"Member nations must accept difficult assignments"

[Kuciwalker]

Personally I hope NATO does collapse. Maybe these coutries are much more willing to invest in the future of common EU defense than some Cold War relic.

I think EU defense would probably be a good deal more solid with the US military backing it

[Wezil]

RIGA, Latvia (CP) - The war in Afghanistan will be the main topic of conversation Tuesday when Prime Minister Stephen Harper meets with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at a two-day summit in Riga, Latvia.

Speaking to a forum before the NATO summit, de Hoop Scheffer insisted the alliance will prevail in its first mission outside Europe. He also expressed hopes that by 2008, Afghan forces could begin taking over security tasks.

"I would hope that by 2008, we'll have made considerable progress . . . (with) effective and trusted Afghan security forces gradually taking control," he said.

The dangers to the NATO force were underscored by recent attacks that have shattered a period of relative calm. Two Canadian soldiers were killed Monday in a suicide bombing on the outskirts of Kandahar City.

A day earlier, a suicide bomber killed 15 Afghans in a restaurant.

De Hoop Scheffer is not expected to report much progress in convincing European members of the Alliance to send additional troops to Afghanistan - or more importantly removing restrictions on those already operating there.


Germany, Italy, Spain and Norway are unlikely to budge, despite pressure from Canada, the United States, the Netherlands and Britain, diplomatic sources told the Canadian Press.

"Other NATO nations have troops there, but have imposed caveats on the use of them and on the use of their equipment - this at a time when NATO's commanders on the ground urgently require additional manpower," said Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga.

"NATO cannot afford to lose this crucial struggle against the regressive forces of a resurgent insurgency by being indecisive or lacking commitment," she said.

France is preparing to assume an expanded role in the Afghan mission, and officials said President Jacques Chirac would propose forming a contact group on Afghanistan to ensure that a global strategy guides NATO action in the country.

"The Europeans have relied on their American allies for too long. They have to shoulder their share of the burden," Chirac said in a statement.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair planned to remind leaders that NATO has a significant role to play in rebuilding the country.

"His message essentially will be, first of all, that Afghanistan wants to know that NATO is there for the long haul," Blair's official spokesman said Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

Italy was expected to announce the lifting of restrictions in extreme circumstances.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said in the past that while her country's units will remain based in the north, they could be sent for short-term, emergency missions elsewhere in the country.

Harper, who arrived at the summit Tuesday morning, will also meet with Poland's president, Lech Kaczynski.

Poland has committed roughly 900 extra combat troops for use in the volatile southern region, where heavy fighting ha claimed the lives of 44 Canadian soldiers.

Denmark is expected to announce it will send an additional communications support team to Kabul, but the contribution is a drop in the bucket compared with the 2,500 combat troops NATO commanders have requested.

[Geronimo]

Does anybody know of a map like that in the article that shows not just where Nato troops are deployed in Afghanistan but also where other contributors forces are? Don't Australia and even countries like New Zealand and Finland still have some troops deployed there?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Geronimo


good god!

There sure *as HELL* is no common foreign policy in the EU! You held up the possibility of an EU based alliance as an alternative to NATO! The EU??

Yeah, its going to be fantastic! Getting rid of the last post WW2 security structure would be truely liberating. Maybe we should call that a "mission enduring freedom" or something

[Wezil]

Geronimo -

The last deployment numbers I saw were from 2005. New Zealand had a few troops (token) but no Aussies.

Not NATO members so we can forgive that.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Does anybody know of a map like that in the article that shows not just where Nato troops are deployed in Afghanistan but also where other contributors forces are? Don't Australia and even countries like New Zealand and Finland still have some troops deployed there?

http://www2.hq.nato.int/ISAF/media/p...cemat_isaf.pdf

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Quite sure.

I think transporting things which are used to build schools and training policemen (which is among other things what the german forces do in Afghanistan) is of as much use as shooting Taliban

You are better at shooting things and we are better at rebuilding things
And it sure is better to rebuild things at places (i.e. in the relatively safe north) were they won´t immediately be blown to pieces again be it intentionally or by accident by american or Taliban forces

[Wezil]

Can we all have the rebuilding chores?

While we're at it, can we share the more dangerous tasks?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


I hear very little news here (NL) about anybody being pissed at Germany, France or others.

There is great concern though about the situation our government has put our troops in: it was supposed to be save there, and we would be building schools and hospitals. But the government has been forced to send in much more combat troops in as previously envisaged, and parliament is not very happy about it.

The thing about war, is that there is, you know, an opponent. The Taliban saw the shift in the south happening, and apparently decided to target what they saw as the weak spot (political weak spot, that is).

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Wezil
Can we all have the rebuilding chores?

While we're at it, can we share the more dangerous tasks?

You?

You mean Halliburton. Maybe they dont want to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Lord Avalon]

If countries are authorizing their troops to be used for emergency missions, will they allow their CO in Afghanistan to make the decision? Or is he going to have to call the homeland before getting the go ahead?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by laurentius

We dont want to be part of a US military reserve. It makes much more sense to actually be part of a real defense alliance.

One could say that for 40 years the US and Canada were part of Europes military reserve. There were some here who said that.

The more far seeing realized that an attack on our Western European allies would endanger us as well. It seems that some in Europe also realize that AQ attacks on the US endanger them as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by laurentius


Yeah, its going to be fantastic! Getting rid of the last post WW2 security structure would be truely liberating. Maybe we should call that a "mission enduring freedom" or something

Getting rid of the UN would be liberating, by the same logic.

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The thing about war, is that there is, you know, an opponent. The Taliban saw the shift in the south happening, and apparently decided to target what they saw as the weak spot (political weak spot, that is).

Well, surprise suprise, it was our government who said it was all peachy down there, not the opposisition that had a few conceirns about the whole deal

[Wezil]

Originally posted by laurentius


You?

You mean Halliburton. Maybe they dont want to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars.

*sigh*

Unable to read articles or posts and a seeming one trick pony.

Does my Ignore list need a second member?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


Well, surprise suprise, it was our government who said it was all peachy down there, not the opposisition that had a few conceirns about the whole deal

so the opposition said, war is always unpredictable, its dangerous, but its something we have to do, because the loss of Afghanistan to the Taliban would endanger us all?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


One could say that for 40 years the US and Canada were part of Europes military reserve. There were some here who said that.

The more far seeing realized that an attack on our Western European allies would endanger us as well. It seems that some in Europe also realize that AQ attacks on the US endanger them as well.

Hah hah! You cant seriously compare some couple of hundred strong AQ with Soviet Union and China. I guess some of us are a bit too far seeing.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Getting rid of the UN would be liberating, by the same logic.

Well, thats much more tricky question. Maybe that logic could be applied in getting rid of the security council. The UN as a whole however is a wonderful idea and I dont see how it has to do with any of this. There was the League of Nations before UN so it was only natural way forward.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Wezil


*sigh*

Unable to read articles or posts and a seeming one trick pony.

Does my Ignore list need a second member?

Maybe it would be better for both of us to spend some time apart.

[germanos]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


so the opposition said, war is always unpredictable, its dangerous, but its something we have to do, because the loss of Afghanistan to the Taliban would endanger us all?

It'll be a bit hard to recreate the months long debates, who said what and why, but yes: parliament did send a stronger force to Afghanistan then the Government envisaged. Still not strong enough apparently, and so the government keeps sending more without consulting parliament (it's now 'operational issues' or some double talk, and it doesn't matter anymore they lied/ had inadequate intell)

Nice try spinning it though.

[Wezil]

LOtM - How do you explain the deteriorating situation some five years into the mission. Shouldn't nation building be in full swing by now?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
LOtM - How do you explain the deteriorating situation some five years into the mission. Shouldn't nation building be in full swing by now?

not enough troops, not enough resources (and thats due to neglect BOTH by the US and its allies) Kharzai, who, while doing exceptionally well given the situation, ultimately is human and fallible and may have grown stale in power, the continued dilemma of an only barely cooperative Pakistan (which is not unrelated to the issue of large numbers of Pakistani Sunnis NOT being "moderate muslims"), and intrinsic difficulties of a country that was always so backward, and was set further back by the period 1979 to 2001. Also by mistakes like not aiming for a large enough Afghan National Army.

Im not sure the situation is further deteriorating from spring-summer, though. It deteriorated, and now its contained, sort of. But containment isnt enough.

[Wezil]

All possible reasons but it still begs the question - Why now and not five years ago? It seems your list of items should have improved over time.

There is a train of thought that says we have missed our best chance at remaking Afghanistan into something we could live with. That chance was years ago.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Wezil
All possible reasons but it still begs the question - Why now and not five years ago? It seems your list of items should have improved over time.

There is a train of thought that says we have missed our best chance at remaking Afghanistan into something we could live with. That chance was years ago.

Sounds exactly like Iraq

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
All possible reasons but it still begs the question - Why now and not five years ago? It seems your list of items should have improved over time.

There is a train of thought that says we have missed our best chance at remaking Afghanistan into something we could live with. That chance was years ago.

Is the state of the economy in Mazar e sharif worse now than in Dec 2001? IIUC in Mazar and Herat that time warlords had virtually complete control, and now the govt has SOME control, though theyre not super comepetent.

The real problem is in the Pashtun south and east, which sometimes spills into Kabul. Why would it get worse? Well first, AQ had just lost oodles of men, leaders, money and materiel in the coalition-northern alliance offensive. Since that time theyve rebuilt, recruiting among Pashtuns on both sides of the border, etc. Armies left alone in sanctuaries have a tendency to recover. Second, the Afghan pop, in particular the Pashtuns are losing patience with Kharzai. In 2001 they recalled with vividness suffereing under the Taliban, and looked forward (many of them) to change. Now the awfulness of the taliban is a fading memory, and every bad thing done by Kharzai or the coalition is fresh. In democracies we vote the rascals out. There they start supporting terrorists (BTW I think that Kharzai wont be reelected, but can someone be found whos acceptable both to the northerners and the Pashtun)

[Wezil]

According to news reports over the last few months the 'Taliban' have taken an absolute ****kicking lately.

Despite this I suspect we will be having the same conversation a year from now. We are trying to impose a government (we disagree on Karzai's legitimacy) on a people that don't want it. The locals will continue to fight us so long as we occupy their country.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by germanos


http://www2.hq.nato.int/ISAF/media/p...cemat_isaf.pdf

thanks!



I wonder how switzerland ended up with 5 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil
According to news reports over the last few months the 'Taliban' have taken an absolute ****kicking lately.

Despite this I suspect we will be having the same conversation a year from now. We are trying to impose a government (we disagree on Karzai's legitimacy) on a people that don't want it. The locals will continue to fight us so long as we occupy their country.

You think most Afghanis are bitter that the Taliban was deposed and replaced with an elected government?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
According to news reports over the last few months the 'Taliban' have taken an absolute ****kicking lately.

Despite this I suspect we will be having the same conversation a year from now. We are trying to impose a government (we disagree on Karzai's legitimacy) on a people that don't want it. The locals will continue to fight us so long as we occupy their country.

But most of the locals ARENT fighting us, or the Germans and French wouldnt be so eager to stay in the North and leave Kandahar province to the Brits and Canadians, the eastern Pashtun belt to us Yanks. Do you really think the Taliban has support in Mazar, or in the Hazara areas, or even much support in Herat?


Look at the map. You Canadians are justified in complaining. Youve got the worst friggin province in the whole country.

[Dinner]

Afghanistan is officially a NATO mission but a nonNATO country, Australia, has sent more troops to Afghanistan and has been willing to use those troops on combat missions. It seems like the US, UK, Canada, Netherlands, and Australia are doing most of the heavy lifting. It's great that Germany and Italy have contributed some forces but it hasn't been much and they come with to many restrictions attached. France, Germany, Spain, and Italy need to get into the fight and the US should take forces leaving Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan to help boost the over all NATO effort.