The French in Afghanistan

[milnews.ca]

We, the British, the Spanish, the Italians AND the French have all paid for quiet from time to time according to several who have been or are there. I suspect there's more to it than meets the eye -- and I'd also bet there's a domestic political angle for surfacing it at this time...

Interesting you should mention this - just spotted this in a French wire service story:

.... according to a number of Western and Afghan officers, all speaking on condition of anonymity, the politically sensitive practice is fairly widespread among NATO forces in Afghanistan.

One Western military source told of payments made by Canadian soldiers stationed in the violent southern province of Kandahar, while another officer spoke of similar practices by the German army in northern Kunduz.

"I can tell you that lots of countries under the NATO umbrella operating out in rural parts of Afghanistan do pay the militants for not attacking them," the senior Afghan official said.

He added that it "seems to be the practice with military forces from some NATO countries, excluding the US forces under NATO, the British forces and the whole coalition forces" under the US-led "Operation Enduring Freedom".

"I think more than 50 percent of NATO forces deployed in rural Afghanistan have such deals or at least have struck such deals" to ensure peace, the official said.

He said he did not want to say precisely how many but one Western officer said: "As it's not very positive and not officially recognised, it's never spoken about openly. It's a bit shameful.

"Consequently, it's sometimes not communicated properly between the old unit and the new unit that comes in to relieve them," which may have happened between the Italians and the French ....

I note the original story from the Times also attributes "Western military officials" - wonder what part of the West we're talking about....

[Graycap]

We, the British, the Spanish, the Italians AND the French have all paid for quiet from time to time according to several who have been or are there. I suspect there's more to it than meets the eye -- and I'd also bet there's a domestic political angle for surfacing it at this time...

As a long time italian lurker I think that another time Ken is spot on.

I 've made comments in the blog under the "italian job" post since I didn't notice this thread.

Only one more thing to think about. This article is part of a complex media campaign against italian prime minister. Probably his too close relations with russia and lybia are the driver. Southstream against Nabucco, ENI against BP or Shell. And you have to consider that Murdoch group is a big enemy of Berlusconi. Something like FOX and Obama only just a bit more "spicy".

Graycap

[davidbfpo]

Yes, you'd expect this and read on: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...M_BlAD9BBFTR00

davidbfpo

[Graycap]

Nothing new IMHO. This kind of accusations have a political objective and therefore a political management. Now the only real news could be an official document or an official spokesman that clearly demonstrates that italian government is lying. If this should be the case the crisis in western alliance could escalate pretty bad. Each intelligence has something in store.

I really don't understand the reasons of using this argument to make pression.

The real problem is the alliance management. And this problem can't be solved with this kind of leaks.

Graycap

[milnews.ca]

....to help draw the eye away, perhaps, via The Times online (bolding mine):

Mr Frattini said it was untrue that Italians paid off the Taleban and failed to inform the French, but “there is certainly a problem of how to co-ordinate the allies in Afghanistan”.

Since the invasion of Afghanistan, 22 Italian troops have been killed, six in one attack in Kabul last month. There are nearly 3,000 Italians serving in Afghanistan. He said that when the Berlusconi Government came to office in May last year, it abolished most of the caveats under which Italian troops operated. However, it remained the case that when asked to enter a combat zone, Italian forces had six hours in which to decide whether or not to go in.

It was willing to abolish this caveat so that troops could be dispatched immediately, but up-to-the-minute intelligence was vital, Mr Frattini said. “If we are asked to go to, say, part of the province of Kandahar to take part in fighting, we naturally want to know what is the intelligence on the area. Unfortunately there is no such co-ordination.”

Italian officials deny that they are barred from intelligence sharing because the Government is considered too close to non-Nato countries such as Russia and Libya. Mr Berlusconi makes a private visit to Moscow and St Petersburg this week to celebrate the birthday of Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister.

Mr Frattini said the problem was that intelligence was “the only resource not put at the disposal of everyone”. He said that in Herat, which is under Italian and Spanish command, there was excellent co-ordination with Spanish forces, “but if I want to leave Herat to go to Kandahar it is another matter”.

More grist for the mill...

[davidbfpo]

Milnews.ca,

This Italian statement makes one wonder how NATO allies can allegedly fail to co-ordinate; there have been decades of NATO co-operation, followed by Bosnia and Kosovo. France even when not a miltary partner in NATO had relations with Italy and Spain. I would be surprised if the 'Cold War' NATO era plus has so quickly been forgotten - no, wrong adjective, disappointed is better.

I leave aside the growing EU factor in political relationships, after all France, Italy and Spain are all leading members.

Interesting to know Italy dispensed with its operational caveats; don't recall seeing that reported and this was repeatedly called for by ISAF commanders.
Did anyone else follow them?

davidbfpo

[Graycap]

Slowly but inesorably the different strategic motivations behind the different national contingents come to to evidence.

Now that the new american administration has begun a overhaul of afghan strategy the problems become more urgent.

IMHO the real strategic motivations for Italy to be in Afghanistan have little to do with afghan future and more with mantaining our role in NATO even with military forces substantially in non operational conditions. This role in NATO is important to reassure USA when our country has been seen as too inclined toward Russia and Lybia. If we want freedom of action then we must be a good NATO partner.
To be a good partner was easy with the Bush administration and with Afghanistan a lot less dangerous. Bush didn't care much about european contribution and FOB-centric way of operate could be sustainable.
Low probability of losses could justify the strategic gains.

The different strategic approaches to Afghanistan is the reason behind the "collaboration" difficulties. I think that these difficulties are more at political level than at the tactical. The alliance seems to work only at tactical-military level, completely ignores the operational one (ISAF vs OEF), and is in great difficulty at the strategic one when every member, US in primis, is acting with his own agenda. IMHO afghan campaign outcome can greatly menace the alliance future.

Now with ISAF directly involved in COIN and with McChrystal new directives it is increasingly probable to have more losses in the future and our internal public opinion could very easily become unsupportive of the mission.
We are in Italy. We are used to have only peace-soldiers. Our politician could talk only in this terms. E.g. an italian sniper killed a local talib commander some days ago but this news must be kept under the radar of MSM.

IMHO the central point is a strategic bargaining: the US need our help? The US should grant us freedom of action on other tables and include NATO members in the strategic planning. The impression is that the americans decide what is their best course of action and then NATO member should comply.

About new caveats in Italy there has been little discussions in the spirit of the above cited peace-soldiers. Obviously they are secret but from the spike in the number of "contacts" reported something has changed for sure.

Graycap

[Fuchs]

I have a fundamental problem with sacrificing humans.
There's little difference for me between an Aztec priest who cuts a hole in the chest of a man with a stone knife and then rips out the heart on the one side and a politician who sends troops into a war zone for nebulous prestige or relations gains.

For the religious among us: not even god wants human sacrifice, why should be accept it for prestige or relations?


But you're right; several European governments did not intend to fight war in Afghanistan, but to provide some auxiliary troops to a stabilization mission in exchange for prestige and improved relations.

The were despicable fools, and trust me; in private I'd use different descriptions

[tequila]

There's little difference for me between an Aztec priest who cuts a hole in the chest of a man with a stone knife and then rips out the heart on the one side and a politician who sends troops into a war zone for nebulous prestige or relations gains.

Well, you must hate pretty much every politician or military commander in history. Thucydides' concept of public or national "honor" is closely related to the modern concept of prestige or "standing", after all.

[Graycap]

Just to close the discussion about the alleged bribing of taliban by italians.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...-guidelines-i/

From SWJ blog posting about a Times article.

[Fuchs]

http://www.cdef.terre.defense.gouv.f...ctrine17us.pdf

A whole issue about AFG.

[M-A Lagrange]

Thanks Fuch for posting this.

I would also recommand (for the French readers only), the high quality blog Secret defense post on COIN. It is a critic of the COIN doctrine (Published at the same momment that the doctrine nb 17 review).

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberatio...ilitaires.html