| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Afghanistan | |||
| Sarkozy says no to more troops for Afghanistan | |||
| 2009-12-02 | |||
| [Dawn] President Nicolas Sarkozy has refused a US request for France to send more troops to Afghanistan, the minister for Europe said Tuesday. 'You know the president's answer, it's 'no,'' Pierre Lellouche said in a French television interview when asked about reports that President Barack Obama was seeking 1,500 extra French troops for the Afghan mission.
According to the daily, Obama has asked his allies to provide 10,000 extra troops for the Afghan campaign, including 1,500 from France, 2,000 from Germany, 1,500 from Italy and 1,000 from Britain. Britain has already agreed to send 500 more and Italy says it will increase its force without saying by how many, but so far Germany has proved reticent and Sarkozy said last month he would 'not send a single soldier more.' Le Monde however quoted a member of Sarkozy's staff as saying: 'We're not saying no to Obama. 'We applaud the approach that he's preparing to announce and we'll take part in the January 28 conference in London to see what the Afghans are ready to contribute,' the unnamed aide said. 'We'll see what we can do to complete, if necessary, our presence, notably in terms of training,' he added. London will host a major summit on Afghanistan next month. Earlier, French Defence Minister Herve Morin confirmed that 'the United States is asking the Europeans for more troops. If there were to be an additional effort, the only effort that would make sense would be in terms of Afghan army and police training,' said Morin. 'There cannot simply be a military response,' he stressed. 'For us, building Afghan institutions is a key component of an exit strategy.' Obama was expected to announce at least 30,000 US reinforcements in a major speech on Afghan strategy on Tuesday. The White House said Monday that Obama had called Sarkozy to update him on the plans. France already has 3,750 soldiers attached to the campaign, 3,400 of them in Afghanistan itself -- some attached to the Nato mission and some under US command -- and is the fourth largest contributor to the western force. | |||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #2 Mike - it may be worse than that. Consider that the Baltics and former Warsaw Pact countries, most now in NATO, were eager participants in Iraq (even under GHWB) to establish bona fides with the West generally. All that when they were arguably least capable (i.e. new to NATO, non-standard logistics/equipment, economies in ruins from communism, etc..). Now consider what the POTUS has done in a year to "develop" those relationships? Poland/Czech - think they want to answer the call, Ukraine, Georgia? Even Rumania and Bulgaria? He's really counting on Pakistan, and even W seemed to know better than that. |
| Posted by: halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-12-02 13:23 |
| #1 ...Remember also what I said about a year ago: With the highly qualified exception of the UK, NONE of the NATO allies have had anything resembling capable ground forces for years now. After the Soviets collapsed, they were sent home. The Allies - again, with the qualified exception of the UK - never actually expected us to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty after 9/11. The Allies have kept just enough to maintain their obligations under NATO and keep the US bucks rolling in. They know it, and we know it too - but to admit it and admit how many billions have gone to Europe for nothing would result in a final and irresistible call to bring the troops home and shut down the gravy train. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-12-02 08:42 |