Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed effort?

[Infinite Chaos]

'Share the burden'

President Karzai was speaking after Afghan foreign minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta called for more troops to be deployed to the south of the country "to respond to terrorist activities".

US president-elect Barack Obama has said he plans to send two more combat brigades to Afghanistan when he takes office in January.

He is also expected to ask other Nato allies to strengthen their numbers.

But Foreign Secretary David Miliband indicated last weekend that the UK would expect other countries to take a larger role in any so-called "surge" led by the US.

"As the second-largest contributor of troops in Afghanistan, the first thing we say is that we don't want to bear an unfair share of the burden," he said.

The UK already has 8,100 troops in Helmand province and the head of Britain's armed forces, Sir Jock Stirrup, recently warned that thousands of troops expected to be withdrawn from Iraq next year could not simply be redeployed to Afghanistan.

Meanwhile a BBC-commissioned poll has suggested that nearly 70% of people in the UK favour bringing the troops home.
Story: BBC

If as expected, Obama asks his allies to send extra numbers into Afghanistan I expect we (the UK) will meet the call but politicians here will have to accept the strength of feeling about the burden and what elements of weight other European nations are contributing.
The US, UK, Netherlands and Canada have so far taken the major share of fighting while other nations troops have been in the background - UK equipment has been openly criticised by serving and returned personnel (a major event given unquestioning loyalty and unquestioning silence of bad decisions in the past) and people feel that our troops are not equipped to the levels they deserve.

It is time German, Italian and French soldiers were seen at the front line - and it is time there was a renewed investigation of what "ally" really means.

From a pro-British view, I'd prefer to see the US ask Israel first for frontline combat troops however from an ex-serviceman's point of view I would be equally proud (and sorry) to see more of our personnel heading to Helmand.

 

[PeteEU]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Only a small problem.

German troops are not allowed on combat thanks to German law put in place by among others.. the UK, France, USA, Soviet Union after WW2. It has become such an integral part of German thinking that I doubt that this will be changed. It caused a crapper storm when the politicians agreed to send German combat troops to Afghanistan, and they "bent" the law that time.. Full blown combat, would mean breaking 50 years of policy set in place after WW2 by outsiders. The Germans already have the largest contingent I believe after the US and UK. That is if the French have not passed them with their new troops coming into Afghanistan.

The French are already giving more troops, and if they were to go into combat, then who would replace them in their duties? I believe at the moment the French are in charge of the the Kabul area and training of Afghanistan troops. If they are switched to fighting, who will do that job?

As for the Italians. I suspect with the fascist idiot at the helm that they might send in more troops if he can spare them from his crack down on undesirables in Italian cities... you know non Italians, homos, and probally Muslims and Jews in the not so far future.

I know the Spanish are discussing changing the law so they can send additional troops to Afghanistan. That is despite loosing 2 soldiers this week to a road side bomb, and loosing a proportionally large number of troops in Afghanistan, and yet they still want to contribute more, but are bound by legal technicalities put in place by the previous conservative government.

We also have to remember that the European NATO members are also heavily involved in UN peacekeeping missions around the world, something the US is not. And especially the smaller countries are at the moment stretching their military resources to the limit not to mention the political limit. We have UN peacekeeping missions in (and not limited to) Cyprus, Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, a few African states, a few central American areas, and so on.

No what we need the most in Afghanistan is for the puppet government finally being able to defend and control large parts of the country rather than relying on the French, German's, Danes, Dutch and so on, while the Brits, Canadians and Americans fight a war of attrition in the south. The problem is that the Afghan government is weak, and only in power thanks to the western military power there, and THAT is the problem. Afghanistan is STILL ruled by warlords, drug dealers and religious zealots and there has been done very little about it since the takeover (it was never an invasion).

And no it is not a US failure, it is a world failure.. a failure to see that the fight against extremism starts and ends at the areas where extremists have the best access to cannon fodder and political power, and Afghanistan and Pakistan are those areas.. not Iraq, and frankly not even Iran (although that is another ball game). Those are the areas things can fester out of control, due to the total lack of authority by anyone but the extremists.

 

[Voidwar]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Firstly :

the head of Britain's armed forces, Sir Jock Stirrup, recently warned that

:2rofll:Your top military guy is Sir Jock Strap ?!?!?!? :2rofll:

Secondly :

From a pro-British view, I'd prefer to see the US ask Israel first for frontline combat troops however from an ex-serviceman's point of view I would be equally proud (and sorry) to see more of our personnel heading to Helmand.

If you are an ex-serviceman, you should know better than to suggest IDF for any deployment in a predominantly Muslim Country. Even if you could get them to deploy outside Israel, the smart move is to use them to "spell" another force somewhere, ANYWHERE else, and re-deploy the non-IDF force to the Muslim country.

 

[bub]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

UK = 8330 soldiers / 61Mo inhabitants = 0,000.13
Denmark: 750/5,6Mo = 0,000.14
Netherland: 1770/16Mo = 0,000.11
USA: 32500/300Mo = 0,000.10
Canada: 2500/33Mo = 0,000.075
Belgium: 420/10Mo = 0,000.042
France : 2660/61Mo = 0,000.04
Germany: 3320 / 81Mo = 0,000.03

Maybe we could ask countries from the NATO to reach the US level (one soldier for 100,000 inhabitants). Germany would send 6000 more troops, France 5000, Belgium 500...

We should also take into account NATO soldiers on other fronts.
For example, There are 300 Danish and 200 Belgians in Kosovo (KFOR - BELUKOS) while there are "only" 136 British and 1 canadian soldiers
There are also 400 Belgians in Lebanon (UNIFIL - BELUFIL), 2000 French, 2400 Germans, and no Canadians, British or Americans.

 

[bub]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

If you are an ex-serviceman, you should know better than to suggest IDF for any deployment in a predominantly Muslim Country. Even if you could get them to deploy outside Israel, the smart move is to use them to "spell" another force somewhere, ANYWHERE else, and re-deploy the non-IDF force to the Muslim country.

That's a good argument and I agreed with it the first time I read.

But on the other hand, those we are fighting in Afghanistan hate the USA or UK as much as Israel! Of course, they would try and kill the Israeli soldiers, but do they behave differently when they are fighting against Dutch or Canadians?

However, that may cause more fundamentalists to join the "jihad" against the ISAF

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

--German troops are not allowed on combat --
The French are already giving more troops, and if they were to go into combat, then who would replace them in their duties? I believe at the moment the French are in charge of the the Kabul area and training of Afghanistan troops. If they are switched to fighting, who will do that job?

-- Italians--the Spanish --European NATO members are also heavily involved in UN peacekeeping missions around the world, something the US is not--

All good points but if there were no "others" bearing the brunt of fighting at the front line then what point would there be in French, German or Italian troops elsewhere? This is not mere numbers - it is about who is at the sharp end of the stick and possibly rotating those duties so that a few nation's best troops are not constantly facing battle duty while further away others have relatively safer and less hazardous chores.

-- you should know better than to suggest IDF for any deployment in a predominantly Muslim Country. Even if you could get them to deploy outside Israel--

Yeah, I know that. I was just assuming that the US's number 1 ally would be called upon sometime soon so that those "less favoured" could go suck their thumbs back in safety.

-- Maybe we could ask countries from the NATO to reach the US level (one soldier for 100,000 inhabitants). Germany would send 6000 more troops, France 5000, Belgium 500...

I had this argument with "scourge" elsewhere in the forum when he was trying to foist "blame" on non-US nations (specifically Canada) for not having simplistic equal amounts of troops in Afghanistan chasing Bin Laden on the US's revenge war. (sorry "war on terror")

My response is either the US picks allies who have equal numbers of total troops per 100,000 of the population or it accepts those who agree to put their own men on the front line next to American soldiers and in harms way. Your figures are good bub but the overall troop population (not just the troops in Afghanistan) against the numbers that could be deployed is more important than the troops in Afghanistan against the national population.

--We should also take into account NATO soldiers on other fronts.
For example, There are 300 Danish and 200 Belgians in Kosovo (KFOR - BELUKOS) while there are "only" 136 British and 1 canadian soldiers
There are also 400 Belgians in Lebanon (UNIFIL - BELUFIL), 2000 French, 2400 Germans, and no Canadians, British or Americans.

That doesn't really count - they are not active war zones in the way that Afghanistan is. Pakistan has a large contingent in Congo for example - (causing more trouble than keeping the peace) when they could be used fighting the Taleban on home turf instead.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

-- Even if you could get them to deploy outside Israel, the smart move is to use them to "spell" another force somewhere, ANYWHERE else, and re-deploy the non-IDF force to the Muslim country.

That's a good argument and I agreed with it the first time I read --

To use one of your own examples in this thread bub, how many Israeli soldiers do you think are in Kosovo or any UN peacekeeping duties anywhere in the world?

U.N. wants Israeli peacekeepers - Israel News, Ynetnews

 

[bub]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

I had this argument with "scourge" elsewhere in the forum when he was trying to foist "blame" on non-US nations (specifically Canada) for not having simplistic equal amounts of troops in Afghanistan chasing Bin Laden on the US's revenge war. (sorry "war on terror")

That's really stupid. Luxembourg has got 400,000 inhabitants and an army composed of less than 1000 soldiers. How could they send 35,000 soldiers?

My response is either the US picks allies who have equal numbers of total troops per 100,000 of the population or it accepts those who agree to put their own men on the front line next to American soldiers and in harms way. Your figures are good bub but the overall troop population (not just the troops in Afghanistan) against the numbers that could be deployed is more important than the troops in Afghanistan against the national population.

Yes, that sounds fair

That doesn't really count - they are not active war zones in the way that Afghanistan is. Pakistan has a large contingent in Congo for example - (causing more trouble than keeping the peace) when they could be used fighting the Taleban on home turf instead.

It still costs a lot of money to buy and use military material abroad + soldiers.

We could create a kind of "NATO tax" or "UN tax": every country contributes to it proportionaly to its GNP. Those who send soldiers abroad pay less. And those who send soldiers on the frontline pay even less.

 

[bub]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

To use one of your own examples in this thread bub, how many Israeli soldiers do you think are in Kosovo or any UN peacekeeping duties anywhere in the world?

U.N. wants Israeli peacekeepers - Israel News, Ynetnews

That's true.

They are well trained (especially for guerilla warfare) and have an excellent equipment.

 

[shiznit770]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

That's true.

They are well trained (especially for guerilla warfare) and have an excellent equipment.

The point is, putting them in the Middle East would be a terrible political move. The ME already has a bad opinion towards Israel because of its own border conflicts, throw them into Afghanistan and you'll see the whole region rush to the Taliban's support and another war of attrition in Afghanistan.

 

[bub]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

The point is, putting them in the Middle East would be a terrible political move. The ME already has a bad opinion towards Israel because of its own border conflicts, throw them into Afghanistan and you'll see the whole region rush to the Taliban's support and another war of attrition in Afghanistan.

Yes but they could go to Haiti, Kosovo, Congo or Liberia!

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

That's really stupid. Luxembourg has got 400,000 inhabitants and an army composed of less than 1000 soldiers. How could they send 35,000 soldiers?

I didn't bother engaging further with him when he proved ignorant of basic facts and refused to acknowledge. No point talking to such people.

--snip-- We could create a kind of "NATO tax" or "UN tax": every country contributes to it proportionaly to its GNP. Those who send soldiers abroad pay less. And those who send soldiers on the frontline pay even less.

That would be fair - it may cost to train and put men out into peacekeeping roles but it costs more to have men at battle front lines: in terms of actual lives, more rapid attrition of equipment as well as making sure the right equipment was available. Currently, British troops in Afghanistan travel via lightly equipped land-rovers which the troops call "mobile coffins" and we're losing good men because of it.

Having a central pool of the best equipment available is one strong reason for an EU task force. Different national policy and readiness to deploy troops is another. I'm liking a NATO "tax" to support or provide for those on the front line.

 

[Laila]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Nah uh, i like Obama i really do. But **** him and his dumbass admin if he thinks we should redeploy UK troops to Afghanistan after being withdrawn from Iraq.

We have our own issues, let our ally US look towards damn Israel for once!
Wtf have they done in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to UK troops.

 

[PeteEU]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Nah uh, i like Obama i really do. But **** him and his dumbass admin if he thinks we should redeploy UK troops to Afghanistan after being withdrawn from Iraq.

We have our own issues, let our ally US look towards damn Israel for once!
Wtf have they done in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to UK troops.

Yea send a bunch of jewish troops to Afghanistan..... that wont damage any efforts to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghanis.. :roll:

Israel should never ever contribute to any "peacekeeping" operation in a Muslim country as long as the Palestinian issue has not been resolved.

 

[Laila]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Not my problem. Not like US is winning anyones hearts in ME or Israel. Is it going to harm their reputation more? Nope. Its already damaged.
US should look towards someone other than UK's armed forces.
We have major problems regarding the Army anyway and they have been too stretched out. Going straight from Iraq to Afghanistan is a no-no.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Having a central pool of the best equipment available is one strong reason for an EU task force.

You mean like a pathway to an EU army. After the EU itself that is the last thing we need.

Different national policy and readiness to deploy troops is another.

I hope britain takes on a non-interventionist foreign policy personally. Aside from withdrawing the EU I'd like to withdraw from NATO as well.

 

[PeteEU]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Not my problem. Not like US is winning anyones hearts in ME or Israel. Is it going to harm their reputation more? Nope. Its already damaged.
US should look towards someone other than UK's armed forces.
We have major problems regarding the Army anyway and they have been too stretched out. Going straight from Iraq to Afghanistan is a no-no.

Actually it would be your problem as well as mine.

Sending Jewish troops into a Muslim country would be a primo recruiting for the people we are fighting. Their ranks would swell..

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Actually it would be your problem as well as mine.

Sending Jewish troops into a Muslim country would be a primo recruiting for the people we are fighting. Their ranks would swell..

Who are we fighting? I wasn't fighting anyone.

 

[Laila]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Actually it would be your problem as well as mine.

Sending Jewish troops into a Muslim country would be a primo recruiting for the people we are fighting. Their ranks would swell..

Their ranks are already swelling with or without Jewish troops ....

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Yea send a bunch of jewish troops to Afghanistan..... that wont damage any efforts to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghanis.. :roll:

Israel should never ever contribute to any "peacekeeping" operation in a Muslim country as long as the Palestinian issue has not been resolved.

The point is moot - Israel would never be asked to contribute forces into a peacekeeping role in a Muslim country - however they could be asked (as bub has repeatedly pointed out) to contribute to other places around the world and thus free up troops in non Muslim zones for other duties.

Even that point is moot - Israel has never contributed to any UN missions as I pointed out earlier in this thread.

Having a central pool of the best equipment available is one strong reason for an EU task force.

You mean like a pathway to an EU army. After the EU itself that is the last thing we need.

Currently our forces are serving with equipment that is not up to all the jobs required. We are a small nation now, not the super-power Empire we once were and we continue to try to act on the World stage. Either we stay on the world stage and grow up or we go in with whatever equipment we can scrape together for our troops.

I'm not here to promote the EU but we currently hide under a US blanket. Those troops won't stay here forever to protect us from the Russians and the American taxpayer won't pay for their troops to stay here and protect us forever. The real and continuing threat comes from Russia. We are pawns to their gas and oil supplies and they know it. What I would like is some form of European defence strategy based upon proper co-operation: I'm aware of the sensitivities of the EU and its bureaucracy however pulling out and running away is not the way to see the threat that hasn't gone away even though the "Cold War" is supposedly over.

We could be like Switzerland and let our neighbours take the strain of preparing a defence policy. Switzerland ain't going to face down the Russians or any other threat to Europe - they will let the rest of Europe do that.

I hope britain takes on a non-interventionist foreign policy personally. Aside from withdrawing the EU I'd like to withdraw from NATO as well.

I can't get the image of Neville Chamberlain out of my head when I read stuff like that.. We will withdraw from NATO and hold a piece of paper in our hand signed by Mr Putin that he won't be nasty to us or send Russian Bombers to buzz our coastlines saying rude words to us?

 

[gunner]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Only a small problem.

German troops are not allowed on combat thanks to German law put in place by among others.. the UK, France, USA, Soviet Union after WW2.

Just to clarify there are NO laws that stipulate that once a German soldier comes under enemy fire, he is not allowed to return fire [Rules of engagement]. There are also NO laws stipulating the precise geographical area that they are allowed to occupy whilst in a War torn region. So you see its purely Political, and decisions are made to appease the German population, by its own Government.
There are many more arduous tasks open to them if they were so inclined, such as guarding camps, guarding supply routes etc these are all classed as non combative.
Do you think the nations you "quote" would put in place a Law stipulating that the Germans are not allowed to fly in the dark?...come on as has been pointed out on many occasions its about "sharing the burden".

Paul.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Currently our forces are serving with equipment that is not up to all the jobs required. We are a small nation now, not the super-power Empire we once were and we continue to try to act on the World stage. Either we stay on the world stage and grow up or we go in with whatever equipment we can scrape together for our troops.

I'm not here to promote the EU but we currently hide under a US blanket. Those troops won't stay here forever to protect us from the Russians and the American taxpayer won't pay for their troops to stay here and protect us forever. The real and continuing threat comes from Russia. We are pawns to their gas and oil supplies and they know it. What I would like is some form of European defence strategy based upon proper co-operation: I'm aware of the sensitivities of the EU and its bureaucracy however pulling out and running away is not the way to see the threat that hasn't gone away even though the "Cold War" is supposedly over.

We could be like Switzerland and let our neighbours take the strain of preparing a defence policy. Switzerland ain't going to face down the Russians or any other threat to Europe - they will let the rest of Europe do that.

I'd rather not sacrifice liberty for dubious security. We can negotiate with the Europeans without needing an EU army or to be intervening all around the world.

And I consider this bellicose attitude to Russia basically delusional as well as counterproductive.

If your plans mean giving power over Britain to others I will not support them.

I can't get the image of Neville Chamberlain out of my head when I read stuff like that.. We will withdraw from NATO and hold a piece of paper in our hand signed by Mr Putin that he won't be nasty to us or send Russian Bombers to buzz our coastlines saying rude words to us?

Right. You know this is bordering on the delusional right? Irrational fears of Russia do not really make me wish to fall into line behind you.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

--snip-- basically delusional --snip-- delusional right --snip--

You've been hanging around the US forum a little too much.

Debating the poster and not the post is a common tactic. When you actually have an argument to put against me I'll respond further.

 

[PeteEU]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Just to clarify there are NO laws that stipulate that once a German soldier comes under enemy fire, he is not allowed to return fire [Rules of engagement]. There are also NO laws stipulating the precise geographical area that they are allowed to occupy whilst in a War torn region. So you see its purely Political, and decisions are made to appease the German population, by its own Government.
There are many more arduous tasks open to them if they were so inclined, such as guarding camps, guarding supply routes etc these are all classed as non combative.
Do you think the nations you "quote" would put in place a Law stipulating that the Germans are not allowed to fly in the dark?...come on as has been pointed out on many occasions its about "sharing the burden".

Paul.

Basic law is unclear on the area. Therefore the constitutional court system, has stipulated that German troops are only allowed to be deployed within NATO and not be deployed outside NATO without a clear Parliamentary resolution which describes the limits and the time limit.

I am personally torn between wanting more combat troops in Afghanistan and letting them be German combat troops. I do NOT want a resurgent German military culture that is near all dominant, just as I dont want a Japanese one. There are historical reasons and anyone that forgets that need's their school money back.

As for the "no fly at night"... it is utter bull****. It was spread by a British newspaper. Both the German army, and the Norwegian (where the accusation came from according to the newspaper) army deny the report.

The Newspaper.. The Sunday Times.. owned by Newscorp, and that is owned by a vocal neo con.. Rupert Murdock, who also has shown distaste against German non combat policy.. like many right wing Americans.

 

[gunner]

Re: Who will share the burden of an Afghan "surge" when Obama calls for threnewed eff

Basic law is unclear on the area. Therefore the constitutional court system, has stipulated that German troops are only allowed to be deployed within NATO and not be deployed outside NATO without a clear Parliamentary resolution which describes the limits and the time limit.

I am personally torn between wanting more combat troops in Afghanistan and letting them be German combat troops. I do NOT want a resurgent German military culture that is near all dominant, just as I dont want a Japanese one. There are historical reasons and anyone that forgets that need's their school money back.

As for the "no fly at night"... it is utter bull****. It was spread by a British newspaper. Both the German army, and the Norwegian (where the accusation came from according to the newspaper) army deny the report.

The Newspaper.. The Sunday Times.. owned by Newscorp, and that is owned by a vocal neo con.. Rupert Murdock, who also has shown distaste against German non combat policy.. like many right wing Americans.

I appreciate your apprehension with regards to a "German Military culture" but thats not whats being asked. The German Troops are sufficiently or as insufficiently equipped [whatever the case may be] as most other European participants. It is not being suggested that we allow some kind of mass arms race, just a redistribution of roles. As it stands we are baring the brunt of the hard fighting If the German/French governments truly back the War on terror then in my opinion each participant should be willing to send troops into combat areas.

Paul.