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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

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:

I only support increased military spending when I play EU3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

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...ient=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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

They don't send troops because they can't afford the ransom any more.

http://www.google.com/search?q=south...ient=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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

ps, can't edit that was not directed at you

---

Been a naughty boy recently?