View Full Version : Should EU nations in NATO commit more troops to Afghanistan ?
Self explanatory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7231909.stm
The US wants more EU troops in Afghanistan, but I don't see any real concrete benefit of doing this. First of all, apart from the British, Germans & Turks (not in EU), I don't see how anyone else would actually be making a real difference, except providing more targets to the Taliban to take down. Secondly why can't the US itself commit more troops ? Lastly and most importantly what results have the US troops shown in Afghanistan? Not much IMHO. It seems a foolish proposition to continue to divide the country with little "armies" from 20 nations. Of course as we saw in the case of Spain this is a dangerous exercise on the home front, because then you open a whole new can of worms, which you better be well prepared for.
IMO it's best to consolidate the current troops into British and American contingents doing the main fighting, with Turkish backing, Turks should (continue to ?) hold Kabul, since they are the most respected foreign nation there. Give the smaller EU members the backwaters where it's mostly humanitarian and police (training) work.
The Canadians got a great deal: Kandahar => Hellhole.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-07-2008, 04:40
The important European nations taking part in Afghanistan - Germany, Italy, the UK, Turkey, Holland, France, and Poland - already have a lot of troops in Afghanistan. I believe that the insurgency has been relatively effectively suppressed, and I don't believe troop surges will help much. The main goal now should be to build the trust of the population.
The troop counts, in case anyone wants them:
Major European Countries (more than 1000 men)
Germany - 3200 (third largest contributor)
Italy - 2358
UK - 7753 (second largest contributor)
Turkey - 1219
Holland - 1515
France - 1292
Poland - 1141
Total - 18478
North American Countries
United States - 15038
Canada - 2500
Total - 17538
Conradus
02-07-2008, 10:09
Sinan, aren't you focussing a little too much on the Turkish? The Dutch have more men there than you have anyway:yes: .
Anyhow, we Belgians are going to double our number of soldiers in Afghanistan, that makes 100 guarding the airport in Kabul and 100 to use 4 F-16 we're going to send this year to the Dutch province.
Ridiculous I know
What good are more troops if they don't want to go out and just hunt beards.
CountArach
02-07-2008, 10:38
Sinan, aren't you focussing a little too much on the Turkish? The Dutch have more men there than you have anyway:yes: .
Anyhow, we Belgians are going to double our number of soldiers in Afghanistan, that makes 100 guarding the airport in Kabul and 100 to use 4 F-16 we're going to send this year to the Dutch province.
Ridiculous I know
Yes and us Aussies have just about 400 personnel with another 600 or so administrative staff in there, working in close cooperation with the Netherlands
Me, I don't like the way this war was waged at the start (civilian bombings,etc), however I seek for greater local peace-keeping operations and more diplomatic solutions now. I think that everything can be phased out here over the course of say 5 years, perhaps longer because I don't know the security situation there.
Apparently the U.S. isn't the only country that would like to see the others commit more soldiers.
"Canada has been the latest to warn it could pull its contingent of 2,500 troops out of the country unless allies provide reinforcements in Kandahar province."
I'd like to see some information not provided by the article. Why do they want more soldiers? Do they think it will significantly change things on the ground? Is it just out of some resentment that a few countries are sharing the brunt of the burden?
I almost hate to make judgments on things like this on the basis of newspaper articles because they leave out a lot of the things one needs to make an informed decision.
Type 'Kandahar' in youtube, great place. Glad I am not them, heard it is the most dangerous place to be.
Well, our minister of defense refused to send troops to the south, it's too dangerous for them, they could be shot at or something like that, that's not what they're in the military for. :sweatdrop:
Guess you'll have to find someone else. :shrug:
Geoffrey S
02-07-2008, 12:27
All these objections about danger raised by ministers and the like attempt to obfuscate one thing: whatever they want to do, they can't send more troops. Smaller nations such as the Netherlands are creaking at the seams supporting even a relatively minor war effort, and even Great Britain struggles to recruit, equip and support their relatively strong army.
Let's face it. Europe is incapable of sustaining a war effort (which is led by the US...) but is desperate to hide the fact. It's not a matter of should, but of could.
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 12:28
Yes and us Aussies have just about 400 personnel with another 600 or so administrative staff in there, working in close cooperation with the Netherlands
Me, I don't like the way this war was waged at the start (civilian bombings,etc), however I seek for greater local peace-keeping operations and more diplomatic solutions now. I think that everything can be phased out here over the course of say 5 years, perhaps longer because I don't know the security situation there.
As we have been smart enough to back corrupt warlords and get them into the government, I doubt there will be peace in Afghanistan this century.
All these objections about danger raised by ministers and the like attempt to obfuscate one thing: whatever they want to do, they can't send more troops. Smaller nations such as the Netherlands are creaking at the seams supporting even a relatively minor war effort, and even Great Britain struggles to recruit, equip and support their relatively strong army.
Let's face it. Europe is incapable of sustaining a war effort (which is led by the US...) but is desperate to hide the fact. It's not a matter of should, but of could.
It's not like the US as a country is making a huge profit from the war...
It's also a matter of mindset, it's simply not popular to make war here and we have at least one party that wants to reduce our army and the budget all the time etc.
This may continue until Osama just marches in with 200 men and declares himself supreme leader of the EU/Germany, but then it's too late to change it. ~D
Rodion Romanovich
02-07-2008, 14:02
Voted no, because it sounds so much funnier when my tax money is flushed down a toilet, or goes to luxury food so the fat EU politicians can get fatter and die of heart attacks sooner.
Conradus
02-07-2008, 14:06
Let's face it. Europe is incapable of sustaining a war effort (which is led by the US...) but is desperate to hide the fact. It's not a matter of should, but of could.
That could have got something to do with the fact that we aren't at war.
I'm sure some European countries could do better when there's actually a war, but let's face it, not one EU country wants that, and what would they care about the wars of the USA?
Somebody Else
02-07-2008, 14:23
Yes, certainly they should - however, it is true that (at least in Britain's case) the armed forces are underfunded for the task they are doing - so, whilst we're at it, increase funding. We shouldn't start something and then back out of it if/when things get a little difficult.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 14:32
Just want to echo my concern for the decreasing budgets of the UK's armed forces and that it's good to see so many here feel the same way. :2thumbsup:
Pffft, dutchies and the ozzy's are doing just fine in our lovely little comfortable bliss, Taliban is good at raping women and roasting kids alive but they are less succesfull against things that shoot. They can't outbreed the rate at which we are killing them. Would be great if the polish got in the fray, friend of mine says they are more then eager to join the fun.
Yes, certainly they should - however, it is true that (at least in Britain's case) the armed forces are underfunded for the task they are doing - so, whilst we're at it, increase funding. We shouldn't start something and then back out of it if/when things get a little difficult.
agreed, see sig.
Just want to echo my concern for the decreasing budgets of the UK's armed forces and that it's good to see so many here feel the same way. :2thumbsup:
hah, only because it has let you overtake Britain as the second biggest military spender after the US! :furious3: *
* according to the IISS Military Balance 2008
Geoffrey S
02-07-2008, 17:05
It's not like the US as a country is making a huge profit from the war...
No, it's not. But it has the reserves to keep going for a bit longer, certainly more than Europeans have. But even that is being stretched.
That could have got something to do with the fact that we aren't at war.
I'm sure some European countries could do better when there's actually a war, but let's face it, not one EU country wants that, and what would they care about the wars of the USA?
All right, not a war... an occupation of another state where people are shooting at our troops.
You see, that's part of the problem. It's not being treated as a war, in budgets or home support. But that is exactly what it is if the cost is calculated, in effort and money.
Yes, certainly they should - however, it is true that (at least in Britain's case) the armed forces are underfunded for the task they are doing - so, whilst we're at it, increase funding. We shouldn't start something and then back out of it if/when things get a little difficult.
Agreed. Either start funding the troops enough that they can do their job properly, or stop pretending that Europe has any military power at all.
For our part, we'd be delighted just to get some equipment donated.
Poland just gave us two heavy-lift helicopters complete with flight crews to use at our discretion. (Go Poland! :poland:)
If Germany would be so kind as to toss us a few Leopard 2 tanks (we'll drive) I think our boys and girls over there would be much obliged. :yes:
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 17:30
I only support increased military spending when I play EU3.
Agreed. Either start funding the troops enough that they can do their job properly, or stop pretending that Europe has any military power at all.
Enough to be a major pain. But this isn't a competition, I am amazed sometimes, some wanted to pull out because their feeling got hurt. So who are we doing it for ask your own dad.
ps, can't edit that was not directed at you
Yes
I'd even like to see 10-20 thousand more American troops.
What I'd really LOVE to see is NATO or the Americans capture that sob, Bin Laden.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 18:07
hah, only because it has let you overtake Britain as the second biggest military spender after the US! :furious3: *
* according to the IISS Military Balance 2008
?
There are no two nations I would rather have in their place.
Pffft, dutchies and the ozzy's are doing just fine in our lovely little comfortable bliss, Taliban is good at raping women and roasting kids alive but they are less succesfull against things that shoot. They can't outbreed the rate at which we are killing them. Would be great if the polish got in the fray, friend of mine says they are more then eager to join the fun.
Too bad we can't get South Korea to send some of their elite troops. You know, so they can get some field experience and 'keep their powder dry'. The NVA, VC and Northern Vietnamese sympathizers were terrified of Korean troops in Vietnam, they are the very definition of hardcore.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 18:26
Too bad we can't get South Korea to send some of their elite troops. You know, so they can get some field experience and 'keep their powder dry'. The NVA, VC and Northern Vietnamese sympathizers were terrified of Korean troops in Vietnam, they are the very definition of hardcore.
They don't send troops because they can't afford the ransom any more.
http://www.google.com/search?q=south+korea+ransom&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Oops, forgot to comment on the original post.
Well since Afghanistan and the campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is supposedly considered by Europe as a truly 'worthy' cause I see no reason why the EU shouldn't commit more troops. But that would increase the risk of their troops getting shot and possibly killed. So perhaps it is best that EU nations with weaker constitutions simply withdraw their troops to the safe confines of Europe where they can shut the rose colored windows, lock the doors and hope for a perfect war to come along where they can enjoy the risks of suffering zero casualties.
They don't send troops because they can't afford the ransom any more.
http://www.google.com/search?q=south+korea+ransom&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Those were civilians, not troops. And wacko crusading missionaries at that. Also that was a move done by an unpopular Korean president whose administration was looking to avoid a potential public relations disaster (despite the fact that the average South Korean thought those missionaries were morons).
Pannonian
02-07-2008, 18:45
ps, can't edit that was not directed at you
Been a naughty boy recently?
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 18:51
Those were civilians, not troops. And wacko crusading missionaries at that. Also that was a move done by an unpopular Korean president whose administration was looking to avoid a potential public relations disaster (despite the fact that the average South Korean thought those missionaries were morons).
That move was done by the South Korean government and established a precedent (if one didn't already exist). If the president acted unlawfully and not on behalf of the government, he should be prosecuted.
Tribesman
02-07-2008, 19:36
Too bad we can't get South Korea to send some of their elite troops.
They can't , they have to face off against the loonies in the north , and their key ally pulled troops because it couldn't sustain the war effort .
They can't , they have to face off against the loonies in the north , and their key ally pulled troops because it couldn't sustain the war effort .
Partially true. We've had a minimal presence in South Korea for some time now. The primary motivation for scaling down our forces there is a combination of necessity, expense and commitments elsewhere. There was a time when the South Korean military could not be relied upon to adequately defend itself in the event North Korea decided to attack but those days are long gone. The South Korean military of today is a very large and modernized fighting force and is qualitatively speaking, vastly superior to North Korea's forces. For example the majority of tanks used by North Korea are aging T-62s. Compare the T-62 to the K1 and K2 tanks fielded by the ROK Army, both of which are derivatives of the M1 Abrams, and you have the makings of a lopsided slaughter. The brand new K2 is about as state of the art as tank technology can get, it even employs active anti-missile technology, it's one tough customer.
South Korea's industry is no slouch when it comes to the arms industry (Samsung and Hyundai manufacture everything from semi-conductors to self-propelled artillery) and the ROK's military is trained and employed using modern western fighting techniques. The biggest problem facing the ROK military is that it still relies on conscription to fill out the ranks. Historically speaking most armies that rely too heavily on conscription generally draw an unfavorable comparison to those that employ professional soldiers. However mandatory service served ancient Athens and modern Israel well so there's something to be said for culture inspiring commitment and a instilling a sense of duty.
cegorach
02-07-2008, 21:18
Would be great if the polish got in the fray, friend of mine says they are more then eager to join the fun.
They are already fighting for some time - GROM (just like in Iraq in 2003) and a large part of our contingent is fighting in southern Afghanistan along with the Americans.
Besides the widely discussed case (in Poland) of supposed warcrime is another proof they are some under serious pressure out there.
Kagemusha
02-07-2008, 21:34
I think the war in Afganistan is a war which should be supported by us Euros, as it is generally accepted as just war, unlike Iraq. Im bit shamed that if we were ready to support US there in the start of the conflict, we wouldnt be ready to see it trough. In a country like Afganistan, what is needed is boots in the ground and without supplying forces there with enough men and equipment, the pacifying of the country will take forever.
Half hearted policies like these latest decisions is a true reason for our US friends to call us lilly livered.:shame:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-07-2008, 22:40
If Germany would be so kind as to toss us a few Leopard 2 tanks (we'll drive) I think our boys and girls over there would be much obliged. :yes:
I quote:
Twenty Leopard 2A6M are being borrowed from Germany in the summer of 2007 to support the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan,[19] with the first tank handed over after upgrading by KMW on August 2, 2007,[20][12] and arrived in Afghanistan on August 16, being delivered by a NATO AN-124 based in Germany
Tribesman
02-07-2008, 23:55
I think the war in Afganistan is a war which should be supported by us Euros, as it is generally accepted as just war, unlike Iraq. Im bit shamed that if we were ready to support US there in the start of the conflict, we wouldnt be ready to see it trough.
Not really , since at the start it was a case of go in , get rid of one lot of nutters , try and get a reasonably stable government , rebuild the place and get out .
Going off and playing silly buggers in Iraq screwed that (difficult) idea up big time and now it is a very very different and more difficult case to crack .
Now when the commanders are talking of a decades long fight to try and keep a bunch of opium dealing warlords in power you can see why governments are a bit wavering in their support , after all what the hell do they get out of it apart from a big drain on their resources .
Kagemusha
02-08-2008, 00:30
Not really , since at the start it was a case of go in , get rid of one lot of nutters , try and get a reasonably stable government , rebuild the place and get out .
Going off and playing silly buggers in Iraq screwed that (difficult) idea up big time and now it is a very very different and more difficult case to crack .
Now when the commanders are talking of a decades long fight to try and keep a bunch of opium dealing warlords in power you can see why governments are a bit wavering in their support , after all what the hell do they get out of it apart from a big drain on their resources .
Well you are right about that there isnt much to gain in Afghanistan for anyone. So i think we should move in enough troops to root out the Taliban and then get the hell out, the tribal warfare is, pretty much definition of culture over there, so we should let them have their own internal wars, just exterminate the worst religious lunatics and get the hell out. Like the original plan was, but we need more troops on the ground to chase the nutters and root them out. So insert more force in order to get out of the conflict faster:yes:
Real problem into Afghanistan is that this war can't be won fighting like that.
NATO can easy take control over Afghanistan but they can't cross Pakistan border, where Taliban have their bases and training camps. So that they have to wait on Taliban offensive when they can kill some enemies.
I think if we want win, we have to fight it seriously and without playing with these terrorists. Maybe Mongol tactic would work.......
Geoffrey S
02-08-2008, 18:06
Mongol tactic... I take it you're not referring to horse archers? I suppose that's cheaper though.
Just got some numbers, but might be fun. Top contributer, brittain, 4.3% of what thet have military speaking, Holland 3.5%, the USA 1%, so how about you kick some out of their beds some more. 2% Would be great.
LittleGrizzly
02-13-2008, 16:26
Isn't the low USA presence due to Iraq ?
I thought some of the troops that were going to be stationed in Afghanastan (or could have been) were moved to Iraq...
If you are going critisise you have to at least match the effort. And I know that isn't fair, but at least it's fun.
LittleGrizzly
02-13-2008, 16:49
well i mean out of the countries that supported Iraq war and has troops there, US is probably biggest % contributor (ok thats an assumption) I remember some controversy about some country (a euro can't remember which one) was sending troops to afghanastan to free up american troops to goto iraq (this wasn't stated pr of the mission)
Conradus
02-13-2008, 21:23
Considering that Iraq is actually a USA-only war, it's only logical that their the biggest relative supporter.
Not at all
There are still many british and polish soldiers into Iraq.
Yes... why shouldn't the EU nations in NATO commit more troops?
Just make sure you don't expect more from the non-EU NATO nations.
Besides, there are non-EU non-NATO nation troops there and EU non-NATO nation troops there also. What about them?
And the numbers are all wrong, This fact sheet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force) lists Turkey with only 675 troops as of february 2008.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-16-2008, 06:12
Those numbers were, according to the very same page, correct at the time. Some are still the same.
Samurai Waki
02-16-2008, 10:02
The JSDF should be allowed to independently activate foreign missions of any "Peace-Keeping" Nature as Mandated by the United Nations and the Geneva Convention. Not only can Japan spare the Soldiers but they're easily just as hardcore as the ROK Forces, and have a potentially better MIC. OTOH, I don't think China would be none to happy, and the current government in Japan would rather see Japan become a bowling pin in light of future aggression rather than stand up for itself. Any who, Japan should be contributing even on the logistical effort without opening itself to any potential attack.
CountArach
02-16-2008, 10:47
Not at all
There are still many british and polish soldiers into Iraq.
Why does everyone forget Australia??? (Though we just elected an anti-Iraq Government).
Conradus
02-16-2008, 16:06
Not at all
There are still many british and polish soldiers into Iraq.
So you mean the Poles actually bought the 'we're going in there because of the WMD's?'
cegorach
02-16-2008, 17:40
Pesonally I don't know anyone who cared about any such weaponry - it was to remove Saddam.
It is important to remember that ALL political perties except two populist (now not even in the parliament) supported the invasion and most of intellectuals, former anti-communist opposition members and so on too.:yes:
Conradus
02-16-2008, 21:37
That was only later on, just as the 'fighting terrorism'-reason.
Hmm, seems we had more reasonable parties in our parliament then.
DukeofSerbia
02-19-2008, 12:21
Talibans can't be defeаted because border with Pakistan doesn't exist and they got all support they need without problems.
I mean that war into Iraq costed much and was made idiotic. Similar situation to Eastern Front happened. Americans were so fast that they conquered all the country before they made good plan what to do after victory.
Thats why their tried to behave same like they did into Germany after ww2. Sadly that smart country forget that Iraq is not Germany.
So that we have problems.
But instead of criticising situation into Iraq now think
"what would happened if Saddam was still ruler of Iraq".
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-20-2008, 00:57
But instead of criticising situation into Iraq now think
"what would happened if Saddam was still ruler of Iraq".
The western world would still be relatively the same as before?
Tribesman
02-20-2008, 01:49
The western world would still be relatively the same as before?
Yep, and oil would be cheaper , Iran would be quieter on the world stage and George Bush wouldn't be remembered as a complete fool .
Conradus
02-20-2008, 21:27
And not to forget some 3,000 American soldiers would still be alive, and probably a couple of 10,000 Iraqi's as well -though there's no telling what Saddam would have done to them.
Since invasion and because of that into Iraq died about 500.000 men. However Saddam was killing similar number into similar time. Idea was good , but execution idiotic.
LittleGrizzly
02-21-2008, 16:28
However Saddam was killing similar number into similar time.
Really you got some figures on this ?
I now Saddam wasn't a nice guy but 500 000 in 5-6 years ?! thats sounds like quite alot...
Idea was good , but execution idiotic.
To say the least. Some rediculous mistakes were made. Hoisting the american flag after downing the statue was I think the the absolute hight of stupidity, now the us-authorities aren't to blame directly, not too bright soldiers getting caught in the momentum of succes, but soldier could have gotten some instructions on how to deal with these things. It should never have happened, the us lost insane quantities of credit there.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.