| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Afghanistan | ||
| NATO Wants More Troops for Afghanistan | ||
| 2003-10-01 | ||
Plans to expand the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Afghanistan could further strain thinly stretched allied forces, officials cautioned Tuesday.
Sounds like a job for the Greeks. Or Turks. Or for another French brigade. How ’bout the Hungarians? Although diplomats said there was broad political support for the dispersal, officials wondered how allied nations would find additional troops given existing commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. Germany’s ambassador to the U.N., Gunter Pleuger, said Monday the expanded force could operate in eight key regional cities to help stabilize Afghanistan ahead of elections next year. NATO officials said more cities could be included later. Ambassadors from the 19 NATO nations were set to debate the military plans Wednesday, and officials said a decision to expand ISAF could come soon. However, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, said he did not expect a decision in the coming days. Both the United Nations and NATO have to approve the force’s wider mandate.
Lessee, we have about 1.6 million, so that leaves 2.8 million. 1/3 train, 1/3 rest, 1/3 are on station so that’s 900,000. Leave out the Navy, the EU portion of Army and Air Force is at, oh, 600,000. Subtract the Balkans and various other things, that leaves maybe 400,000. That would be enough. Alliance officials acknowledged difficulties in expanding the current ISAF force, which NATO took responsibility for in August. They fear another recruitment drive for the force could reveal more weaknesses. ``Do we have enough strategic airlift to get European soldiers to Afghanistan? The answer is ’no,’’’ Burns told reporters. France may be able to provide most of the troops. Hey! Careful with that feather! NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Gen. James L. Jones told Newsweek magazine this week that France ``has probably the most expeditionary army in Europe’’ and was ``good at peacekeeping.’’ Germany and Canada contribute almost 2,000 soldiers each to ISAF and France about 900 soldiers. France also has taken a lead role in training the fledgling Afghan armed forces. Germany is pushing to extend the mandate for an extra 230-450 soldiers to support reconstruction efforts in the northern city of Kunduz. We’re arguing over a battalion? | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Well, I've worked with Belgians, French, Netherlanders, Germans, Italians, Portuguese, Norweigans and Danes at one point or another in my miltiary career. Ranked in order of proficiency and how they'd handle a wartime situation, I'd list them as Norewigans, Danes, Germans, Netherlanders, Italians, Portuguese, Belgian, and French. The Norweigan NCOs are usually in their mid to late 30's, have 20 years experience, and know their stuff. Their armament is a bit light for desert fighting, and their uniforms are too heavy. The Italians can take the heat, but lack a real tank threat. They're great on perimeter defense. The Danes are primarily a mobile force, as one would expect for a nation that's flat, easily over-run with tanks, but which has some surprises for an invading army. The French have some good NCOs, but they're not used to taking orders from anyone but their own inadequate officers. Anyone from any of the normal NATO countries will have to spend at least two or three months getting up to speed before they can pull their own weight. Half of that time is going to be getting used to new equipment, new tactics, and working with other military services. NATO tactics, what NATO has been practicing since its inception, are totally worthless in the Middle East. The same problem is present with the new NATO partners, but they're at least willing to learn. I have my doubts about at least 75% of the OLD NATO meeting these modern demands. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-10-1 5:05:11 PM |
| #6 The French have taken a lead role in training the new Afgan Army? We're doomed. On a more serious note, does anyone know if the Frenchies in Afganistan are the Legion? I would not be suprised. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-10-1 4:59:03 PM |
| #5 There is a good EU quiz on the BBC site. |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-1 3:13:00 PM |
| #4 "There's a big difference between someone in uniform and someone capable of fighting in a 'hot' war, as we've found out from some of our Reserve and Guard batallions." Hasn't that difference usually been at the NCO level. Normally, when the US goes to a "hot war" footing, it has to relieve a bunch of guys at flag rank that can't make appropriate decisions, but that wouldn't necessarily apply in a coalition where the Staff level is covered by the Brits, French and Germans. Are Norway, Denmark and Portugal capable at the NCO rank? The qualities that I think make an excellent NCO are: experience, intiative leadership capability, guts, motivation, and the ability to think creatively under fire. I don't know why there would be much difference in the martial capability of NCO's in the Danish forces with respect to Belgium. |
| Posted by: Superhose 2003-10-1 12:26:25 PM |
| #3 I see comments from or about all the Nato countries but Norway and Denmark. Why are they being excluded? Spain has troops in Iraq. Why doesn't Portugal deploy a couple of companies to Afghanistan? The problem isn't people, it's warriors. None of the NATO countries have many warriors. There's a big difference between someone in uniform and someone capable of fighting in a 'hot' war, as we've found out from some of our Reserve and Guard batallions. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-10-1 10:26:44 AM |
| #2 "They fear another recruitment drive for the force could reveal more weaknesses." Err - good? Finding problems and fixing them is a good thing right? |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-10-1 1:34:44 AM |
| #1 France may be able to provide most of the troops? Have we given up? |
| Posted by: wills 2003-10-1 12:59:48 AM |