Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: The French in Afghanistan

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #27
    Council Member Graycap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    47

    Default

    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
    Last edited by Graycap; 10-21-2009 at 10:29 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Defending Hamdan
    By jmm99 in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-22-2011, 06:36 AM
  2. NATO's Afghanistan Challenge
    By Ray in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 05-13-2011, 04:11 AM
  3. Afghanistan: A Silk Road Strategy
    By gbramlet in forum Blog Watch
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 06:17 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
  •