US General asks for more troops

[Neil]

It is unwise to expect moral courage from a European.

It might have been better to let the Russians have them.

[Agelastus]

What's your point?  That if we had kept out dick in none of that would have happened?

I don't think we should abandon the same country twice.

We abandoned Canada twice.  And now look at them.

The Brits haven't executed mothers in front of their sons since the...well...I don't even know if the Saxons would have done that.

Much as I dislike admitting it, that's far too rose tinted a view of my country's history; consider some of the "punishments" meted out on the Sepoys of the Indian mutiny.

[Agelastus]

It is unwise to expect moral courage from a European.

It might have been better to let the Russians have them.

I'd be as mad at you as I am at Berkut if I didn't know that you shared my opinion of the nature of Britain's relationship to continental Europe.

[CountDeMoney]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet...

Japan's new defence minister, Toshimi Kitazawa, has said that he will terminate the Maritime Self-Defense Force's (MSDF's) refuelling operations in the Indian Ocean when the current mission expires on 15 January 2010.

In his inaugural ministerial address on 17 September, Kitazawa said: "It's not only our party's basic idea, but the three ruling parties' agreed policy that we won't extend the mission."

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) formed a ruling coalition with the Social Democrats and the New People's Party having won elections in August.

Kitazawa, a former vice-president of the DPJ, said the new administration would instead study the possibility of dispatching civilians to support international efforts in Afghanistan.

The DPJ has a history of opposing any military involvement in Afghanistan, having blocked the dispatch of Japanese naval vessels for three months in 2007.

SAYONARA SO SOLLY

[CountDeMoney]

Your argument is fine in hindsight but nobody was putting limits on their involvement until the resurgence of the Taliban.

So the situation changed. Time to re-evaluate your long term strategy, no?

When the going gets tough....

The Germans bug out and leave the fighting to others.

Great, just great.

No Jews there.  At least, not enough to worry about.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Your argument is fine in hindsight but nobody was putting limits on their involvement until the resurgence of the Taliban.

So the situation changed. Time to re-evaluate your long term strategy, no?

When the going gets tough....

The Germans bug out and leave the fighting to others.

Great, just great.

No Jews there.  At least, not enough to worry about.

Just one now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4206909.stm

I like how the last 2 jews left in Afghanistan spent their time fighting each other.

[Zanza]

When the going gets tough....

The Germans bug out and leave the fighting to others.

Great, just great.

Actually Germany increased its personnel strength and changed the rules of engagement to allow more fighting over the last few years. Not as much as our allies would have liked though, but still. But then, those expectations are not compatible with political realities in Germany. The current involvement the maximum possible that any politician in Germany can sell. 
So far, there is consensus among the centrist parties that will most likely form the next government that Germany will stay in Afghanistan for the time being. So Germany stays committed to the strategy it had for the last few years.
That said, that strategy might not fit the situation in Afghanistan after the resurgence of the Taleban anymore.

To the contrary, the problem is that the situation has not changed.  Only the fickle whims of the masses and of politicians in the West has changed.

Okay. crazy canuck's use of "until" suggested to me that at some point of time the situation in Afghanistan changed. That fits with my perception, but I must admit that I am not particularly fit in the details of the situation there.

[Martinus]

Pres Obama probably can't just leave, given how he put so much emphasis on Afghanistan as the correct war, over the optional war in Iraq. He'd be vilified in that, probably even by those who want us to just leave now, especially if Afghanistan becomes a huge mess after we go. Like he almost can't win no matter his decision, so I hope he can give things time and resources to give a good faith effort. And I hope more of the moderate Dems understand that and give him some lee way, given that some of the other Dems (and non-Dems) are starting to call for withdrawal.

Isn't Iraq in the same risk of becoming a huge mess after we leave as well?

And unlike Afghanistan, which was a huge mess before we came, in terms of internal safety and order Iraq seems to be in a worse position now than it was under Saddam.

[Martinus]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

This is a list of troops sent to Afghanistan by country.

United States - 29,950
United Kingdom - 9,200
Germany - 4,050
France - 3,700
Canada - 2,830
Italy - 2,795
Poland - 2,000
Netherlands - 1,770
Australia - 1,550
Romania - 1,025
Spain - 780
Turkey - 730
Denmark - 700
Belgium - 510
Norway - 485
Bulgaria - 470
Sweden - 397
Czech Republic - 340

I fail to see how you could single out Canada like that. But then again, facts have never been your strong side.

[Martinus]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

Look up "paltry" in the dictionary.

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

Canada's population is about 1/10 of the US population. Canada has sent about the 1/10 amount the US have sent, in terms of troops. I hardly see how their contribution can be seen as paltry, to be honest.

[Martinus]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

Look up "paltry" in the dictionary.

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

We've had between one and two thousand troops in Afghanistan nearly continuously since '03.  Our armed forces only total about 50k, of which sadly many are more administrative people, or are in the airforce or navy.  We don't have all that many more troops we could send.

And our troops have been fighting and dying that entire time.  They have not been restricted to Kabul like some nations.

On a per capita basis we have done our share.  You can argue we ought to have a larger army and so ought to be able to send more troops.  You can make that argument.  But to call our contribution "paltry and sad" when we literally sent as many trooops as we could is just not accurate.

And not just you. Most countries that have sent their troops have done their share, in either per capita or GDP-based way (for example, Polish economy is smaller than that of the Netherlands and 20 times smaller than the US one, so our contribution that is only 15 times smaller than the US one actually means it's the US that are slacking). Berkut, as usual, is just full of shit.

[Valdemar]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

This is a list of troops sent to Afghanistan by country.

United States - 29,950
United Kingdom - 9,200
Germany - 4,050
France - 3,700
Canada - 2,830
Italy - 2,795
Poland - 2,000
Netherlands - 1,770
Australia - 1,550
Romania - 1,025
Spain - 780
Turkey - 730
Denmark - 700
Belgium - 510
Norway - 485
Bulgaria - 470
Sweden - 397
Czech Republic - 340

I fail to see how you could single out Canada like that. But then again, facts have never been your strong side.

I think the numbers are low for DEN, but that aside i find it much more interesting to discuss what SORT of troops they are and what sort of roles they carry out.

I know ours are all combat troops, with materials and leopard tanks to back that, and including our small, but highly rated special forces permanently on tour there as well. Add to that a full combat hospital serving as THE hospital for both Danes and brits in Helman

I know the French HAVE NOT sent in the Legion which would otherwise be an obvious choice in this situation.

V

[Martinus]

Well, Polish troops are mainly combat troops. And this is probably the reason why Polish public is growing to be more and more against the mission (that, and the nonchalant way Yankees treat us), since there has been some highly publicized (though not high by combat standards) casualties among Polish troops. There has also been a case of an apparently unwarranted use of force against a civilian village by Poles who it seems were following intel provided by the Yanks - again, Poland being a country which has historically been mainly invaded (and its civilians slaughtered) rather than vice-versa, that kind of stuff does not really go well here.

[Octavian]

Add to that a full combat hospital serving as THE hospital for both Danes and brits in Helman

http://forsvaret.dk/HOK/Nyt%20og%20Presse/ISAF/Pages/BoldogbarbecueiBastion.aspx

[Mr.Penguin]

I think the numbers are low for DEN, but that aside i find it much more interesting to discuss what SORT of troops they are and what sort of roles they carry out.

I know ours are all combat troops, with materials and leopard tanks to back that, and including our small, but highly rated special forces permanently on tour there as well. Add to that a full combat hospital serving as THE hospital for both Danes and brits in Helman

I know the French HAVE NOT sent in the Legion which would otherwise be an obvious choice in this situation.

V

Nope, 700 soldiers is spot on, sometime do the number goes up a bit, to around 720 to 750, but no higher than that. Its due to the limits set by our parlement, if the local danish commander wants more troops does he need a new mandate from our parlement...