View Poll Results: Should NATO deploy additional military forces to Afghanistan?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 85.71%
  • No

    1 14.29%
Results 1 to 20 of 169

Thread: NATO in Afghanistan till 2015 (merged thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default 700 bodies why

    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

  2. #2
    Council Member Shivan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    22

    Default "Appeal for countries to provide more troops is rejected"

    Times (London) headline above, article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2733769.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!

  3. #3
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    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 .

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  4. #4
    Council Member Armchairguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    42

    Default A prediction

    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.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Armchairguy View Post
    ... 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/france24Publ...ters-FRANCE-24

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17

    Default

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

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    128

    Default Allies Feel Strain of Afghan War

    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...402722_pf.html

Similar Threads

  1. Urban / City Warfare (merged thread)
    By DDilegge in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 05-21-2020, 11:24 AM
  2. Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 286
    Last Post: 08-04-2019, 09:54 AM
  3. The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 933
    Last Post: 03-19-2018, 02:38 PM
  4. Is the NATO Surge Working in Afghanistan?
    By SWJ Blog in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2011, 01:00 PM
  5. New NATO Library Guide: Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan
    By SWJ Blog in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2010, 12:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •