| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| NATO Leader: More Troops for Afghanistan |
| 2003-11-12 |
| 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. Yes it would, wouldn’t it. 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.’’ Part of the problem is that, from everything I’ve read, a fair percentage of those 1.4 million soldiers just aren’t up to modern combat operations: lack of equipment, logistics, training and leadership. 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. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #5 I'm certainly glad we never had to actually fight the Soviets with these marshmallow soldiers. War is not fun, but most of these nations have been occupied in the recent past. Guess it's that "short attention span" at work again. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-12 5:56:30 PM |
| #4 The cost of putting troops, even light infantry, on extended foreign deployments is expensive. Regardless, the traditional NATO countries are rich by any measure. They can afford to do this. The question as always is whether they have the will. Unfortunately, we know the answer to that one all too well. |
| Posted by: remote man 2003-11-12 1:09:08 PM |
| #3 I agree with Steve that part of the problem is that their armed forces aren't up to snuff but another part of the problem is the economics of it. That really doesn't apply to Afghanistan, since the cost is mainly of fielding light infantry, rather than heavy forces, which are more expensive to maintain. The sad truth is that the French would rather not help in any endeavor in which the US has a real stake. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-11-12 10:49:38 AM |
| #2 On one hand, military inadequacy. On the other hand, economic problems. On the gripping hand, they want us to fail. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 8:28:16 AM |
| #1 the fact that France, etc. don't increase their role in Afghanistan, where they nominally supported the war should give pause to anyone who thinks that US unilaterism is keeping them from helping in Iraq. I agree with Steve that part of the problem is that their armed forces aren't up to snuff but another part of the problem is the economics of it. The cost of fielding personnel overseas is high and much of Europe has stagnating economies |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-11-12 7:54:43 AM |