| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Nato allies to send extra 7,000 troops to Afghanistan |
| 2009-12-04 |
| Nato's top official says countries will send at least 7,000 extra troops to support the US surge in Afghanistan. Speaking at a Nato summit in Brussels, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said there would be "more [troops] to come". "At least 25 countries will send more forces to the mission in 2010," the Nato secretary general told reporters. Earlier, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the response from Nato allies as "positive", but some major countries are holding back. France and Germany, for instance, have not yet committed to sending extra troops. "With the right resources, we can succeed," Mr Rasmussen told a news conference after allied foreign ministers met with representatives of non-Nato countries that have forces in Afghanistan. Earlier, the Nato chief told delegates at Nato HQ that the coming year would "see a new momentum in this mission". The BBC's Nick Childs, in Brussels, says the main thrust of Mr Rasmussen's speech was to insist on a message of solidarity, despite the challenges, and of unity behind mission. "In addition to the clear pledges already tabled, we have heard indications ... that other allies and partners will probably be in a position to announce contributions in the coming weeks and months," Mr Rasmussen said. "Isaf (International Security Assistance Force) will have at least 37,000 more soldiers in 2010 than it did this year," he said. "That is solidarity in action." But many Nato governments face publics even more sceptical about the mission than those of the US and Britain. Even if more public announcements are forthcoming, turning these into firm pledges of the right troops at the right time and for the right missions, may take longer, our correspondent adds. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #15 ION WAFF > SIMIL ARTIC > seems the Bammer = USA is also considering EXPANSION OF DRONE STRIKE OPERS AGZ AL-QAEDA + TALIBAN BROUPS, ETC. INSIDE PAKISTAN, to includ STRIKES AGZ AFGHAN TALIBAN IN BALUCHISTAN. * PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > DEBKA Artic = IRAN SUCCESFULLY SIMULATES NUCLEAR DETONATION, under Laboratory conditions. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-12-04 19:32 |
| #14 France is still in a fix from DeGaulle's chopping of the Foreign Legion : they lost 17K troops, their independent air force, and most of their armor. Those are about the only troops outside of the Paratroopers that the French can rely on for actual combat. Too many other units are 15-25% Muslim now. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2009-12-04 18:43 |
| #13 France will have to try and save face, either by finding an alternate (special forces or military police trainers, civil engineering), or really going the extra mile and scrapping ressources to find re-inforcements, but it's as much if not more a "cannot" rather than "won't" issue. It's not like the gvt can swap troops fitted to peacekeeping/policing in some african officious protectorate to afghanistan, therre simply aren't the same equipment prerequesites (the Sagaie armored car in afghanistan? Yeah, suuuuuuurrrrre). |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2009-12-04 14:23 |
| #12 The Dutch are probably some of the ones not named. They have been consistent. The Norwegians and the Danes have performed well there too. I guess there is still some Viking blood left in the populace. |
| Posted by: Jeager Panda5130 2009-12-04 11:49 |
| #11 Verlaine - I haven't seen evidence that our overall relationship with Poland has been hurt that badly. Italy - based on an report I heard on the radio, quoting someone from Corriere de Serra (sp?) the big paper there. Georgians in combat - I defer to you Less multilateral than Iraq - Not comparing troop numbers, or combat deaths so far, IIUC. Yeah, mainly Brits, Canadians, Aussie and Dutch, but then most non US troops in Iraq were from a handful of countries. Are you simply counting the number of countries - most in Iraq were small countries, with small contributions. In Afghanistan we have our key allies, including France and Germany (though of course they need to do more) Anyway the whole debate about the use of the word "unilateral" for Iraq was kind of silly. Yes, we had lots of countries who went with us, so it was multilateral. But we went in without the support of the UNSC, including two of our major allies. So it wasnt multilateral like Gulf War 1 was. Anyway, you will note I never went in for the "unilateral" criticism of the Iraq war. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-12-04 11:41 |
| #10 Thanks for that uplifting note of encouragement Verlaine. Most unfortunately however, you are probably quite correct. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-04 11:24 |
| #9 LH, please tell me you're not over twenty five? The missile defense debacle was one of the dumbest and most damaging (and despicable) errors in recent history. And in context, a very clear "eff u" after Poland had leaned very far forward in support in since 9/11. Bambi's speech changed attitudes in Italy? Surely you jest. Georgian troops won't see combat, and are extremely unlikely to be suitable for same. Experience and support for the US and NATO are indeed the reasons - but I know from direct contact that confidence in both has plummeted (well, the Euros were always seen as pretty useless, the Americans only since we beclowned ourselves last year). The Afghan mission will never be as multi-lateral as Iraq was (oops - that's one of those super-secret open facts that nobody can talk about). But that of course is utterly unimportant. Apart from the Brits and the Canadians and the special forces Olympics, only the US forces do the critical tasks. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-12-04 11:16 |
| #8 There's a reason Berlusconi was elected. Yep. Mafioso 'claimed Berlusconi link' @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3034600.stm |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-12-04 10:33 |
| #7 There's a reason Berlusconi was elected. Posted by: lotp 2009-12-04 10:12 His extraordinary good taste? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-04 10:17 |
| #6 I've been in Italy twice in the last few years, for several weeks at a time. In both visits I've listened to locals spontaneously express anger about waves of illegals (often but not solely Muslim) boating into Italy and about Chinese illegal, lowpaid manufacturing labor that has destroyed jobs there. There's a reason Berlusconi was elected. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-12-04 10:12 |
| #5 Berlusconi will step up to the extent that his people will let them, and it doesn't hurt that Herat is (relatively) quiet. It's appreciated. Imagine the Italian response if Prodi were still prime minister. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-12-04 09:53 |
| #4 Poland doesn't give a damn about missile defense. They want American troops in country as insurance against invasion. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-12-04 09:51 |
| #3 I do get the impression that Italy is providing 1000, rather than zero, almost completely on the basis of the change in attitude there due to BHO's speech. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-12-04 09:34 |
| #2 Georgia wants combat experience for its troops I suppose, and weapons. And they could easily have gotten even less support, at least from the US. Poland I think is not as obsessed about the missile defense system as US consies are. There is more to our relationship than that. My impression is that Herat is only relatively quiet, its not incident free. Yeah, I am still curious to see where the remaining 4000 troops will come from. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2009-12-04 09:34 |
| #1 Britain has pledged extra 500; Italy "about 1,000"; Poland 600; Portugal 150; Spain 200; Slovakia 250; Macedonia 80 OK, that's 2780, 4220 short. Though I'm surprised by Italy's addition because Herat is quiet, unless they are all trainers. Non-Nato member Georgia sending 900, South Korea 500 Why should Georgia bother after 2008's screwing by all NATO members. Same for Poland, under the Obama Express bus to Marxville. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-12-04 08:12 |
