Ironduke

More Troops Needed For Afghanistan

Associated Press
November 12, 2003


ORLANDO, Fla. - NATO's European members need to increase the number of soldiers they each contribute to multinational missions, such as Afghanistan, the alliance's outgoing secretary general warned Tuesday.

NATO's credibility will be shattered if it doesn't succeed in Afghanistan, Lord Robertson told several hundred delegates at a NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The assembly comprises lawmakers from the 19 member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Failure of NATO's mission in Afghanistan would result in increased terrorism, drug trading and refugees, Robertson told reporters after his address.

"If we fail, we will find Afghanistan on all our doorsteps," he said.

Robertson noted in his speech that the 18 non-U.S. NATO nations have only 55,000 soldiers assigned to multinational missions, although they have a total of 1.4 million soldiers in uniform plus about 1 million in reserves.

"Most of your countries plead that they are overstretched and can do no more," Robertson said. "That is quite simply unacceptable. It risks strategic failure in current operations."

Robertson urged the delegates to use their political muscle at home to overcome constitutional constraints and budgetary hurdles limiting the commitment of soldiers to multinational missions.

"These are all political issues. So the ball is firmly in your court," said Robertson, who will be succeeded as secretary general by Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on Jan. 1.

NATO took over command of the multinational force in Afghanistan in August from Germany and the Netherlands.

Robertson also spoke against the European Union's plan to set up its own defense arm, a proposal being backed by France and Germany, and was joined by Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

"It would leave us with two organizations doing the exact same thing," Bereuter told delegates. "If Europe creates a competitor to NATO, it will risk undermining the rationale for NATO."


http://www.military.com/NewsContent?..._afghan_111203

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Ray

Could someone explain as to why it was not foreseen that the quantum of troops required would be enormous.

It was quite obvious given the attitudinal bent of mind of the Taliban and Osama, they would not sit pretty when defeated.

The US was well aware of the Taliban and fundamentalists numbers, their training, the indoctrination and the weapon array and the affinity with Pakistan where in the tribal areas they would get shelter, given the oriental psyche of giving protection to their guests.

Not only they attacked the talibans in Afghanistan but also without consolidating, jumped into the fray in Iraq. Both are smouldering and with no solution in sight.

Therefore, was there a cavaliar attitude in taking on the Afghanis and then the Iraqis and hoping like hell that all will be well and it will end well? Or is it a bigger plan that we are not aware of?

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Confed999

I'm not sure if you are making a seperate point, Ray, but the article is about non-US NATO members not pulling their weight.

Ray

There are too many thread on the commitment of troops in the various areas. This was the nearest to this confusion in my mind. Whether US, EU or whoever. I wonder how could they not realise the gigantic task in hand.

Afghanistan as it should have appeared a formidable task, given the religious fervour and the awful terrain. It should have been first resolved. The one should have embarked on Iraq which too would create a problem. Yet, it appears that it was expected that all rogue states should be addressed in quick succession without finalising one and then taking on the next.

That is what is confusing. Fundamentalist Islam organisation are as highly motivated as Mao's Communist or maybe even more. And yet it was not taken into consideration. How come? This is what is perplexing me.:ermm

In so far as these countries not pulling their weight, they don't have a heart in the cause I reckon. They are there for their own agenda.

Ray

Continued....

Look at Iraq. Vocal supporters of the US i.e. Spain and Italy are running scared and quitting. Turncoats and Quislings to the US Cause.

Officer of Engineers

Afghanistan is a no win situation. Factionism is making it impossible for the ISAF to succeed. I don't see anything being tried today that the Soviets didn't try when they 1st went into that country, If 114,000 troops couldn't pacify the country then, I doubt even doubling the ISAF would have an effect.

Sir,

If you want to be treated as one of the big boys, you have to act like a big boy. Having examined the various missions from the British to the Turks to the German/Dutch to the Canadians and now to NATO, none of the various commands have a clue on how to achieve their missions. They're in Kabul to show the flag. Nothing more.

__________________
Chimo

Confed999

I'm not arguing that, just as I didn't counter any of Ray's statements, the outcome in Afghanistan looks bleak at best. But, 55K out of a maximum 2.4M would be a joke in peacetime, let alone now.

Officer of Engineers

Doesn't work that way. 1st, the reserves are a part time position in most NATO countries, akin to a second part time job. Those who wants to go overseas for service has to volunteer and join up with the regforce units going that way. So, that leaves only the regforce of 1.4 million.

2nd, roughly only a third of those are land forces, the rest are air and naval forces. The naval forces are rarely counted but has been committed a lot stronger.

This leaves, roughly 400,000 Land Forces that can deploy. Given the traditional one third on deployment, one third on training for deployment, and one third standing down from deployment. This leaves about 130K available for deployment at any given time.

55K is half of available strength. NATO countries also have obligations to the treaty and to national priorities. So, the numbers ain't out of whack.

Ray

Whatever little I understand of terrorists, guerillas and mountains [high altitude], it is a long long haul. It also doesn't help that these blokes know the terrain better and are brainwashed in the religion as taught to them by some rabid mullahs. Note all mullahs are not rabid.

s_qwert63

If 1.4 million would be deployed to Afghanistan, how much money would it cost to support them, and how many people would be involved in supporting the 1.4 million troops?

Officer of Engineers

The combined defence budgets of all NATO countries and that 1.4mil would have to include all the support personnel.

Ray

Colonel,

Soes it means that it was all a waste of time and money and effort and manpower in the numbers killed and injured?

If it be so, then it is dereliction of duty of those who planned it. To be frank, I don;t think those who planned it, could be that dumb.

Praxus

Your saying it would cost 700,000 BILLION dollars?

It's called NUKING every part of the country were they are hiding, regaurdless of how many people live there.

No one would be able to do jack about it either. The Russians and the Chinese would ***** but thats all.

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

I have less than a whole hearted enthuiasim for my National Defence HQ. Even far less for my Department of Foreign Affairs. I can't even begin to count the number of fiasco and a waste of money that they've tried on all in the name of nation building. There are factories that ever produce a single screw sitting idle in Africa.

That being said, Sir, I don't think that anyone has any clue what they're doing. Historically, the only successful nation building methodology is colonization. Most certainly, there are no success stories in nation building post-WWII. The countries that got their independence such as India and Eygpt long has a tradition of being countries all themselves.

From what I can see of the American mission, they're maintaining a punitive force inside Afghanistan. Their mission isn't nation building. It is to kill. I don't see them trying to build Afghanistan. It is to kill Taliban and Al Qeida and anyone else who gets in their way.

I cannot say the same of the ISAF. While their mission is more nobel, I don't think the Americans would be shocked at its failure.

To support 1.4million soldiers several thousand miles away from home? Yeah. It would.

They'll do more than *****, most likely launch their own nukes at the US. You're talking global climatic change with that much dust in the air, enough to kill crops for several years running. It's a choice for them to either burn or starve.

Ray

Praxus,

One just can't go nuking the world. Some nut will take a couple of those nuke mines and detonate them in the US because of his part of the world being nuked. Then what?

Keep calm and get the best out of everybody in the world and play the 'honest' broker of the world's destiny.