US General asks for more troops

[Berkut]

* 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.

You are such an idiot. The US has over 60,000 troops there now, and the debate is over how many more we are going to send.

Talk about "facts" not being someone strong suit. You are only off by over 100% though, so that is getting better.

[Berkut]

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.

That would be telling, if your numbers were accurate. Since they are not, and since the US is sending in more troops, as usual, someone is in fact full of shit.

[Berkut]

The United States now has about 62,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with NATO and other allies contributing about 35,000 more. The Pentagon is planning to add 6,000 troops by year's end, and some members of Congress say McChrystal soon will call for thousands more.

The fighting has ramped up sharply in the past year as U.S. troops and a NATO-dominated coalition battle a resurgence of the Taliban, the al Qaeda-allied Islamic militia that ruled most of Afghanistan before the attacks. Washington poured an additional 21,000 troops into Afghanistan to provide security for its recent presidential election, which has been marred by allegations of fraud.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/21/afghanistan.mcchrystal/index.html

The level of stupid displayed by Marty consistently over time really has no match on Languish since Ilion bailed.

[Grey Fox]

Being there is more then just sending troops.

Who was it that had orders to not engage in any Military actions? The Germans?

[Valdemar]

Being there is more then just sending troops.

Who was it that had orders to not engage in any Military actions? The Germans?

At least the Germans, I suspect Swedes, French and Italians aren't directly involved.

It is also a question of the area they are stationed. DEN NL US UK CA and a few more routinely rotate into the danger zones of the South, Helmand for instance. While others stay only in the north.

V

[Grey Fox]

The French is a deliquate question. The Legion does stuff we rather not know about.

[Mr.Penguin]

* 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.

You are such an idiot. The US has over 60,000 troops there now, and the debate is over how many more we are going to send.

Talk about "facts" not being someone strong suit. You are only off by over 100% though, so that is getting better.

The numbers above is the troops that are part of the NATO ISAF mission, remember that the US also has about 25000-30000 men as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), you know as part the "war against terror" and all that stuff...

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Haven't you ever heard the joke about the 2 jews shipwrecked on a desert island.

They are finally rescued by a passing cargo ship and the captain notices they have built 3 synagogues on the little island.  The captain asks why 3 synagogues.  One of the Jews replies:  "The first one is the synagogue I go to, the second one is the one he goes to."  "And what about the third one?" asks the captain.  "That's the one neither of us will set foot in."

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

By this logic, the key to increasing US military effort in Afghanistan is for the US economy to tank even further, thus increasing our manpower/GDP ratio.

Also by this logic, present day India has most awesome military force ever assembled.

[Berkut]

The numbers above is the troops that are part of the NATO ISAF mission, remember that the US also has about 25000-30000 men as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), you know as part the "war against terror" and all that stuff...

Marty is only as smart as the nearest wiki article read in the most cursory manner.

Of course, a actual reading of said wiki article he cut and pasted the totality of his knowledge on teh subject from would have noted that the US has something like another 40,000 or more people in Afghanistan beyond our ISAF commitment.

[KRonn]

Haven't you ever heard the joke about the 2 jews shipwrecked on a desert island.

They are finally rescued by a passing cargo ship and the captain notices they have built 3 synagogues on the little island.  The captain asks why 3 synagogues.  One of the Jews replies:  "The first one is the synagogue I go to, the second one is the one he goes to."  "And what about the third one?" asks the captain.  "That's the one neither of us will set foot in."

I lol'd!!   

[Berkut]

See, now Marty has pissed me off. This discussion should not be about who has sent more or who has sent less - we all know the US has and will continue to bear the great burden of combat operations. Who fucking cares.

The issue is that more should be done by EVERYONE, the US included. I think the US is going to pony up - we are planning on increasing our presence to just under 70k by the end of this year, and I guess they are asking for another 4000 combat troops on top of that as well. I hope we send them.

It would be a lot easier to support that here at home if the burden was shared a bit more however. Right now in combat troops, I think it is something like 50% US, and 50% other - and honestly, in casualties (which suggests active combat troops) it is something like 70% US, 20% UK, and the rest a mix of Canadian, German, French, and Polish, IIRC.  Those numbers are off the top of my head though.

NATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.

[Neil]

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

That'll get fixed in a couple of years when the LDP is swept back into power.

Of course, by then everyone will have left Afghanistan anyways.

[Neil]

NATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.

Or perhaps NATO needs to do less.  ALL of NATO.

[viper37]

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


Forget about Germany, their soldiers basically never get out of the base, except on very special circumstances.
France had some special troops there to hunt for Ben Laden, they have since been recalled.
IIRC, The French are prohibited from chasing the ennemy, they can only defend themselves if they come under attack.  Right now, their troops are in charge of training the Afghan police.
Spain won't let troops out of the base.
Italy has since withdrawn its troops.
Poland, Denmark and the Netherlands have, IIRC, increased their troop commitment.  But I don't think they are fighting in the South, for the Dutch, it's the Eastern provinces I think.  So I'm not entirely sure what they're doing out there, what kind of troops they have, etc.

Australia aside, other countries are mostly there for the reconstruction effort.  And they are also smaller countries, so its kinda hard to ask them to have 10 000 troops on the field.

The US has about 20 000 troops, Air Force people under NATO command, the others are assigned to various other projects in Afghanistan, wich may or may not include direct fighting with the Talebans.

And these numbers represent the total number of troops on the field, not just the combat troops.
Canada for example has about 1900-2000 "fighting troops" there, the rest is support staff.

The main problem with this mission is France, Germany, Italy and Spain not pulling their weight and dragging their feet.
France is 60 million people.  They have 3700 people there.
Canada is 30 million, we have 2800.  In the South.  In the hot zone.

I don't think NATO should be dissolved.  But I think that countries who are not willing to make the necessary efforts required by the treaty should consider leaving.  No one is pointing a gun at the head of Germany or France to force them to be part of NATO.  And they did not complain when the US asked for its allies help in dealing with Al-Queida and Afghanistan. 

But now, they are dragging their feet.