the credit we had in Afghanistan after the initial fall of the Taliban regime just to kill a few hundet more of them. That was the best anybody could possibly do to the Taliban, because it gave them the support of the civil population and it gave them additional support from other muslim countries.
Ignoring them and thus being free to tumble the warlords would have made more sense because it would have enabled real nation building by making space for a real civil society that could give the people the prosperity, safety and freedom - an truly attractive alternative - they would have needed to reject the Taliban.

Now it's through, i'm afraid. They are disappointed and appaled by us westerners once more and the warlords are more powerful than ever. Since we cannot really win the war against the Taliban (not even if we would send enough soldiers there to put 10 at every street corner and 2 tanks in every valley), they will come back and the warlords will once more arrage with them, together taking the whole of Afghanistan hostage once more.
And the sooner the Germans would join the party in the south, the sooner we'll lose the north too.

At least the British could have known better. It will be the second time that happens to them in Afghanistan.

 

[Waylander]

As bad as it looks like in A-stan, and compared to troop levels more GIs dieing there than in Iraq, I believe that the situation there is not hopeless. Not even near to optimistic but not totally hopeless (Maybe in a couple of month)

But when it comes to Iraq...
I really don't see this country being pacified anytime before the US are gone and the whole mess burned out in a bad bloody civil war.

BTW: Isn't it the third time for the guys from the big isle? What a story...

 

[Grand Danois]

Every year about 500 000 afghan boys enter the socalled "potencial combatant age" of 15 years. This means every year a potencial army that outnumbers the western forces about 20 to 1 grows up.
This war was lost at the moment it became a war again.

[...]

Your take is wrong. NATO is not there to eradicate the guerilla and 'do the bodycount'. As long as NATO is there, the Taliban can't win conventionally and that gives room for the important stuff, like making it a governed country with accountability to the outside world. Firepower ensures this is a possibility.

Hearts and minds should be changed to something that changes the fabric of Afghan society - not just competing in a popularity contest. This is also the shortest road to the strategic goals.

Firepower is part of the equation, but it is won by changing the economics, and hence the dymanics of the politics and loyalties.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

It is virtually impossible to completely root out terrorism in a region/country. What the whole Mid-East conflict has been about and what it is achieving is reducing the Tabliban's/al Qaeda's ability to conduct successful operations. Not only are western countries increasing security at home, they are taking the fight to the enemy before they can strike. PGBs targeting terror camps and SpecOp raiding tunnel networks are all hampering the Taliban's ability to transport men, weapons, and other equipment. This will greatly reduce their ability to effectively fight on their home turf as well as their ability to carry out attacks in our homes.

That's what makes this war so difficult. A NATO country can't invade a country and remove all of the terrorists in the country like you are removing its military, such as traditional wars. This war is made up entirely of guerilla warfare and underground networks. As someone said, even if we had troops and armor at every block we wouldn't be able to control them. Even if martial law was implemented, we still wouldn't be able to lower the fighting. They dress like civilians, military personnel, and other disguises that make them difficult, if impossible to detect.

However, what we can do is hope to, as I said before, target what terror sites we know of (training camps, etc.) and eliminate them. Putting military in place won't control them but will reduce their transportation abilities and make logistical and attack planning difficult.

In the long run, though, I can say I don't know what the overall outcome will be regarding worldwide terror. Will this war actually get rid of 90% of all terrorists around the world or will it, as someone said, make them fight stronger and longer for what they believe in? That's for time to tell and for us to wait on.

 

[eckherl]

It is virtually impossible to completely root out terrorism in a region/country. What the whole Mid-East conflict has been about and what it is achieving is reducing the Tabliban's/al Qaeda's ability to conduct successful operations. Not only are western countries increasing security at home, they are taking the fight to the enemy before they can strike. PGBs targeting terror camps and SpecOp raiding tunnel networks are all hampering the Taliban's ability to transport men, weapons, and other equipment. This will greatly reduce their ability to effectively fight on their home turf as well as their ability to carry out attacks in our homes.

That's what makes this war so difficult. A NATO country can't invade a country and remove all of the terrorists in the country like you are removing its military, such as traditional wars. This war is made up entirely of guerilla warfare and underground networks. As someone said, even if we had troops and armor at every block we wouldn't be able to control them. Even if martial law was implemented, we still wouldn't be able to lower the fighting. They dress like civilians, military personnel, and other disguises that make them difficult, if impossible to detect.

However, what we can do is hope to, as I said before, target what terror sites we know of (training camps, etc.) and eliminate them. Putting military in place won't control them but will reduce their transportation abilities and make logistical and attack planning difficult.

In the long run, though, I can say I don't know what the overall outcome will be regarding worldwide terror. Will this war actually get rid of 90% of all terrorists around the world or will it, as someone said, make them fight stronger and longer for what they believe in? That's for time to tell and for us to wait on.

You will never root out all of terrorism throughout the world, dam near every country out there has experienced it in some way, shape or form, does it surprise you that It finally hit our shores, I have been expecting this for some time now, just did not expect it at this magnitude, as long as we support Israel we will be a target, that will be there anger and rage, we could pull out of Iraq and Afganistan today and they will continue to plot to kill our civilians. America is doing the proper thing by backing Israel, no one else will. We had a topic discussion on this forum in regards to the French warning the Israelis about shooting down their planes if they feel threatened, I was quite alarmed by some of the responses that a IDF soldier recieved from some of our members, it just shows that Israel will always have to live in fear for their peoples sake, and with that America should alway`s be there for them. It just means that we will pay a hell of a price for that friendship.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

I think it's worth it and it's worth fighting along side them for. At least we will be able to reduce civilian-targeting terror, or at least contain it for now.

 

[eckherl]

I think it's worth it and it's worth fighting along side them for. At least we will be able to reduce civilian-targeting terror, or at least contain it for now.

You betcha it is worth it, the only way that we are going to reduce it is by not being complacent and not doing really idiotic things like invading Iraq. you can count on us being hit again, it`s the nature of the game, they only have to be lucky on occasion, we have to be lucky all the time, and thats the motto terrorists live by.

 

[TrangleC]

I think there is not one example of a guerilla force being defeated by conventional military force.

And maybe the Israelis did the same mistake a long time ago as NATO is doing in Afghanistan right now or the "coalition of the willing" is doing in Iraq.
By once more doing the same mistake as so many did before they chose to try to use force to end the Palestinian's resistance and thus closed the deal for endless trouble.

Yes, the USA are helping Israel, but they are helping them going the wrong way.
Sometimes a friend has to tell you when you are wrong and sometimes he even has to do it in a harsh way if you are not listening. That is what most Europeans are trying when they critizise Israel. But every critizism against Israel is immediately dismissed as antisemitism or at least antizionism.

Believe it or not, but when Europeans say that Israel should treat the Palestinians better and stop bombing them and tearing down their houses, they don't say that because they wish to see Israel destroyed. Maybe they just understand better that the way it is done now isn't leading anywhere.

What is the better act of friendship? To try to help winning a war that cannot be won or to try to help with ending this war?

The american help for Israel is a bit like a child coming to his father and complaining about that the other kids in school don't like him and the father advises his son to take a baseball bat to school and beat up the others till they start liking him.
This father just proved in Iraq and Afghanistan that he didn't learn much in Vietnam and really doesn't know it better.
So you can hardly blame him because his intentions are good, but it still would be better for the child not to listen to this kind of advise. And it also still is annoying that this father accuses everybody who gives his child another advise to have bad intentions.