Article

2009-12-01 Afghanistan

Europe unlikely to respond fully on Afghan troops

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 Steve White 2009-12-01 00:00|| || Front Page|| [13 views ] Top

#1 Tell the Euro-zone no need to rush it anymore, as per

PAKISTAN TRIBUNE >[Obama Strategy = USA] "WE WILL BE OUT OF AFGHANISTAN BY 2017".

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-12-01 01:05|| na]">[na] 2009-12-01 01:05|| Front Page Top

#2 "'There have been these kinds of crisis ever since NATO started,' he said, 'but there are fundamental reasons why transatlantic unity will remain in place.'"
Oh, really?
The transatlantic alliance has withstood Europe stabbing America in the back, but will it survive America betraying Europe?
Europeans wanted Obama, now they got Obama.

Posted by Sheba Glomoth3252 2009-12-01 02:35|| 2009-12-01 02:35|| Front Page Top

#3 There are about 110,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, anchored by a 68,000-strong American force.

Please add to that figure another 60,000+ US contractors.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-01 06:24|| 2009-12-01 06:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Luv that graphic.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2009-12-01 06:40|| 2009-12-01 06:40|| Front Page Top

#5 European countries could find themselves under pressure from Obama to commit significantly more resources to the civilian effort, including police training.

Heywheres that foreign policy nuance we were promised? No one is all that surprised that the bad guys mock you for your limp-power strategies. But were talking bout the Euros here. We thought mixing Barrys dreamy chestnut eyes and soothing rhetoric with Hillarys furrowed brow and maniacal laugh was supposed to bowl them over. Cmon man!

Posted by DepotGuy 2009-12-01 10:27|| 2009-12-01 10:27|| Front Page Top

#6 Honestly, why should they add more troops?

The war is very unpopular in Europe.
They don't like Americans.
The US has nothing to bargin/pressure them with.

The US will soon be alone in the 'stan. How long we stay is the question.

Posted by DarthVader 2009-12-01 12:55|| 2009-12-01 12:55|| Front Page Top

#7 To cut some slack to sarko (I really despise him, so, bear with me in that rescue effort), who was asked 1500 more tropps and most likely won't send them (or will send less, or in other ways, such as police trainers or things like that)... he just CAN'T send them.

I don't mean he WON'T, I'm saying that everybody is mostly ok to agree that he CAN'T.

The french gvt is broke (not that it prevents it from borrowing yet more money, hiring yet some more civil servants, giving yet some more pay rises to its members, spending yet some more money on festivities, culrtural grants, etc, etc... IE all the expenses that the french banana republic allows itselfs so the people at the top remain rich and spoiled)...

The french army is broke, and it's broken. I don't think you understand the state of dereliction french armed forces are in, the shirak "professionalization" of the army, as his Gaullist Grandeur would have had it, was the final nail. France has no more small arms industry, cannot produce its rifles parts (the Famas was a good design in its time, but has aged badly with zero upgrade, and the 140 000 or so remaining out of the 350 000 produced are literally kept together with duct tape, not to mention the recent fiasco with "barrel upgrade"), small caliber ammo (heck, even the proprietary 5.56 french ammo is now outsourced, and as the latest batches from the UAE have been a disaster, the french army had to fall back on emergency aid from the USA, and going back to... israeli-made ammo. Yes, anti-isreaeli, "Arab Policy" France buy his ammo from Israel, how funny), equipement is crap, soldiers's training is not up to earlier standards, as money is scarce (troops sent to afghanistan had crash ranges time, which proved expensive).

Anyway, the afghan french troops had to have a dire equipement upgrade, just to put them at a reasonable even level with other Nato troops. So far, it's 450 millios euros a year. The french army CANNOT already afford this (overseas operation pays are delayed six month), outfitting 1500 more troops with upgraded equipments, vehicles,... simply isn't doable.

Crack any 'cheese easting...' joke you want, it's just that. France is still able to do 'police work' in his african backyard, increasingly less so, but, any real force projection is just undoable. On some level, this is not new, IIUC, shirak once actually envisaged sending 10 000 soldiers along for the OIF, and was told by the military brass "don't dream, jacko, we could do this in GWI, there's no way we could ever do it now".
Pacifism may be a good policy, for people who don't have the means to fight back, I guess. And by "good", i mean "the only left".

Posted by anonymous5089 2009-12-01 12:59|| 2009-12-01 12:59|| Front Page Top

#8 We thought mixing Barry's dreamy chestnut eyes and soothing rhetoric... Posted by: DepotGuy

Tingling up the leg there at ye ole Depot?

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-01 12:59|| 2009-12-01 12:59|| Front Page Top

#9 Discussions will take place at a NATO foreign ministers meeting this week

And that's about all they're good for. Face it, if the Germans aren't allowed out after dark and the Italians won't leave the base, they're probably more a hindrance than a help anyway. And, as most know, no one really needs to show the French how to avoid a fight.

Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-12-01 13:50|| 2009-12-01 13:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Crack any 'cheese easting...' joke you want, it's just that. France is still able to do 'police work' in his african backyard, increasingly less so, but, any real force projection is just undoable. On some level, this is not new, IIUC, shirak once actually envisaged sending 10 000 soldiers along for the OIF, and was told by the military brass "don't dream, jacko, we could do this in GWI, there's no way we could ever do it now".
Pacifism may be a good policy, for people who don't have the means to fight back, I guess. And by "good", i mean "the only left".

You are a font of useful information, anonymous5089. I s'pose we should be grateful that should the formal surrender ever come, the enemy won't be getting a usable army along with it.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-12-01 14:41|| 2009-12-01 14:41|| Front Page Top

#11 And, as most know, no one really needs to show the French how to avoid a fight.

Hum, thought I had outgrown those "mine is bigger than yours" silly online episodes (arguing on the internet is like the special olympics..."), but, since I just painted a pretty grim and sadly somewhat objective picture of the french army, just allow me what follows...

(Anyway, my claims to maturity are just absurd, I've never outgrown anything)

French Military History

French victories

I guess I should up the ante with WWI (1.4 millions killed, guess they forgot how to avoid to fight), the 1940 debacle (100 000 killed fighting the german army over one month an a half - obviously, even the crap 1940 french army grunts forgot to drop their rifle; incidentally, german losses were 27 000, and the french didn't "surrender", it was an armistice, after being trunced, which amounts to the same, but has a very distinct political & military meaning IIUC).

Btw, french losses so far in afghanistan are 36, tiny by historical standards and less than Canada or the UK, but, still, quite a few of those fellows forgot how to avoid a fight, most probably.

As for germans & italians, I'll let any concerned party comments, if any.

Posted by anonymous5089 2009-12-01 14:59|| 2009-12-01 14:59|| Front Page Top

#12 Btw, don't want to come out too much as a sanctimonious prick after what had been really some stereotypes-based light humor, with some grounding in Reality (no offense, Woozle, it's just I'm tired of that, and I'm grumpy today), but I figure that if I "correct" people online or not after they tell blonde jokes (hate thoses), I can do the same with different hot buttons.

Posted by anonymous5089 2009-12-01 15:08|| 2009-12-01 15:08|| Front Page Top

#13 Sanctimonious prick?

Thought one of my old colleagues was calling, sorry.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-01 15:24|| 2009-12-01 15:24|| Front Page Top

#14 I've always thought of you as a darling rather than a sanctimonious prick, a5089, but I'm not an expert on the latter, so I could be wrong.

Besoeker, you do sometimes forget to keep certain opinions to yourself. I never thought of those as sanctimonious, though.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-12-01 15:51|| 2009-12-01 15:51|| Front Page Top

#15 ....you do sometimes forget to keep certain opinions to yourself.

Guilty as charged. (so delighted she failed to bring up any of my other numerous shortcomings)

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-01 16:03|| 2009-12-01 16:03|| Front Page Top

#16 Make sure you do not tempt me to do so, Besoeker dear.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-12-01 16:51|| 2009-12-01 16:51|| Front Page Top

#17 I guess I should up the ante with WWI (1.4 millions killed, guess they forgot how to avoid to fight), the 1940 debacle (100 000 killed fighting the german army over one month an a half - obviously, even the crap 1940 french army grunts forgot to drop their rifle; incidentally, german losses were 27 000, and the french didn't "surrender", it was an armistice, after being trunced, which amounts to the same, but has a very distinct political & military meaning IIUC).

Well, I wasn't meaning to make this personal (my comments were meant to be my opinion only), but it seems to me you just may have left out a few salient facts concerning the French and their contributions to WWII (and just how many of those 1.4M in WWI are you asking us to believe were wearing a uniform?). I don't have the time or the inclination to fill you in, but hey, I'm told many French think it was the French who liberated them LOL.

Yeah, it's obvious any criticism of the French or anyone else not doing their share in Afghanistan is nothing but ... what? Right-wing rhetoric?

Well, they can stuff their righteous indignation over the deserved criticism of France up their socialist croissants.

Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-12-01 16:59|| 2009-12-01 16:59|| Front Page Top

#18 I would just like to interrupt the Euro-bashing fest (yes, I do it as well) to say that if you were in their shoes, you would go running, too.
I live in Estonia. For the size of its force, Estonia has lost a larger percentage of its soldiers than any other NATO country.
For what, exactly? The 'value' of its relationship with the United States?
Obama is announcing a troop buildup tonight, and a withdrawal by the elections in 2012. Regardless of the facts on the ground.
So, I read into it that we aren't in it to win, and the death of every soldier from here on out is a waste.
Yeah, the war isn't popular here. But the State Department (like during the Iraq War) has not articulated the case why the fight is necessary.
And the anti-ballistic shield pullout showed how much Obama values its "allies" in Europe.
If I was the prime minister of Estonia, I would pull my troops out. Now.

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2009-12-01 17:53|| 2009-12-01 17:53|| Front Page Top

#19 Hey, leave the Frogs alone, they got the same gutless politicians you have.

Posted by Rhodesiafever 2009-12-01 18:24|| 2009-12-01 18:24|| Front Page Top

#20 Quite right RF. We may all soon be looking at France with longing and fond memories. I'm already seeing Carla in that light.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-01 18:54|| 2009-12-01 18:54|| Front Page Top

#21 anonymous5089, I've got nuthin' against funny blonde jokes. I even know a few myself. Really. ;)

BTW, thanks for your current analysis of the French military. Had no idea it could be that bad with the supply issue. I thought the big problem was the (possibly) questionable loyalty of Muslim troops in the ranks.

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2009-12-01 19:00|| 2009-12-01 19:00|| Front Page Top

#22 If we do not intend to win, can anyone explain why the US should stay, either?

Posted by SR-71 2009-12-01 19:22|| 2009-12-01 19:22|| Front Page Top

#23 the Euros make even Bambi look tough.

I stand second to no one in willingness to bash the cheese eating surrender monkeys when they fail to man up. But in this case, they are just refusing to get in a fight on the side of a guy who doesn't want to win. It doesn't make Bambi look tough, just stupid.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-12-01 19:31|| 2009-12-01 19:31|| Front Page Top

#24 'Standby'

Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-01 19:37|| 2009-12-01 19:37|| Front Page Top

#25 "It doesn't make Bambi look tough, just stupid."

Nothing makes Bambi look stupid rather than tough.

He does that all by himself. :-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2009-12-01 21:45|| 2009-12-01 21:45|| Front Page Top

23:52 JosephMendiola
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:26 Procopius2k
23:18 CrazyFool
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:02 USN, Ret.
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:57 USN, Ret.
22:50 Old Patriot
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:47 Procopius2k
22:47 Willy
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:37 USN, Ret.
22:36 USN, Ret.
22:24 abu do you love
21:52 CrazyFool
21:48 lord garth
21:48 Barbara Skolaut
21:47 Nimble Spemble
21:45 Barbara Skolaut
21:39 JosephMendiola
21:34 JosephMendiola
21:33 Pappy