"Member nations must accept difficult assignments"

[Wezil]

Granted the troubles are predominantly in the south.

Are the Pashtuns going to come around to our way of thinking and sign up with the national government? They are the locals in the south of the country and they don't want us. It makes it easier to kill them if we call them Taliban though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
Granted the troubles are predominantly in the south.

Are the Pashtuns going to come around to our way of thinking and sign up with the national government? They are the locals in the south of the country and they don't want us. It makes it easier to kill them if we call them Taliban though.

A. I dont know that all of the Pashtuns are against the coalition. Certainly Kharzais relatives on the govt payroll arent and THEY are Pashtuns. Seriously, id concede that the majority of the rural population of Kandahar province is against us, and possibly the same holds for several other Pashtun provinces.

Will they sign up? I dont know. The theory is that if we had enough troops to maintain some security, and followed that up in any given district IMMEDIATELY with development and jobs, they would. Or it may be that they wont come around till Kharzai has left office (but I can hardly see them being more enthusiastic about a non-Pashtun successor). It may be that, say, the more fundie half of the Pashtun half of the Afghan population will NEVER be reconciled to the kind of govt the other 3/4 of Afghans want, and that order will be maintained only by force.

[germanos]

I don't agree with the notion it's all nice and good in the north and west, and I find it strange to back up the claim by saying "just look at the map: those wussy Germans and Italians are there"

In the west (around apparent appeased Herat) dear Hekmatiar is still playing his games, and he is not bowing before Karzai. NATO finds it necessary to launch operations there (http://www2.hq.nato.int/isaf/Update/...Sept06_164.htm and http://www2.hq.nato.int/isaf/Update/...3Oct06_199.htm)
Karzai has very limited control over the country. Afghanistan is still hopelessly devided and local (war)lords are still calling the shots. There's still (or should I say: again) roadblocks to collect local 'taxes'.

And lets not forget: the Soviets were not driven out by the Taliban, who entered the scene much later. So there is no guarantee 'we' will win even if we beat the 'Taliban'. It's all nice and comfy to think there is a monolithic enemy to beat, but the reality is different. Recently (end october) the top US general to Europe James L. Jones admitted things are much harder and complicated then (he) previously thought, and that especially the local drugs-barons are more and more acting up. They are wealthy and have (militairy) power, which they are not shy to use.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos
I don't agree with the notion it's all nice and good in the north and west, and I find it strange to back up the claim by saying "just look at the map: those wussy Germans and Italians are there"

In the west (around apparent appeased Herat) dear Hekmatiar is still playing his games, and he is not bowing before Karzai. NATO finds it necessary to launch operations there (http://www2.hq.nato.int/isaf/Update/...Sept06_164.htm and http://www2.hq.nato.int/isaf/Update/...3Oct06_199.htm)
Karzai has very limited control over the country. Afghanistan is still hopelessly devided and local (war)lords are still calling the shots. There's still (or should I say: again) roadblocks to collect local 'taxes'.

And lets not forget: the Soviets were not driven out by the Taliban, who entered the scene much later. So there is no guarantee 'we' will win even if we beat the 'Taliban'. It's all nice and comfy to think there is a monolithic enemy to beat, but the reality is different. Recently (end october) the top US general to Europe James L. Jones admitted things are much harder and complicated then (he) previously thought, and that especially the local drugs-barons are more and more acting up. They are wealthy and have (militairy) power, which they are not shy to use.

"Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army troops began Operation Wyconda Pincer today, supported by ISAF forces.

The Border Police, teams from the National Directorate for Security, American soldiers from PRT Farah, and Italian and Spanish troops joined forces for security operations in Bala Baluk and Pusht-e Rod Districts.

The aim of the operation is to engage local leaders and elders to enhance the security of Farah Province and oppose Taliban forces involved in criminal activities and recruitment in this region.

The operation features Civil Affairs teams, assessments of police checkpoints and compounds, and meetings with village elders.

"This operation is in response to a growing number of terrorist acts that have occurred in recent weeks, and shows the resolve of the Government of Afghanistan and ISAF to retain the security and stability of the region," said Farah Provincial Reconstruction Team Commander, Commander Michael Horan. "

beg pardon, but an op that consists of assessing afghan police checkpoints, and going around to drink tea with village elders, doesnt impress me that things are going to hell in Farah province. Which, BTW, is in the southwest, and is heavily Pashtun.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos And lets not forget: the Soviets were not driven out by the Taliban, who entered the scene much later.

well then, thank goodness we're not the Soviets, and are working with some of the elements that drove them out.

The dreaded warlords. Some of whom are defanged, and some of whom are back in power as provincial governors. because, in part, they actually have legitimacy and deference with the local pops. But the biggest and scariest warlords, like the guys in Mazar and Herat seem to still be tame. Though if the govt AND the coalition fail to beat the Taliban, they would have a good case for coming back.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin
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.

Take a look at the current troop contributions posted earlier again.

Currently Australia contributes 200 troops while Germany contributes 2,700, Italy 1,800, France 975 and Spain 650.

I'd agree that the troop restrictions is a serious issue but the numbers for those countries aren't worse than those of Australia.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Take a look at the current troop contributions posted earlier again.

Currently Australia contributes 200 troops while Germany contributes 2,700, Italy 1,800, France 975 and Spain 650.

I'd agree that the troop restrictions is a serious issue but the numbers for those countries aren't worse than those of Australia.

German troops in Afghanistan:


Canadian troops in Afghanistan:

[ElTigre]

Yes Asher, the 18 German soldiers that died in Afghanistan so far looked exactly like that...

[Asher]

Originally posted by ElTigre
Yes Asher, the 18 German soldiers that died in Afghanistan so far looked exactly like that...

Well, to be fair a lot of them probably weren't wearing helmets.

There were no German combat deaths in Afghanistan.

[ElTigre]

Suicide attacks and mines don't count as combat deaths? Anyway, that's a petty argument.

[ElTigre]

And FYI, German troops CAN be deployed in southern Afghanistan: in case of an emergency, when requested by our Allies.

So far no one has requested German troops. A British (?) MP claimed several days ago that Canada once had requested troops, and Germany and 4 other countries declined to send any, but it turned out that this wasn't true: Canada never asked for them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by ElTigre
Suicide attacks and mines don't count as combat deaths? Anyway, that's a petty argument.

No, they don't.

Combat deaths are when one is engaged in, you know, combat.

And no, it's not a petty argument. The German troops are almost entirely non-combat troops down there. They're there to hand out candy and build stuff.

[Asher]

Originally posted by ElTigre
And FYI, German troops CAN be deployed in southern Afghanistan: in case of an emergency, when requested by our Allies.

So far no one has requested German troops. A British (?) MP claimed several days ago that Canada once had requested troops, and Germany and 4 other countries declined to send any, but it turned out that this wasn't true: Canada never asked for them.

While it is true that Canada controls Southern Afghanistan, it is also true they've made many public requests for additional troops. The problem is the German troops in Afghanistan are not equipped for real combat, they're rebuilding troops and such a request from Germany would be a waste of everyone's time.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Asher

German troops in Afghanistan are not equipped for real combat

I call bull****. Source?

[Asher]

Originally posted by ElTigre
I call bull****. Source?

The fact that they are told not to be in combat by their parliament?