| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| NATO countries are shirking |
| 2007-08-14 |
| Hat tip Instapundit It's good to see the United States, Britain and Canada starting to focus on the shortage of NATO "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan, particularly in the volatile southern part of the country. It has been obvious to anyone with a modicum of operational experience that this was the case shortly after the U.S. had to divide its resources between Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003. With NATO taking a leading role in Afghanistan, it was assumed that Article 5 of the alliance's charter that states that an attack against one is to be considered as an attack against all would result in a traffic jam of NATO troops as they deployed in the direction of the threat. Four years later, politically constrained military commanders on the ground are "requesting" the Alliance's civilian leadership find them 2,500 more troops to secure the south of the country. You don't tippy-toe in incremental steps in search of victory. Another 2,500 troops in the south would ease the burden of those, including our Canadians, bearing the brunt of the fighting. But it won't guarantee victory. If we want to win this fight, pacify the south and leave with a clear conscience, the alliance should send at least an additional 10,000 combat troops to that front. Where to find the soldiers is the easy part, as the accompanying chart will show. Convincing the political leadership in the countries with the soldiers but not the will is a job for those who have earned the right to address the problem, and that includes Canada. The chart shows both NATO and non-NATO countries currently serving as part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The numbers are not absolutely precise due to the constantly changing nature of military strengths. Percentages are rounded off to the nearest whole. They do, however, give a pretty good idea of which countries are taking the mission seriously and which aren't. Some countries do not break down their reserve numbers into navy, army and air force so I included their totals, as armies always make up the majority of any reserve force. The percentages I show are based on the size of each country's regular army only. In the case of Canada I acknowledged the contribution of our air force and navy personnel in Afghanistan by reducing the size of our contingent there from 2,600 Canadian Forces personnel to 2,000 army. Recent announcements indicate that Canada hopes to have 3,000 to 5,000 Afghan troops trained by the end of the year and that they will be able to conduct combat operations on their own. That is all well and good but it will not ensure victory, particularly with Taliban reinforcements readily available across the border in Pakistan and having easy access to unguarded border crossing points into Afghanistan. If you add up the total regular army troops available to NATO, it comes to roughly 2.24 million soldiers. All we need in Afghanistan to reinforce the troops currently in theatre and win this thing is half of one per cent of that figure. Where the hell are they? Retired Canadian general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of the United Nations' Sector Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war. |
| Posted by:Danking70 |
| #10 Actually, we still need troops to be in Europe to protect our friends. Eastern Europe, that is. And yes, eastern Europe is still our friend. And to protect them from the Muslims *and* the Russians. Western Europe can see a draw down just fast enough to not ruin their economies, but otherwise, they need to learn that just because you have endless bureaucrats and meetings, it doesn't mean that you can get away with not having a military. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-08-14 16:25 |
| #9 Yep, it's high time we cut off funding to our children. Much like the 40 year old who still lives in his parents' basement, it's high time for the Euros to learn to live on their own. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-08-14 10:42 |
| #8 Made perfect sense to me. Our NATO allies have been acting like children since the 60s. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-08-14 10:36 |
| #7 Whoops! That last goes to another thread, which is why it makes no sense. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-14 09:30 |
| #6 Children?? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-14 09:16 |
| #5 Well when you been skating on somebody elses back for sixty something years, it's a tough habit to break... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-08-14 09:14 |
| #4 When the Western Euros [with a greater population and combined GNP than the US] couldn't handle Kosovo in the early 90s without the US having to do the 'dirty work', what would give anyone else an idea that NATO was nothing more than a bunch of old boys of privilege and inherited wealth sitting around the yacht club bar making believe they were skipper of something larger than a dingy? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-08-14 09:06 |
| #3 This has been obvious since 1950. The question is why does the US still have 100,000 troops in Europe when they are needed elsewhere and why does it let high value imports flood in when many unemployed US autoworkers are capable and need the work? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-08-14 08:38 |
| #2 Where's the surprise meter graphic? |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-08-14 05:45 |
| #1 NATO countries are shirking BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious) |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-14 01:30 |