Article

2006-09-12 Afghanistan

Countries Ignoring NATO's Urgent Call for Afganistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2006-09-12 02:05|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-09-12 12:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-09-12 12:23|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-09-12 12:37|| Front Page Top

#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">Steve White 2006-09-12 15:01|| 2006-09-12 15:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-09-12 18:10|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:45 Alaska Paul
23:38 Zenster
23:35 Zenster
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:31 Brett
23:29 Zenster
23:23 Zenster
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:17 Swamp Blondie
23:17 Zenster
23:10 Zenster
23:09 Captain America
23:09 Swamp Blondie
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:08 Zenster
23:06 Captain America
23:04 DMFD
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:59 Charles
22:58 FOTSGreg
22:58 Zenster
22:54 Zenster
22:54 DMFD