US General asks for more troops

[Valdemar]

Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US

And the measure of force ratios may not be worth much in relation to absolute numbers, but IMHO it is EXACTLY a measure of poltical and national will, if not a measure of anything else.

V

[Neil]

It seems to me that Berkut is looking for more of a commitment from everyone, the US included.  However, Berkut doesn't appreciate that few countries are willing to increase their military spending and commit troops indefinitely simply to aid American adventurism.  Many of the allies haven't had such a lengthly combat deployment since the Napoleonic Wars, so it's only natural that they'd be getting exhausted.

[Berkut]

See, this is just my point - you guys are sitting here trumpeting the incredible contributions of the Danes - who managed to send 1,000 men.

I am not disparaging the losses they have taken, but are you kidding me???? Basically one battalion?

Sorry, but I think it would be MORE insulting for me to think that modern wealthy countries like Denmark and the Netherlands can manage to send into combat is a 1000 men.

And Germany? Please. This is a country that a half century ago put literally millions of men into uniform and sent them all over Europe and Africa. Sorry, I am guessing that they could manage to send a couple hundred thousand men if they had the will to do so. Not saying they should send that many, of course, just that they could certainly support that many.

They do not have that will, of course, but lets not confuse lack of will with "we can't". It isn't the same thing.

France, Belgium, Poland, etc., etc. All of these countries have contributed a pittance to the effort. In many cases, a pittance is certainly better than nothing, but it means we are trying to accomplish something with a shoestring commitment. Well, no wonder it isn't working.

If Afghanistan fails, it will be a failure of will in the West. If we fail, it will be because we have chosen to fail.

[viper37]

Now I support putting more troops in, in general.  But I think we haven't had an honest debate, or a sense of direction in Afghanistan since the start of the war.  I think we need both.  At the minute it seems like we're still muddling through.

actually, I think what the military is saying now, they've been saying it since 2004-2005.

1- We need more troops on the field.  Both to "seel" the Pakistani border and to prevent AQ operatives from terrorizing the population.  The Afghanis will only support us if we can provide them security.

2- They need more intelligence resources.  They need to know the movement of the ennemy.  If it's always a surprise attack, we are bound to lose this war.

3- They need to be close to the population, i.e. invest in reconstruction while at the same time we fight the Talebans.  We need to avoid blunders like killing civilians by accident by being more careful in how we call airstrikes (double the training like Canada recommended a couple of years ago, use it as a last resort only, etc, etc,)


And of course for that, there need to be a concerted effort by all NATO members.  Not just the US, the UK & 2-3 other nations.

[Ed Anger]

American allies are leeches on the ass of America.

[Berkut]

Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US
V

I don't think I have sat here in this thread trumpeting all the wodnerful things the US has done in Afghanistan - it doesn't have to be said that the US commitment there dwarfs everyone else. Funny that I am accused of doing so simply because it is true, even when I didn't say it.

Comparing the US commitment to everyone else isn't the point. Comparing everyone's commitment to what they COULD commit is the point, and comparing what they are willing to commit to what is likely necessary is the point.

The US is in the same boat - we could commit 5 times as many troops if we really wanted to, I am sure. However, we do have the advantage of having by far the largest commitment already, so it is a bit easier to say that the failure of will lies primarily somewhere else - and of course that follows down the line for other countries that have committed (and lost) troops.

And the measure of force ratios may not be worth much in relation to absolute numbers, but IMHO it is EXACTLY a measure of poltical and national will, if not a measure of anything else.

Indeed - and that is what I have been talking about - the failure is one of national and political will, not one of capability.

[Neil]

American allies are leeches on the ass of America.

Really?  What has an American alliance done for anyone lately?

If anything, it seems that America is leeching off it's allies.

[Warspite]

So Berkut's real objection is that EU defence budgets have not risen to 5% of GDP over the last three years? (ISAF mission expansion started in 2006)

[Neil]

Berkut's problem is that he overestimates the significance of Afghanistan.

[Berkut]

Berkut's real objection is to the claim that you "can't" commit enough troops to fight off a poorly funded and armed bunch of irregulars fighting in the mountains.

In fact, I would ague that you guys are disrespecting yourselves vastly more than I am - my claim is that you could, if you wished and without any serious crimp of your lifestyle, send an order of magnitude more men into harms ways. You don't not because you can't, but because you simply do not want to, and then claim that you CAN'T in order to pretend like there isn't any choice in the matter.

[Berkut]

Berkut's problem is that he overestimates the significance of Afghanistan.

That could be true - although that isn't the argument that I have ever heard made to justify the alck of commitment to the mission.

[Valdemar]

Given the political climate and the history of socialdemocracy at least in Denmark a commitment of the magnitude we are talking about is HUGE in symbolic value and in politcal importance.

It would be highly unlikely to expect anything else, even if you pitance the size of the commitment. Consider the strides that has been taken politically sending 1000 men away when all we have done for almost a century has been handwringing

Even if we doubled the armed forces budget, dumped our millions of dollars commitment in JSF, dropped the 3 new frigs + the 2 already at sea who is doing nato service. Even with all or nothing into Afghanistan we couldn't bring those 1000 anywhere near where it would matter greatly. Scales are simply too small. we are currently having issues recruiting even for 1000 men

That aside, IMHO the only way to get success in Afghanistan is to get more troops.. of Afghan origin, so that it is Afghan forces that kicks down doors in the borderlands near Pakistan, not UK, US DEN CAn or anyone else.

V

[Berkut]

No argument from me Valmy. It is a sad state of affairs though.

But hey - Denmark is a damn small country. When it comes to the military and costs, there is a scaling factor involved - it is likely prohibitively more expensive for a very small nation to contribute boots on the ground.

My disappointment in NATO is not really about Denmark.

[The Minsky Moment]

Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US

And the measure of force ratios may not be worth much in relation to absolute numbers, but IMHO it is EXACTLY a measure of poltical and national will, if not a measure of anything else

In what respect?

Seems to me its a measure of the fact that the US has extensive global military commitments as compared to its allies.  So that even a high priority theater like Afghanistan is going to struggle to get a high percentage of total US troops.    And berkut has a good point - the US "compensates" for this fact by maintaining a high overall level of military mobilization comapres to its allies.

This whole ratio of in theater to out of theater troop levels seems to me totally irrelevant as a measure of anything.

[Valdemar]

In what respect?

Seems to me its a measure of the fact that the US has extensive global military commitments as compared to its allies.  So that even a high priority theater like Afghanistan is going to struggle to get a high percentage of total US troops.    And berkut has a good point - the US "compensates" for this fact by maintaining a high overall level of military mobilization comapres to its allies.

This whole ratio of in theater to out of theater troop levels seems to me totally irrelevant as a measure of anything.

It has a political meaning only. It is showing the level of commitment the government, at least in Denmark, is willing to put into a cause, it has no practical meaning what so ever, only "signal meaning".

Oh and Berk, I'm Valdemar, not Valmy

V