You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Countries Ignoring NATO's Urgent Call for Afganistan
2006-09-12
SOME OF America’s closest Nato allies have abandoned Washington on the key battleground of the War on Terror, the bloody struggle against Islamic militants for control of southern Afghanistan. Five years after the world stood “shoulder to shoulder” with America in the aftermath of 9/11, The Times has learnt that many of the countries that pledged support then have now ignored an urgent request for more help in fighting a resurgent Taleban and its al-Qaeda allies.

Turkey, Germany, Spain and Italy have all effectively ruled out sending more troops. France has not committed itself either way, but the military sources in Kabul said that there were no expectations that the French would contribute to a new battlegroup, especially now that they were providing a substantial force in Lebanon.
500 troops is 'substantial'?
They have rejected an appeal from General James Jones, the American Supreme Allied Commander Europe, for 2,500 more troops to fight alongside American, British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers. The 26-nation alliance has not volunteered a single extra combat soldier.
I'm surprised the Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians aren't chipping in.
Britain, which has 5,500 troops in Afghanistan, most of them in the south, has told its Nato partners that they must do more if the line is to be held against the resurgent Taleban. The conflict has cost the lives of 33 British troops since June.
Posted by:Captain America

#6  In the modern-day US Army it's about 50/50;
?

Are you sure Mike? That sounds way optimistic. The Divisional Slice was at about 50,000 15 years ago, I can't imagine that it's improved that much?
Posted by: 6   2006-09-12 18:10  

#5  Interesting comment Mike. Makes me wonder if we shouldn't do the same in Europe: leave some support stuff there (hospitals, air transport, etc) and get the rest of our fighting troops out of Western and Central Europe. If Romania or Poland want to host us, fine, we'll put something there, but in return they have to be serious in their 'tooth-to-tail' ratios or forget it.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-09-12 15:01  

#4  Well,Mike, I don't know if your info is correct. But, I do know that if it is, and these socialist bastards have basically disarmned themselves, we, the US, is NOT going to come to their defense again. We've done enough. If these fools are determined to commit suicide, so be it.
Posted by: SOP35/Rat   2006-09-12 12:37  

#3  Not a comfortable thought, Mike Koslowski. Obvious, now that you've said it, but not at all comforting.

Question for any of you who might know: are we getting many volunteers from foreign countries who understand the need to fight, but can't do it properly in their home armies? Along the line of Yanks who signed up with the British or Canadian armies early in WWII, or my mother's first husband, who joined the American Navy as soon as his family was settled in Australia after escaping Nazi Germany, and who ending up polishing brasswork all the way to Japan?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-09-12 12:23  

#2  ...You know, if one condiders this from another viewpoint, it's positively scary.
Remember 'tooth-to-tail' - the ratio of warfighters to support troops. In the modern-day US Army it's about 50/50; that is, there's one support guy for every guy carrying a rifle, driving a tank, or flying a helicopter. My understanding is that in the European services it's not anywhere near that good - I keep hearing numbers in the 70/30 range, 7 support guys for every combat troop - and that's for the best of them. I suspect in armies like Belgium's and Holland's, it's closer to 80/20. With that in mind, and taking a look at the current strengths of the continental NATO armies, I think you could make a good argument that those calls are being ignored because there really may not be anybody else left to send.
After the Soviet collapse, a lot of the NATO armies became armies in name only - they do not even come close to approaching the capabilities (in terms of mechanization, firepower, air support and communications) of the most basic Army National Guard infantry platoon. We forgot that as soon as the Soviets were'nt there to menace them any more, some of our Allies found reasons to all but disband their armies while we still paid for their defense. Well, we're paying a little bit more now.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2006-09-12 12:01  

#1  Maybe they'd send help if things threateded to get less PC due to the lack of manpower . . . .
Posted by: gorb   2006-09-12 02:05  

00:00