Where are our [NATO] allies in Afghanistan?

[SWJED]

20 May Washington Post - Bush, NATO Chief Seek Ways To Bolster Afghanistan Mission (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900963.html) by Michael Fletcher.

NATO's top official is scheduled to arrive here Sunday for talks with President Bush amid growing anger in Afghanistan about civilian casualties from the alliance's war there and continued reluctance among many NATO members to increase their commitment to the six-year-old conflict.

Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Bush are to meet Sunday and Monday at the president's ranch in hopes of solidifying NATO's efforts in Afghanistan. Some experts worry that the international effort is fraying as the violence in Afghanistan has intensified in the past year, exposing fissures between alliance members.

The 26 NATO member nations have assumed vastly different levels of risk in the Afghanistan mission. Countries including Germany, Italy and Spain have largely had their troops deployed in nonviolent areas of Afghanistan, leaving the volatile south to allies including Americans, Canadians, British and the Dutch...

[Shivan]

Daily Telegraph (UK) writes "As Robert Gates, the American Defence Secretary, remarked recently, the [NATO] alliance has more than two million soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen at its disposal, but only a fraction of that number is available to participate in the most important mission in Nato's history because of the national caveats that the governments of many member states have imposed on their forces deploying to areas where they might be in danger of suffering casualties."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/25/dl2502.xml

[davidbfpo]

The BBC Radio 4 is quoting seven hundred dead since ISAF arrived, I accept the vast bulk are from "the willing". That alone will put politicians off deploying. In an article alongside the one cited is a comment by Lord Ashdown, ex-Bosnia governor, that Afghanistan is lost.

The steady UK losses are regularly reported and arouse to date little public discussion. If this continues without the Afghans playing a bigger role I cannot see the UK public accepting the burden in say five years time. What does resonate here is the contradiction in providing security and the booming poppy harvest - the large bulk of the heroin reportedly comes here to Western Europe. I know this has led to debate before on SWJ.

If the Canadians and the Dutch leave or stop committing combat troops it is easy to hear the argument here in the UK, why should we remain?

Robert Hunter, on BBC Radio just quipped the heroin buyers are putting more money into Afghanistan than NATO in eceonomic aid (missed the announcement of who was speaking, but recognised the voice).

davidbfpo

[Shivan]

Times (London) headline above, article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2733769.ece

The Brits, Canadians, US and Dutch have been pulling their weight, but not the other NATO countries. And what UK/US is asking of these other members are not combat forces, but logistical and reconstruction support. The combat forces have been holding their own (or better), but these reconstruction efforts are a necessary part of counter-insurgency.

This brings to fore the issue of US in NATO, does it not? Why is there such a huge one-sided commitment by Americans to an entity that invoked Art. 5 but has not followed through? Separate discussion thread would be necessary for that though!

Thanks!

[marct]

I suspect that part of the problem has to do with how NATO is reconstructing itself. I remember chatting with a senior German policy advisor about Germany's role in Afghanistan, and he pointed out the somewhat ironic position where for years Germany was told they were "bad" for being militaristic and were now being told they were "bad" for not being militaristic enough :wry:.

Marc

[Armchairguy]

After the USA spent a large part of its wealth in the defence of Europe through the cold war while Europe invested in social programs there should be some equity. Unless the alliance coughs up some more troops I don't see what the point of NATO is and why it should exist. I'm betting the alliance will dissolve without a stronger commitment.

[Rank amateur]

I bet if the US moved 30,000 troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan NATO would be much more willing to send more troops.

[BRUZ_LEE]

... I don't see what the point of NATO is and why it should exist....

NATO will definitely not be a self-financing Foreign Legion for the US Government....
Talking about Coalition Warfare in Afghanistan I see the fundamental problem in the lack of an overall, coherent NATO strategy for COIN in Afghanistan. And if there is no overall approved strategy what should the nations do other what they individually think is best in their respective AORs? Some nations focus on defeating the enemy while others focus on non-kinetic nationbuilding. Both has its own right in COIN doctrine. But it definitely doesn't make sense if you do the one thing exclusively in the North and the other one in the South; that is not going to work...
And putting the blame on the other side will not be a solution; and it will only serve the Taliban...
First of all, NATO needs to agree on a COIN doctrine. Then develop a strategy for Afghanistan. Then look what has to be done, what forces there are and then attribute troops to tasks.
...and BTW, stop the counternarcotics program in AFG. That's right now a main recruiting factor for the insurgency.

BRUZ

P.S. Coalition Warfare. Here is an interesting video about a French ETT (SOF?) with ANA:

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/FRANCE-24-Reports/Reporters-FRANCE-24

[Wagram]

These guys aren't SOF they belong to the 27th Mountain Infantry Brigade LRRP unit which is called the GCM in French.

[TT]

Allies Feel Strain of Afghan War, Wash Post 15 Jan


After more than six years of coalition warfare in Afghanistan, NATO is a bundle of frayed nerves and tension over nearly every aspect of the conflict, including troop levels and missions, reconstruction, anti-narcotics efforts, and even counterinsurgency strategy. Stress has grown along with casualties, domestic pressures and a sense that the war is not improving, according to a wide range of senior U.S. and NATO-member officials who agreed to discuss sensitive alliance issues on the condition of anonymity.
While Washington has long called for allies to send more forces, NATO countries involved in some of the fiercest fighting have complained that they are suffering the heaviest losses. The United States supplies about half of the 54,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, they say, but the British, Canadians and Dutch are engaged in regular combat in the volatile south.
"We have one-tenth of the troops and we do more fighting than you do," a Canadian official said of his country's 2,500 troops in Kandahar province. "So do the Dutch." The Canadian death rate, proportional to the overall size of its force, is higher than that of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, a Canadian government analysis concluded last year.
British officials note that the eastern region, where most U.S. forces are based, is far quieter than the Taliban-saturated center of British operations in Helmand, the country's top opium-producing province. The American rejoinder, spoken only in private with references to British operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is that superior U.S. skills have made it so.
NATO has long been divided between those with fighting forces in Afghanistan and those who have restricted their involvement to noncombat activities. Now, as the United States begins a slow drawdown from Iraq, the attention of even combat partners has turned toward whether more U.S. troops will be free to fight in the "forgotten" war in Afghanistan.
……………………………………….

Both President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have toned down their public pressure on allies. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Bush at his Texas ranch in November, U.S. and German officials said, she told him that while Bonn would step up its contribution in quiet northern Afghanistan, any change in Germany's noncombat role would spell political disaster for her conservative government.
"It's not an excuse; it's simply reality -- coalition reality and domestic reality," a German official said. Merkel came away with Bush's pledge to praise Germany's efforts and stop criticizing.

More at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402722_pf.html

[Stan]

Foreign Minister Paet Visits Afghanistan (http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_138/9200.html)

Last year the government passed an Afghanistan conception which contains no set date for when Estonia’s military or civilian mission in Afghanistan should end,” said Foreign Minister Paet. “We are prepared to participate in the stabilisation and building up of Afghanistan until the goals set by the government of Afghanistan and the international community have been met,” he emphasized.

Last year Estonia supported the paediatric ward of the Bost Hospital in Helmand province with 1.1 million kroons. The Foreign Ministry also allocated 469,400 kroons (30,000 EUR) from its civilian mission budget to support the European Union Police mission EUPOL.

This year, Estonia has already provided support for the creation of a new building for the Afghanistan Centre at Kabul University and for a population census in Afghanistan.


Estonia to send health care specialist to Helmand (http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_138/9206.html)

President Karzai highly values Estonia’s participation in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). “We are very grateful that this tiny nation so far away from Afghanistan is helping us in as complicated a region as Helmand province,” said President Karzai.

Foreign Minister Paet confirmed that Estonia plans to significantly increase its civil contribution. “We’re sending a medical expert to Helmand, who will be responsible for developing the medical system for the whole province and coordinating international aid,” Paet said.

Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said that Estonia is sending one police officer to join the ranks of the European Union Police Mission. Last year Estonia gave 469,000 kroons (30,000 EUR) to support the EU Police Mission EUPOL Afghanistan, which aims to help the development of the Afghanistani police force.

[Rex Brynen]

Gates faults NATO force in southern Afghanistan (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fg-usafghan16jan16,0,174967,full.story?coll=la-home-center)

The U.S. Defense secretary says he thinks alliance troops do not know how to fight a guerrilla insurgency.

Los Angeles Times, January 16, 2008

WASHINGTON -- In an unusual public criticism, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in southern Afghanistan do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency, a deficiency that could be contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taliban.

"I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview.

and

MacKay downplays U.S. criticism of Afghan allies (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080116.wnato0116/BNStory/International/home)

Globe and Mail, January 16, 2008

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Peter MacKay dealt with a case of diplomatic friendly fire Wednesday and was forced to defend the inadvertent criticism of his U.S. counterpart about the quality of NATO forces fighting in southern Afghanistan.

The reported comments by U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates rankled allies around the world and touched a raw nerve in Canada at a time when the Conservative government is trying to convince a reluctant public that the Kandahar mission should continue in some form.


Outrage as US accuses Britain of inexperience in Taleban conflict (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3201002.ece)
The Times, 17 January 2007

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, risked an unprecedented rift with Britain and other close allies after accusing Nato countries fighting in southern Afghanistan of lacking experience in counter-insurgency warfare.

Mr Gates said failings in the south were contributing to the rising violence in the fight against the Taleban.

His outspoken criticism, voiced in an interview with an American newspaper, provoked instant reactions from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, the three most prominent members of the alliance, who have endured much of the fiercest fighting in southern Afghanistan.

[Norfolk]

I suspect that Secretary Gates is largely right, but maybe not for the reasons that some might assume. The other NATO countries are not really engaged in true COIN operations, let alone adhering to a true COIN strategy. But the reason for this is twofold: 1. There simply are not anywhere near enough NATO troops in the south of Afghanistan to allow them to adopt a true COIN strategy, rather than just sallying out from their bases or outposts to destroy Taleban or AQ when and where they find them; and 2. There is no true unity of effort - Eden talked about that - amongst them. The Brits, Canadians, Danes, and Dutch all go about things more or less their own way - and the Dutch seem hardly to be fighting at all; whether that's a good approach or not, I can't say. They are all just left doing their own thing, more or less. The Americans in the East don't have anywhere near that problem, since so much of their forces are well, American, and there are not the same political issues there.

So Mr. Gates is quite right about the other NATO countries not engaging in COIN; but the truth is, the reasons aren't because they're not properly trained in COIN - they certainly are - but COIN is simply impossible given the political obstacles to unity of effort and the gross lack of troops and resources required for a COIN strategy. They couldn't pursue a COIN strategy if they wanted to, so all they can do is hunt and kill, conventional-style, because that's all they have the means for at hand. Consequently, pretty much all they can do is search and destroy - a fist into water - and nothing else.

[Eden]

Excellent points on NATO in Afghanistan. Having worked in ISAF, I can confirm that the command structure is only slightly more functional than the French army at Agincourt. Why is that?

1. Genuine professional differences of opinion. The Dutch, the British, the Canadians, the Americans, and others involved have different approaches to the mission. The Brits tend to be much more willing to compromise and negotiate with local bad guys, the Americans are much more kinetically-minded, the Dutch are committed to a soft-cap approach, etc. Each has its good points and its faults - but the point is that local commanders can and do refuse to modify their tactics to fit an overarching NATO operational concept.

2. Poor troop-to-task fit. NATO countries want to participate in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the force generation process is so disordered and riven by politics that the troops who actually show up are sometimes not what the alliance truly needs. Every month we would be notified that a Polish engineer battalion or Romanian force protection company was on its way, when what we really needed was infantry, aviation, or civil affairs. As a result, our operations - and to a lesser extent our tactics - were severely constrained by the nearly random selection of forces at our disposal.

3. Political nervousness. Many contingent commanders had to keep one eye firmly cocked over their shoulders. I know of at least one occasion when a national representative of the defense ministry sat in the operations center of an infantry battalion, satellite phone in hand, to report back on current ops in real time. Some commanders were under tremendous personal and professional pressure, which reduced their ability to operate according to a common NATO plan.

4. Money. You need money to fight insurgents and rebuild countries. NATO doesn't have money. Many individual countries don't have money. Some had money but preferred to spend it on national (and therefore outside the NATO span of control) programs. Nobody had money like the Americans, and even they didn't have enough.

5. Higher headquarters. Some may find this hard to believe, but NATO - as a military headquarters - contributes very little value added to the war in Afghanistan. ISAF is essentially a fiefdom, whose commander feels very little constrained by the NATO Supreme Commander. Thus, there is no higher headquarters - a la CENTCOM - providing continuity or guidance as the command of ISAF rotates. More importantly, there is no Eisenhower-figure, empowered by the alliance nations to impose discipline on subordinate national commanders.

Enough. Things are getting better in some ways. NATO officers are not idiots or incompetent. The problems are recognized and some minor patches made, but I agree that the alliance is going to be weaker coming out of Afghanistan than it was going in.

By the way, and a lot of us Americans forget this, but the US is in NATO also. We sinned as much as anyone in not fulfilling our troop committments, in refusing to modify our tactics, and in imposing caveats on the use of our troops. If NATO fails, we will have contributed to the problem.

[Stan]

"The Pentagon chief said he reluctantly asked President George W. Bush to approve the 3,200 additional troops announced on Tuesday because it was clear European nations would not boost their force levels in Afghanistan (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1614819820080117)."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon does not plan to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the additional Marines promised this week despite a lingering shortfall in trainers for the Afghan forces...

"I think it was pretty clear it was not going to come from NATO," Gates said in the interview, according to a text of his remarks. "And as much as I was reluctant to recommend to the president that we add additional forces there, I think it was important to build on the military successes that we had in 2007."

"We certainly don't have any plans to send further troops to Afghanistan beyond what we've just announced."

The additional Marines being sent to Afghanistan to counter rising Taliban violence, will raise the number of U.S. forces there by more than 10 percent.

[J Wolfsberger]

I first heard about this listening to Radio Netherlands on Sirius - World Radio news. The Dutch have had 14 KIA in Afghanistan ( a big number, given their population) and were, shall we say, miffed. I was looking forward to reading Gates' interview. Imagine my surprise that the LA Times hasn't actually published the interview.:rolleyes:

Here's what they have published:

"I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," Gates said in an interview. (What was the question? )

"Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap," Gates said ... (Again, what was the question?)

"Our guys in the east, under Gen. Rodriguez, are doing a terrific job. They've got the [counterinsurgency] thing down pat," Gates said. "But I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with." (Again, what was the question?)

Huh. Damn short interview.

Let me help the LA Times state the intro more accurately. "The LA Times accuses Sec Def Gates of insulting NATO allies in an unpublished interview."

[Stan]

WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17228486.htm)- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday denied reports of discontent between Washington and NATO allies over Afghanistan, a day after a newspaper quoted him criticizing NATO's counterinsurgency skills.

Gates projected an image of unity among Western nations involved in Afghanistan during a Pentagon news briefing, praising the "valor and sacrifice" of NATO forces battling Taliban militants in the country's volatile south.

"Allied forces from the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia and Denmark and other nations have stepped up to the plate and are playing a significant and powerful role in Afghanistan," the U.S. defense chief said in remarks that struck a conciliatory tone.

CONCERN AMONG ALLIES

NATO allies responded to the Times interview with concern.

Britain insisted its troops had extensive counterinsurgency training, while the Netherlands summoned the U.S. ambassador for an explanation. Gates phoned his Canadian counterpart to say his quotes had been taken out of context.

"I mention this because there have been several recent media reports of discontent in the United States and among other NATO members about operations in Afghanistan," he said. "This does not reflect reality or, I believe, the views of our governments."

Anyone for the Tennessee two-step ?

[Jedburgh]

Threats Watch, 18 Jan 08: A Flip of the COIN (http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2008/01/a-flip-of-the-coin/)
....But while Secretary Gates will publicly refer to ‘training’ and counterinsurgency ‘know how,’ the matter at hand is clearly one of will, not skill. Furthermore, it is a matter in the hands of our allies’ political leadership, not in the performance of their fielded forces who operate as directed. The commanders know it. Secretary Gates knows it. And the NATO political leaders retorting and taking offense to criticism of “training” and “tactics” know it all too well. They simply dare not say it. Instead, they respond safely within the public cover the US Secretary of Defense graciously provided by stopping short of addressing some of our allies’ flagging will.

One thing is for certain. The recent decision to send in an additional 3,200 seasoned United States Marines, who decidedly “know how to do counterinsurgency operations,” is indicative of Washington’s lack of confidence that there will be any shift in our allies’ political will any time soon. Not even against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

[Stan]

Beth Gorham, The Canadian Press (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/294986) - U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates scrambled today to praise Canada and other NATO allies fighting in Afghanistan, saying reports that he’s unhappy with their efforts don’t “reflect reality” or the views of the American government.

Countries like Canada that are committing combat troops are playing a significant and powerful role, Gates told a news conference called to quell an international furor after he told the Los Angeles Times this week he’s worried some allied forces weren’t trained in counterinsurgency operations.

As a result of the valour and sacrifice of these allies, the Taliban has suffered significant losses and no longer holds real estate of any consequence, said Gates, who announced this week he’s sending 3,200 extra U.S. marines.

He insisted he wasn’t singling out any country when he told the L.A. newspaper that U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan are doing a terrific job, but he’s concerned NATO allies in the violent south aren’t well trained in counterinsurgency.

Asked whether he was talking about Canada, Gates said: “I do not include the Canadians in that respect.”

Yet he repeated his concerns about NATO’s ability to conduct counterinsurgency campaigns against the militants.

More at the link...

[Stan]

Belgium (http://www.f-16.net/news_article2731.html) to deploy 4 F-16s to Afghanistan

The move came in response to a NATO call for more troops to be deployed in Afghanistan.

For four months starting from September, 100 Belgian troops will support Dutch troops stationed in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan.

The four F-16 jets will be deployed in Kandahar (KAF) from September 1.

Twenty military instructors are also to be sent to Afghanistan after October 1 to help train Afghan military personnel. They will be based at either Kabul or Kunduz.

Canada government may extend Afghan mission (http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8185983)

TORONTO—Canada's minority Conservative government said Wednesday it will ask Parliament to extend the country's combat mission in Afghanistan, and indicated it might be willing to put itself on the line to make sure the unpopular measure passes.

The refusal of some major European allies to send significant number of troops to Afghanistan's southern front lines has opened a rift within NATO. Troops from Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and the United States have borne the brunt of a resurgence of Taliban violence in the region, with support from Denmark, Romania, Estonia and non-NATO nation Australia.

Germany to dispatch 200 additional troops (http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=1068542) to Afghanistan

BERLIN, Feb 6 (KUNA) -- Germany will send some 200 additional troops to serve in a so-called quick reaction force in the relatively calm northern Afghanistan, fulfilling a request from NATO.

Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters Wednesday that the troops would be based along with Germany's other roughly 3,000 ISAF troops in the north.

Jung said the quick reaction force would be available for support missions "elsewhere in Afghanistan"...

He reiterated his refusal to send German troops to southern Afghanistan, where ISAF troops and Taliban militants are engaged in clashes.

...Jung added that he would seek to increase German military transport planes from six at present to eight in the future.

[davidbfpo]

In the (London) Daily Telegraph today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/wcanada122.xml

Reports that Canada has an exit date from Afghanistan in 2011.

davidbfpo

[Norfolk]

"Taliban sees Canada vulnerable for now: general" (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2145698120080222?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews), by Randall Palmer, Reuters, Feb 22, 2008:


The Taliban may have mounted suicide attacks on Canadian troops this week expressly to dissuade Parliament from extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, Canada's outspoken top soldier said on Friday.

Chief of the defense staff Gen. Rick Hillier also said it was important for the Canadian Forces to be given a clear mandate for its future role in Afghanistan as soon as possible.

"We are, in the eyes of the Taliban, in a window of extreme vulnerability. The longer we go without that clarity, with the issue in doubt, the more the Taliban will target us as a perceived weak link," Hillier said in a speech.


More at the link.

General Hillier has had to publicly "intervene" a few times already in order to stiffen Government resolve when it has appeared to flag or to wander off in the wrong direction. The distinction between Civilian supremacy and Military obedience becomes increasingly blurred as the General, out of sheer necessity, must step in to fill the political/strategic vaccuum that a strategically and militarily ignorant and/or inept political leadership persistently fails to even attempt to fill itself.

The Taleban can smell blood in the water a mile away, and rarely miss a chance to strike when they do. It is bad enough that two of the major Opposition Parties are incorrigible contrarians; it is even worse that the main Opposition party, the former Government that sent Canadian troops to fight in Afghanistan in the first place likewise persistently attempts to subvert support for the war effort, and propose utterly nonsensical alternatives that would doom it. Having realized, tacitly, the consequences of their proposals, they are nevertheless unwilling to suffer the loss of face that doing the right thing would entail. Their apparent deal with the present Government to withdraw at the end of 2011 mitigates some of its worst aspects in the short term, but tacitly accedes to a potential Taleban victory in the long term. What a waste.

[Icebreaker]

As a non-military type, I would like to get some input from those more knowledgeable to help me understand an article I read in the "Economist" magazine regarding Afghanistan "A ray of light in a dark defile".

The following is a link to the article for those interested:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10919203

The article had a chart title "Killing season" that showed the casulaties for the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom. This chart showed the "United States" casulaties and "Other" casualties. The thing that confused me was that the chart indicated that the casualties for the other nations (non-US) were higher then those for the US in Calendar Years 2006, 2007 and so far in 2008.

My understanding was that the majority of troops in Afghanistan were American and that the Americans were in the most dangerous areas (please note that I am in no way lessening the contributions and suffering of the other countries). It seems logical that the US should be incurring the most casulaties. The source for the chart was www.icasualties.org, and the Economist is usually a very reliaable source. Is the information inaccurate? If the information is accurate then why are the non US countries suffering such heavy casualties (I have heard reports that the Taliban is specifically targeting countries like Canada and Germany to increase pressure on these countries to quit the war)?

Also, I think this issue illustrates one of the most frustrating things for non-professionals in regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - finding accurate and relaible sources of information.

Thank you

[wm]

The article had a chart title "Killing season" that showed the casulaties for the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom. This chart showed the "United States" casulaties and "Other" casualties. The thing that confused me was that the chart indicated that the casualties for the other nations (non-US) were higher then those for the US in Calendar Years 2006, 2007 and so far in 2008.

My understanding was that the majority of troops in Afghanistan were American and that the Americans were in the most dangerous areas (please note that I am in no way lessening the contributions and suffering of the other countries). It seems logical that the US should be incurring the most casulaties. The source for the chart was www.icasualties.org, and

Thank you
The lines below are excerpted from the icasualties web link that you provided. I do not see how, except in 08, you can claim that ISAF casualties exceed those of the US.

Year US Other Total
2008 16 24 40
2007 117 115 232
2006 98 93 191

[Entropy]

First of all, comparing US casualties to ISAF isn't completely helpful because many US forces are part of ISAF.

Secondly, the type of chart used is confusing - it's called a "stacked area chart." Google it for an explanation of how they work, but the highest peaks are the total casualties, not the total ISAF casualties.

[Eden]

The command structure in Afghanistan is very arcane, and so is national participation in ISAF. Not all US forces in Afghanistan are part of NATO, but the majority have been under NATO command as part of ISAF since late 2006.
For that matter, there are other non-US military forces in Afghanistan that are not under ISAF, such as special forces who are working as part of SOCOM.

What used to be an independent US command - CJTF-76 - is now technically Regional Command (East), a subordinate to ISAF. There are also US forces operating as part of Regional Command (South), a subordinate command that rotates between the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands. If you look at current photos, you will see many US soldiers wearing an ISAF patch on their shoulder.

So when a US soldier becomes a casualty, he may also be counted as an ISAF casualty - or he may not, depending on how he is assigned to the theater.

As for the most dangerous part of the theater, well, that depends on how you classify it. I guess I would characterize the regions this way: In RC(East) there is a great deal of contact, but generally this is a result of the US forces seeking out the enemy; in RC(South) there is also a great deal of intense action, but this is generally a result of the enemy seeking contact. In other words, you may have roughly equal chances of becoming a casualty in either region, but RC(South) is more dangerous in the sense that we (meaning ISAF) have not yet claimed the initiative and do not control the pace of operations.

As for seeking info, this forum is a great place to start.

[Surferbeetle]

From the Spanish Newspaper El Pais (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Espana/resiste/incrementar/presencia/militar/Afganistan/elpepiint/20080403elpepiint_5/Tes)

‘Spain resists increasing its military presence in Afghanistan’

Aunque Bush volvió a reclamar ayer la solidaridad de los aliados, el ministro de Defensa en funciones, José Antonio Alonso, reiteró antes de salir de Madrid que se mantendría "en las mismas condiciones" el compromiso militar en Afganistán. Con 750 efectivos, España es la contribuyente número 11 de la ISAF (Fuerza de Asistencia de la OTAN para Afganistán) sobre un total de 40 países y 47.000 soldados, pero perderá peso si se concretan los refuerzos anunciados por diez países.

My 'soldiers spanish' is a bit rough so please bear with me...

‘Although (President) Bush turned this (Spain keeps its forces from working in the south or participating in offensive operations) into a claim of solidarity of the allies, the minister of defense, José Antonio Alonso, repeated after the departure for Madrid (a Spanish delegation led by Mr. Zapatero was in Bucharest) that they will maintain “in the same conditions” the military commitment in Afghanistan. With 750 personnel Spain is number 11 in contributing to ISAF (Assistance Force of NATO for Afghanistan) among 40 nations and 47,000 soldiers, despite the small contribution it is a concrete/specific announcement of reinforcement among ten nations.’

More in Spanish at the link....

[Surferbeetle]

From the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/world/asia/03military.html?em&ex=1209960000&en=fdcb4b424d17ca36&ei=5087%0A)

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is considering sending as many as 7,000 more American troops to Afghanistan next year to make up for a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies, senior Bush administration officials said. They said the step would push the number of American forces there to roughly 40,000, the highest level since the war began more than six years ago, and would require at least a modest reduction in troops from Iraq.

The planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing resignation to the fact that NATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops despite public pledges of an intensified effort in Afghanistan from the presidents and prime ministers who attended an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, last month.

Only one country so far has actually begun preparing more troops to deploy: France, which is sending 700 to Afghanistan, NATO officials said.

This article is referenced in a fair number of the european papers.

[Surferbeetle]

From the NATO website (http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/factsheets/reconst_develop.html)

RC(N)

* Since 2002, 1,054 PRT projects totalling 31.5 million USD, and 6842 other major infrastructure projects totalling 2.2 million USD
* 185 ongoing R&D projects totalling 6.5 million USD in 2007. Total R&D project for 2007 is 21.3 million USD.

RC(S)

* Since 2002, 1,362 PRT projects totalling 175.3 million USD, and 4,150 other major infrastructure projects totalling 1.8 million USD
* Kajaki Dam in Helmand aimed at providing power to 1.7 million people, irrigation to farmers, jobs to thousands within the next 2-3 years
* The major Gershk-Sangin-Kajaki road-building project has started and progresses north
* ANA patrol bases and 18 new permanent security check points being constructed

[davidbfpo]

Curiously UK government announces more troops for Afghanistan when President Bush visits London: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7456551.stm

Interesting details within the statement, although how this "drip surge" can be sustained is unclear.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

In today's Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2171923/General-Sir-Michael-Jackson-We-must-maintain-our-will-in-Afghanistan.html

Timing is interesting.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

An article from (UK) The Times, with the headline Afghanistan: ‘It was a battlefield last time I was here. The progress is remarkable’, which has some clear spin in and appears with a commentary on the Kings of War blogsite: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com (second article down).

davidbfpo

[Rex Brynen]

Growing violence in Kandahar 'insignificant,' top soldier says (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080713.wafghan14/BNStory/Afghanistan/home)
GRAEME SMITH
Globe and Mail Update
July 13, 2008 at 4:49 PM EDT

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — Canada's top soldier has dismissed the growing violence in Kandahar as “insignificant,” contradicting all public data and highlighting the growing gap between Canada's upbeat view of the war and the sober analysis from other NATO countries.

...

A comparison of the past two months against the same period in the previous year shows that insurgent attacks have more than doubled in the current fighting season, from 134 in 2007 to 289 in 2008.

For the year to date, VSSA counted 532 insurgent attacks as of July 6, up 77 per cent from 300 last year.

Canadian military officials have argued that the shifting nature of the Taliban's attacks shows that the insurgents are growing weaker, because they are increasingly relying on bombs, or improvised explosive devices, instead of confronting their enemy in direct combat.

In fact, the statistics for Kandahar don't show a clear trend toward bombs as the weapon of choice for the insurgents. While IEDs were the most common type of attack last year, the number of successful IED strikes was slightly smaller this year than the number of so-called complex attacks – ambushes using more than one type of weapon. Such multi-layered attacks have increased this year by 116 per cent, to 123, according the VSSA numbers.

[RTK]

Seems to be some disagreement in this...

U.S. officials say militant attacks in Afghanistan are becoming more complex, intense and better coordinated than a year ago. Monthly death tolls of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan surpassed U.S. military deaths in Iraq in May and June. And last Monday, a homicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 58 people in the deadliest attack in the Afghan capital since 2001.

U.S. officials are considering drawing down additional forces from Iraq in coming months, in part because of the need for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan. U.S. officials have said they need at least three more brigades in Afghanistan — or more than 10,000 troops.


More at the link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381403,00.html)

[Rex Brynen]

Sadly, I'm rather inclined to the latter view...

[Rex Brynen]

We don't feel secure, Afghans say
Locals perplexed. Disagree with new chief's rosy analysis (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=0c0fd84a-3303-4ab8-974b-7cca823abec2)
GRAHAM THOMSON, Canwest News Service
15 July 2008

On Saturday Canada's top soldier said Afghans "feel more secure" and the residents of Kandahar City "have returned to the normal pattern of life" after a spectacular prison break that freed 400 Taliban sympathizers last month.

Yesterday that's not how some local Afghans described their situation.

[Rex Brynen]

Taliban control more of Kandahar: analysis (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080715.wafghan-stats16/BNStory/International/home)
GRAEME SMITH
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
July 15, 2008 at 7:53 PM EDT

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — More districts of Kandahar are controlled by the Taliban than by the Afghan government, according to a U.S. assessment that casts doubt on Canada's upbeat view of the war.

A detailed analysis by U.S. security officials shows that foreign troops and their local allies hold sway over the core, highly populated districts of Kandahar, but the zone of government control remains a small part of the vast territory assigned to Canadian responsibility two years ago.

The assessment divides Kandahar's districts into four categories: contested, Taliban controlled, locally controlled, and government controlled. Only four of 16 districts were classified as government controlled. The Taliban were described as controlling six districts.

...

Many other provinces also suffer from a strong Taliban presence according to the analysis, which found insurgents controlling or contesting roughly 130 of 398 districts assessed across the country.

Most of the districts heavily influenced by the insurgency were located in the south and east, but the study also found that the militants had gained a foothold in areas near Kabul, such as Wardak and Logar provinces.

[marct]

Rex, I have suspected for some time that the "assessments" being released are for the home environment. One key indicator, to me at least, was the ban on posting pictures or bloging by active CF personnelle. I am a touch surprised at the current "assessment"; at least with Hillier, we could count on a fairly accurate (if that has any meaning :wry:) series of statements. I'm not so sanguine about the current form appearing...

[Rex Brynen]

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Fewer Norwegians Support Afghan Mission (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/fewer_norwegians_support_afghan_mission/)
July 26, 2008


Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Backing for Norway’s military engagement in Afghanistan has dwindled, according to a poll by Norstat released by NRK. 42 per cent of respondents support Norway’s participation in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), down 15 points since January.

[Rex Brynen]

Most Canadians say Afghan mission too costly, poll suggests (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080904.wafghanpoll0904/BNStory/National/home)

MURRAY BREWSTER
THE CANADIAN PRESS
Globe & Mail
September 4, 2008 at 4:30 PM EDT

OTTAWA — A new poll suggests a majority of Canadians believe the country is paying too high a price in blood and treasure for its involvement in Afghanistan.

The Canadian Press-Harris Decima survey also shows an overwhelming number of respondents were uncertain about whether the Kandahar mission has been a success.

...

To date, 96 Canadian soldiers, one diplomat and two aid workers have died in Afghanistan. The Conservative government has set aside $1.9-billion for aid and reconstruction in the war-torn country.

The survey found that 61 per cent of respondents believed the cost of the country's mission in lives and money has been unacceptable, while only one in three – 32 per cent – said it was acceptable.

When asked overall, whether they would say the mission in Afghanistan has been a success, a failure or that it is too soon to tell, a majority of respondents, roughly 48 per cent, took the wait-and-see answer.

At least 30 per cent were prepared to categorically declare the mission a success.

It also appears that Canadians are resigned to carrying out the country's duty in Kandahar until 2011, but would oppose attempts to “lengthen or increase its commitment.”

The survey said 57 per cent of respondents didn't want to stay longer in Afghanistan, even if the request came from United States.

...

[UrsaMaior]

It maybe my ignorance, but I have only recently realised that the population of Afghanistan is almost double of the iraqi (32 million vs 18).

I wonder whether planners are two feet on the ground thinking that so many, knowingly xenophobic people can be "stabilised" with a mere 47000+ troops. Or do they have to cook with what is available?

[Surferbeetle]

From the NYT By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and RACHEL DONADIO Afghan Blast Raises New Doubts in Europe (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/asia/18afghan.html?_r=1&ref=world)

Earlier in the day, Umberto Bossi, the leader of the Northern League, arguably the most powerful party in Mr. Berlusconi’s coalition, reiterated his calls for an immediate withdrawal of Italian troops. “I hope by Christmas everyone can come home,” Mr. Bossi said, according to the news agency ANSA.

But the Italian defense minister, Ignazio La Russa, said in Parliament that the bomb attack would not stop Italy’s “firm commitment” to the international mission.

The powerful suicide car bomb exploded about noon in central Kabul near the heart of the American and NATO military command. It blew an Italian armored vehicle across two lanes of traffic and, according to Italian officials, left six soldiers dead and four wounded.

[Surferbeetle]

...by TGV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV)

From today's Times Online: Afghan lawsuit adds pressure for Sarkozyto agree troop withdrawal (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6896248.ece)

Relatives of French soldiers killed in an ambush by insurgents in Afghanistan are to file a criminal lawsuit alleging that officers placed their troops’ lives at risk through a series of blunders.

The lawsuit is likely to add to President Sarkozy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkozy)’s difficulties as he seeks to defend the French military presence in Afghanistan in the face of increasing public scepticism.

Mr Sarkozy has worked hard to improve relations with Nato, whose military arm France boycotted for several decades. But with 36 French soldiers killed in the conflict since 2001, 64 per cent of French voters believe that France should withdraw from Nato’s Afghanistan force. The percentage in favour has fallen by nine points in a year, the survey found.

Martine Aubry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martine_Aubry), the leader of the opposition French Socialist Party, has called on France to “get out of the quagmire”, although the Left is split over the issue of complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

[Fuchs]

...by TGV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV)

From today's Times Online: Afghan lawsuit adds pressure for Sarkozyto agree troop withdrawal (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6896248.ece)

Sarkozy is erratic. I doubt that any rational arguments like pressure here or there have decisive influence on his decisions about French troops in Afghanistan.

[Surferbeetle]

Sarkozy is erratic. I doubt that any rational arguments like pressure here or there have decisive influence on his decisions about French troops in Afghanistan.

His post-president ambitions will certainly be of interest...Tony Blair Deux?

From the Economist: Europe's new president, Jostling for position (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14781695&source=features_box_main)

The new president’s job involves chairing summits of the 27 national leaders of the EU, and representing them in meetings with other world leaders. The post will be created by the Lisbon treaty, which is now inching towards ratification. At the summit Europe’s leaders offered a written reassurance to the Czech Republic—the only country that has not yet signed the treaty—that nothing in Lisbon can lead to fresh property claims by ethnic Germans whose descendants were expelled from Czechoslovakia after the second world war. The fiercely Eurosceptic Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, has given what senior officials call a “political guarantee” that he will drop his opposition to Lisbon and sign the document, shortly after the Czech constitutional court gives it a green light at a hearing set for November 3rd.

[Fuchs]

Oops, Jedburgh. I was a bit puzzled by the editing until I learned that I had apparently mixed two threads that were opened in my browser at the same time.

I figure the edited-out part looked really kind of inappropriate. :o

[M-A Lagrange]

Originally Posted by Fuchs. Sarkozy is erratic. I doubt that any rational arguments like pressure here or there have decisive influence on his decisions about French troops in Afghanistan.

Do not think that Our beloved Sarkozy will have any effect on the presence of French troops or not in Afghanistan. Neither will the legal action.
According to the blog Secret Defense http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/

Un avocat, Me Laurent Epailly, consacre lui aussi un post sur son blog : "La procédure suivie ne me paraît pas idoine. Elle ne risque d'ailleurs pas de se solder par un "classement sans suite" ou un "débouté", pour répondre à vos lecteurs, mais par un non-lieu, afin d'être simplement précis.
A Lawyer, Mr Laurent Epailly also has a page on his blog : the actual procedure does not seems to be the ideal one. It may end up not to a dead end but to a non-lieu (non pronunciation of the court).

Also the reaction of the troops is extremely strong and against that legal action.

Sarkozy has very little credit from the troops compare to his predecessors who were all officers with active service during wars (WWII for Mitterand and Algeria for Chirac). He is looking for a recognition as a “supreme commander”.

He will not withdraw.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting paper: Caveats, Values and the Future of NATO Peace Operations, by Stephen Saideman; CIPS Policy Brief No. 6, October 2009: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/cepi-cips/eng/policybriefs.asp#saideman_6

National caveats that restrict the activities of different NATO contingents in Afghanistan are more than just operationally problematic; they represent profound differences among NATO countries on the use of force.

These differences have had significant domestic political repercussions so that it is unlikely that NATO will be able to agree on deploying “out of area” operations in the near to medium future.

davidbfpo