Here is a US General resquestion more troops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html?hpid=topnews
It is speculated that the reason such a report is leaked, combined with the new administration dragging its feet to send the promised reinforcements (and most of the Euros refusing to either send troops or go outside the base), is that the US is about ready to cut&run.
As Al-Queida already won?
No more troops for this lost cause!!!!
No blood for useless wasteland!
It's a waste of resources. Let the Chinese handle it.
Generals always want more troops. Even if you've the most kick arse super powered military ever they'll still complain.
Its their job.
Quote from: Tyr on September 21, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
Generals always want more troops. Even if you've the most kick arse super powered military ever they'll still complain.
Its their job.
If he had a million troops he'd claim that Al-Quaeda had 2 million.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 21, 2009, 10:53:49 AM
If he had a million troops he'd claim that Al-Quaeda had 2 million.
I knew George B McClellan was in command in Afghanistan. Finally an explanation for why we are sucking it up out there.
US domestic political factors do not favor a prolongued presence in Afghanistan.
Wouldn't it be a historical irony if we ended up winning the bad war and losing the good war?
I think just now the US is really focusing efforts, changing tactics/strategy in Afghanistan, to what perhaps should have been happening more strongly before. But Iraq got all the attention, was a bigger conflict, and really, Iraq is a major nation in the middle of the Mid East, so should have gotten more focus. Questions are whether we should have been in Iraq, but that's now beside the point of winning/losing in Afghanistan.
I give Pres Obama credit for pushing the new efforts in Afghanistan, new commanders including General Petraeus. I hope we can give it time for new ideas and more focus, since things had been stagnating there before due to lack of attention and what ever else. We were about to quit on Iraq too, but got new military leadership and ideas in there, after all the mistakes and poor leadership by Rumsfeld, Bremmer, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 11:43:16 AM
Wouldn't it be a historical irony if we ended up winning the bad war and losing the good war?
I think it would be historically logical that we would succeed where we have been putting most of our resources. :P
But yeah I see what you are getting at. I disagree that political factors compell us to leave Afghanistan, I actually think the public wants the government to focus more on it.
Time to make the well-ordered moesha step forward.
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.
Maybe we can just buy them out. It might be cheaper if we just pay everyone to leave and declare it a super fund site. Then dump toxic waste on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 11:43:16 AM
US domestic political factors do not favor a prolongued presence in Afghanistan.
Wouldn't it be a historical irony if we ended up winning the bad war and losing the good war?
We'll just reinvade in 2012
Its crunch time in the sense that the Canadian forces will be leaving in 2011, no other nations are going to contribute more forces and the forces from other nations will likely be pulled out or reduced as well.
Like it or not this is about to become an American war very quickly and you folks have to figure out what you actually want to do about it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:35:27 PM
Its crunch time in the sense that the Canadian forces will be leaving in 2011, no other nations are going to contribute more forces and the forces from other nations will likely be pulled out or reduced as well.
Like it or not this is about to become an American war very quickly and you folks have to figure out what you actually want to do about it.
The US should have invaded Canada instead; at least you guys have oil, food, natural gas and timber. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 02:35:27 PM
Its crunch time in the sense that the Canadian forces will be leaving in 2011, no other nations are going to contribute more forces and the forces from other nations will likely be pulled out or reduced as well.
Like it or not this is about to become an American war very quickly and you folks have to figure out what you actually want to do about it.
Right - the funny thing is if it fails, it will end up being our fault, of course.
Not the fault of everyone who categorically refused to do anything at all*, but the fault of the country that did try to do something.
* 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.
Quote from: KRonn on September 21, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
The US should have invaded Canada instead; at least you guys have oil, food, natural gas and timber. ;)
Dont forget good beer. You guys are getting better micro breweries but the swill most of you drink is still disgusting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:03:55 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 21, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
The US should have invaded Canada instead; at least you guys have oil, food, natural gas and timber. ;)
Dont forget good beer. You guys are getting better micro breweries but the swill most of you drink is still disgusting.
Ah yes, even more reason to invade. And you guys might not even notice a few (thousands) more Yanks roaming about your rather vast countryside.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
Right - the funny thing is if it fails, it will end up being our fault, of course.
Not the fault of everyone who categorically refused to do anything at all*, but the fault of the country that did try to do something.
* 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.
I agree. Which is why I said this was crunch time. Afganistan didnt get solved within the time that Canada could stick around politically. Any politician who suggested extending the mission at this point would be lynched. I suspect politicians in the US are going to face similar problems.
This will be called a US blunder if (and I sadly suspect - when) this mission fails even though the international community did squat as a collective whole to step up to the plate after supporting the war at the start. Critics will say if the US had not invaded Iraq but put her whole might into Afganistan then this would never have happened. That of course ignores the fact that if the Germans et al had decided to join the Canadians/Dutch in the South and the Americans in the North things also might have gone better but that will get lost.
Quote from: KRonn on September 21, 2009, 03:06:29 PM
Ah yes, even more reason to invade. And you guys might not even notice a few (thousands) more Yanks roaming about your rather vast countryside.
The only qualitative difference is that our border guards will not have the power to ask US citizens to hand over their fire arms while in Canada.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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'.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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'.
He meant you terrorist sympathizers need to man up and do your fair share.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:10:32 PM
I suspect politicians in the US are going to face similar problems.
Um...no. I have never actually heard a US politician actually saying we should leave Afghanistan.
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 04:00:29 PM
Um...no. I have never actually heard a US politician actually saying we should leave Afghanistan.
I'm pretty sure Dingleberry did.
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 04:00:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:10:32 PM
I suspect politicians in the US are going to face similar problems.
Um...no. I have never actually heard a US politician actually saying we should leave Afghanistan.
Dennis the Menace
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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.
I don't think it's so straightforward. The problem is that the commitment necessary to win is looking increasingly open-ended. There's a legitimate question to be asked: if we can't make Afghanistan work in ten years, will another ten make a difference?
There are two issues. It's not just about beating the Taliban, it's about making an Afghan state that works. And that's something no one really knows how to do. It is not something that another 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 NATO troops can solve.
My issue with the current mission is that while I do think we should keep at it, no one has actually asked
why were the Taliban successful in holding sway of most of the country until 2001? Until we know this, I don't think we can really beat them.
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 04:18:34 PM
My issue with the current mission is that while I do think we should keep at it, no one has actually asked why were the Taliban successful in holding sway of most of the country until 2001? Until we know this, I don't think we can really beat them.
Support from the Pakistani Intelligence Services?
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 04:19:42 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 04:18:34 PM
My issue with the current mission is that while I do think we should keep at it, no one has actually asked why were the Taliban successful in holding sway of most of the country until 2001? Until we know this, I don't think we can really beat them.
Support from the Pakistani Intelligence Services?
I'd be worried if support from a third-world state's intelligence service was a decisive factor in favour when our billions of dollars can't produce a stable countryside.
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 04:23:41 PM
I'd be worried if support from a third-world state's intelligence service was a decisive factor in favour when our billions of dollars can't produce a stable countryside.
The Taliban didn't produce a stable countryside, warlordism was rampant. Our goals and means are totally different.
I don't buy the idea that we cannot manage to control Afghanistan, even if NATO put a decent effort into it, therefore, there is no reason to put a decent effort into it.
We ahve experts there who say what they need, and they have been saying the same thing for a long time - they need more troops, more money, more support.
We are going to not give it to them, then sit back and say "well, we don't think it would really work even if we gave you what you say you need". Bullshit - that is just excuse making.
If Afghanistan ends up a failure, it will be because the West decided it wasn't important enough to succeed. It is just that simple.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 04:26:39 PM
I don't buy the idea that we cannot manage to control Afghanistan, even if NATO put a decent effort into it, therefore, there is no reason to put a decent effort into it.
We ahve experts there who say what they need, and they have been saying the same thing for a long time - they need more troops, more money, more support.
Are these experts saying it's a sure thing with money and support?
I know the money hasn't exactly been limited. All the reports I read are about its wasteful use; in Western donor culture, the focus is on disbursement, rather than effective use. Politically, despite all these resources, Afghanistan is a sorry state. The Ministry of the Interior is a corrupt morass of self-serving kleptocrats. Locals joke that, to remove crime in an area, you should remove the Police. (The Afghan National Army, however, is quite good, although smaller than needed)
QuoteWe are going to not give it to them, then sit back and say "well, we don't think it would really work even if we gave you what you say you need". Bullshit - that is just excuse making.
If Afghanistan ends up a failure, it will be because the West decided it wasn't important enough to succeed. It is just that simple.
So you dismiss without consideration the school of thought that says state-making in a rugged, backwards, tribally-dominated state is, in practical terms, near enough impossible?
Also I guess I considered the goals of the operation was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda and leave Aghanistan in somewhat decent shape. I did not realize it was considered a reasonable expectation to create a stable democratic sort of state. I mean naturally we want it to be as stable and democratic as possible under the circumstances.
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 04:43:56 PM
Also I guess I considered the goals of the operation was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda and leave Aghanistan in somewhat decent shape. I did not realize it was considered a reasonable expectation to create a stable democratic sort of state. I mean naturally we want it to be as stable and democratic as possible under the circumstances.
The problem is that even creating a functioning centralised state has proven extremely difficult.
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 04:35:24 PM
So you dismiss without consideration the school of thought that says state-making in a rugged, backwards, tribally-dominated state is, in practical terms, near enough impossible?
I dismiss the argument that almost anything is "impossible", yes. Not sure where you get "without consideration" though.
People were saying the same thing about Iraq, btw - that any success there was absolutely impossible no matter what was done. Oops.
We can control Afghanistan, if we put in enough troops and enough funds. If we do not, then I suppose we can try to make ourselves feel better by claiming that there was never any chance to begin with, although that would then suggest that we should never have toppled the Taliban to begin with, even if they were hiding AQ.
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 04:49:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 04:43:56 PM
Also I guess I considered the goals of the operation was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda and leave Aghanistan in somewhat decent shape. I did not realize it was considered a reasonable expectation to create a stable democratic sort of state. I mean naturally we want it to be as stable and democratic as possible under the circumstances.
The problem is that even creating a functioning centralised state has proven extremely difficult.
No question it is extremely difficult - especially on the cheap and when the people trying to accomplish anything are hamstrung by lack of resources or will.
The sad thing is that when it does fail due to laack of resources, the people who created the failure in the first place get to sit back and say "See, told you it would fail!"
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
Berkut, do I have to take you off my (non-existent) Christmas card list on behalf of 216 men who will now and forever be better men than I could ever be?
:mad:
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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.
AFAIK the Canucks had the highest casualty rate per thousand personnel years - by far.
We already went through this with Iraq. The generals asked for an infusion of more troops and delineated a strategy for their use. Many people expressed skepticism, along similar lines as here. I was one of those skeptics. The generals were right. The skeptics were not. The policy worked - not 100%, but just about as well as any counterinsurgency strategy could reasonably expected to work. One could reasonably argue about whether we should have been there in the first place, etc. but as to whether the Iraq "surge" was good policy I can't really see the other side of the argument anymore.
Now of course one could say Afghanistan is different, the strategic posture is different, the planned use of the troops is different, etc. etc. But bottom line is that a choice is presented - does one take the generals at their word and give them their shot or not?
I think they earned their shot.
The generals in Iraq also fused their efforts with an effective political strategy. I am sure (or I hope) they have a better one for Afghanistan, beyond 'back Karzai'.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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'.
While what we did contribute stretched our armed forces to the breaking point, it is still a drop in the bucket compared to what should have been contributed by the world community.
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 05:28:35 PM
The generals in Iraq also fused their efforts with an effective political strategy. I am sure (or I hope) they have a better one for Afghanistan, beyond 'back Karzai'.
I don't think the US has been backing Karzai for at least a year now.
Why would we want a democracy there in the first place? Without all sorts of complicated safeguards wouldn't the dominant tribes and/or fundamentalist wackjobs win most of the elections?
With the elections going on over there, Coalition forces are making a specific point to stay neutral wrt Karzai. He doesn't have the backing of the US.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 21, 2009, 05:41:07 PM
With the elections going on over there, Coalition forces are making a specific point to stay neutral wrt Karzai. He doesn't have the backing of the US.
Perhaps not overtly at the moment - but given that Afghanistan is not a self-sustaining parliamentary democracy, and still essentially a collection of warlords and the Taliban, there's no one else to throw in one's lot with.
All douchebags that think we should leave Afghanistan need to go down to the World Trade Center for a little while.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 06:16:06 PM
All douchebags that think we should leave Afghanistan need to go down to the World Trade Center for a little while.
Latest ABC poll has 53% of Americans responding that the war is not worth fighting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 06:17:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 06:16:06 PM
All douchebags that think we should leave Afghanistan need to go down to the World Trade Center for a little while.
Latest ABC poll has 53% of Americans responding that the war is not worth fighting.
Any war in which a Taliban/Al Qaeda neanderthal gets killed is a war worth fighting, and then the world has one less rape victim-shooting, fag-tossing child molesting moon worshipper trying to kill us.
Sounds like 53% of Americans need to jump to their deaths from a burning skyscraper to get their priorities straight.
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 04:35:24 PM(The Afghan National Army, however, is quite good, although smaller than needed)
But isn't this a problem in itself. We want the Afghan National Army to be around 150 000 within the next few years. The goal overall is for it to be 250-300 000. I just don't see how a country like Afghanistan can hope to sustain a military of that size.
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.
QuoteI don't think the US has been backing Karzai for at least a year now.
They have, everyone has. His government's unpleasant but the fear was that any other candidate (effectively Abdullah Abdullah) would drive even more Pashtuns into the Taliban.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 06:17:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 06:16:06 PM
All douchebags that think we should leave Afghanistan need to go down to the World Trade Center for a little while.
Latest ABC poll has 53% of Americans responding that the war is not worth fighting.
I don't think it's a war people care about though. I mean many countries have figures like that and it doesn't make Afghanistan a big enough issue for politicians to lose votes, or people to march over.
Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2009, 06:23:53 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 21, 2009, 09:13:40 AM
No more troops for this lost cause!!!!
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 21, 2009, 09:25:14 AM
No blood for useless wasteland!
Burger eating surrender monkeys? ;)
I think we should kill as many Talibaners as possible. Then go into Pakistan.
Quote from: Tyr on September 21, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
Generals always want more troops. Even if you've the most kick arse super powered military ever they'll still complain.
Its their job.
true.
But there's been insufficient troops there since victory was declared.
And insufficient intelligence resources, wich was more critical. It's been posted before. Long articles, as always ;)
Anyway, I don't blame the US for not putting more troops there, I blame the other NATO allies who did not put sufficient troops or gave them such restrictions that it was the same as though they weren't there.
But now there's a problem: there is the need for more troops&resources there to win the fight. No country will do anything about it. Will the US cut&run or will they commit the needed resources?
Crazy canuck got it right, it will be viewed as a US failure, the same way Vietnam is seen. The same way Iraq will be seen if the situation doesn't improve beyond the "casual terrorist attack".
Quote from: Valmy on September 21, 2009, 04:00:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2009, 03:10:32 PM
I suspect politicians in the US are going to face similar problems.
Um...no. I have never actually heard a US politician actually saying we should leave Afghanistan.
At least one Democrat politician said the US should leave the country, and I hear the Congress doesn't want to approve new funding/troops for the mission. Or am I mistaken?
Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2009, 06:30:30 PM
Anyway, I don't blame the US for not putting more troops there,
I do. It rests solely on the Bush Administration. After all, it was so much more important to invade a country whose leader tried to whack Dubya's Daddy, and YAH JUS DOAN MESS WIFF TEXAS.
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 04:18:34 PM
I don't think it's so straightforward. The problem is that the commitment necessary to win is looking increasingly open-ended. There's a legitimate question to be asked: if we can't make Afghanistan work in ten years, will another ten make a difference?
For how many years were there a UN presence in Cyprus?
What happenned to Somalia when everyone left? Is it a haven of peace now?
Really, I think it is straighforward: Leave Afghanistan and provide AQ with the means to attack US&others again or stay there until they are forever defeated, even if that takes another 30 years.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 04:26:39 PM
I don't buy the idea that we cannot manage to control Afghanistan, even if NATO put a decent effort into it, therefore, there is no reason to put a decent effort into it.
We ahve experts there who say what they need, and they have been sayinthe same thing for a long time - they need more troops, more money, more support.
We are going to not give it to them, then sit back and say "well, we don't think it would really work even if we gave you what you say you need". Bullshit - that is just excuse making.
If Afghanistan ends up a failure, it will be because the West decided it wasn't important enough to succeed. It is just that simple.
I agree wholeheartedly with that, and I think it's a first that I am 100% in agreement with Berkut ever since the days of EUOT...
no blood for poppies
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 06:25:46 PM
I don't think it's a war people care about though. I mean many countries have figures like that and it doesn't make Afghanistan a big enough issue for politicians to lose votes, or people to march over.
Combine that with a Democratic base that's opposed to the war and already upset with Obama on a number of issues, and a president who doesn't like to spend political capital, that's not a recipe for success.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 06:55:53 PM
Combine that with a Democratic base that's opposed to the war and already upset with Obama on a number of issues, and a president who doesn't like to spend political capital, that's not a recipe for success.
I disagree. I don't think people currently really care about Afghanistan - opposition is dissatisfaction not rage, support is pretty tepid. That could change but I think it's difficult for opposition to a war to get riled up when almost everyone initially supported it. I don't think the Democrat base are that angry either.
I actually think Afghanistan could start a division in Republican foreign policy thinking. The neocons on one side arguing for whatever it takes and, on the other side, old school conservatives (like George Will) for whom Afghanistan's the model of a futile war - nation building in, difficult terrain, with little support and opponents on many sides.
If we pull out of Afghanistan it won't be because of public anger or Congressional/Parliamentary votes. It'll be because a group of wise men go there and say it's not worth it/not winnable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 07:07:10 PM
I disagree. I don't think people currently really care about Afghanistan - opposition is dissatisfaction not rage, support is pretty tepid. That could change but I think it's difficult for opposition to a war to get riled up when almost everyone initially supported it. I don't think the Democrat base are that angry either.
I actually think Afghanistan could start a division in Republican foreign policy thinking. The neocons on one side arguing for whatever it takes and, on the other side, old school conservatives (like George Will) for whom Afghanistan's the model of a futile war - nation building in, difficult terrain, with little support and opponents on many sides.
If we pull out of Afghanistan it won't be because of public anger or Congressional/Parliamentary votes. It'll be because a group of wise men go there and say it's not worth it/not winnable.
If by a panel of wise men you mean a fig leaf to hide behind, I agree.
No, there's not rage, and I don't think we'll see it. What we will see are candlelight vigils for dead US servicemen, increasingly snide political cartoons and late night jokes, water cooler mutterings about quagmires and flowerly op-eds from Maureen Dowd and Joe Klein about the greater type of courage that it takes to admit you can't win. All aimed at a president that takes the public mood very seriously.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2009, 06:17:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2009, 06:16:06 PM
All douchebags that think we should leave Afghanistan need to go down to the World Trade Center for a little while.
Latest ABC poll has 53% of Americans responding that the war is not worth fighting.
Good news for NYC tourism!
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 05:28:35 PM
The generals in Iraq also fused their efforts with an effective political strategy. I am sure (or I hope) they have a better one for Afghanistan, beyond 'back Karzai'.
there was an operational strategy of clear, hold build, and cutting deals with local milita commanders. No reason in theory why the model can't be ported over. There wasn't an overarching political strategy in Iraq on a national level, and indeed we were stuck with the less than inspiring Maliki (shades of Karzai there) and a dysfunctional government that STILL HAS NOT PASSED A PROPER OIL LAW among other deficiencies.
My skepticism with the surge in Iraq was precisely that there seemed to be no approach to dealing with the fundamental political problems - many of these still remain unresolved to this day and yet the results of the strategy were still positive.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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.
I do in fact make that argument.
Saying we sent as many as we could because we hardly had any to begin with doesn't address my point at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0jhJA1Hjxk
*respect*
:Canuck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSYipouABI)
Berkut's hatred of Canada was obviously inspired by the lamestream media.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:57:28 PM
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.
Why? Until this summer, both countries had .1% of their population in Afghanistan, and the US military is proportionately twice as large as Canada's.
Face it: The US has been slacking in Afghanistan and leaving Canada to carry the load. It's no wonder that the Canadian military is pulling out.
If only we could satisfy Afghanistan's security needs with fingers being pointed. Then we would have more than we could ever need.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 21, 2009, 09:20:17 PM
If only we could satisfy Afghanistan's security needs with fingers being pointed. Then we would have more than we could ever need.
Why should Canada care about Afghanistan's security needs? Afghanistan did nothing to Canada. Strictly speaking, it's shouldn't even be a NATO matter.
Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2009, 09:10:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:57:28 PM
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.
Why? Until this summer, both countries had .1% of their population in Afghanistan,
And that is clearly not enough for either country.
I guess you could argue that if the rest of NATO gave a damn and actually sent some troops who were willing to actually do something, neither the US or Canada would need to send more into Afghanistan.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 09:29:21 PM
And that is clearly not enough for either country.
I guess you could argue that if the rest of NATO gave a damn and actually sent some troops who were willing to actually do something, neither the US or Canada would need to send more into Afghanistan.
I TAKE IT I SHOULD PETITION THE IDIOT IN CHARGE OF MY COUNTRY TO SEND OUR 9000 TROOPS HOME THEN, INSTEAD OF SENDING MORE AS HE IS THINKING OF DOING? DO YOU WANT ME TO SPIT IN THE FACE OF THE SACRIFICE OVER 200 OF MY COUNTRYMEN HAVE MADE, WHILE FIGHTING IN HELMAND AND ELSEWHERE? Excuse the rant, brought on by tiredness and general pissed-off-ness.
You really should take the time to read more carefully.
I can't help but wonder how someone can confuse "Canada (and everyone) should send more troops" with "DO YOU THINK MY COUNTRY SHOULD SEND OUR TROOPS HOME! ZOMG! FER SURE!"
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 11:46:54 PM
You really should take the time to read more carefully.
If one or your posts has said the USA, Canada and
the UK, I will apologise unreservedly; however, as I go back to re-read the thread, I am not convinced this will be the case, as I first posted a similar comment (albeit in much less...pronounced...form, two pages ago in this thread.
Basically, you have said or implied in your posts that only Canada supported the USA by sending its troops into harm's way, and the rest of NATO has not. As far as I am aware, the UK is part of NATO, and although we cannot match the proportion of dead to troops deployed, 216 of my countrymen have died supporting our American allies in Afghanistan.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 21, 2009, 11:50:04 PM
Basically, you have said or implied in your posts that only Canada supported the USA by sending its troops into harm's way,
That is basically totally untrue.
Go back and re-read the thread without the chip on your shoulder. I never said anything about the UK in particular, and the only thing I have said is that NATO in general needs to step up.
The does include the UK - it includes all the NATO nations - although obviously this is directed more at those who have done less than those who have done more.
According to Wikipedia:
29950 out of 1097050 (including reserves) 2.7%
9000 out of 146100 (including reserves) 6.2%
Yes, you are committed to Iraq as well, I know, but before you start mouthing off about -
Quote* 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.
please note that as a proportion of our army we have twice as high a percentage as your country does in Afghanistan.
Canada did and is still doing sterling service in Afghanistan, but please do not blow off your other allies and their soldiers who have died alongside yours.
Analysis: Obama's caught in a vise on Afghanistan troop levelsQuoteMore U.S. troops to Afghanistan? Obama's caught in a vise
By Steven Thomma, Jonathan S. Landay and David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — With the military and Republicans publicly pressuring him to send more troops to Afghanistan soon and his own administration now deeply divided about how to proceed there, the eight-year war against al Qaida and the Taliban has become an increasingly urgent policy and political dilemma for President Barack Obama .
He can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.
Obama's decision could be a defining moment of his presidency, and it will reveal much about how he leads. Friends and enemies around the world will be watching — and judging — whether he's firmly in charge or whether he instinctively seeks some safe middle ground.
"This is tough for Democrats. They own this war. They own what happens from here on out. This is a bit of a mess for them all the way around," said Juan Carlos Zarate , a senior adviser at Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former official in the Bush and Clinton administrations.
In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider "dithering" from the White House . Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday that he isn't ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan , someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing that more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.
The White House insisted anew Monday that the president won't be stampeded into a quick decision on more troops, saying that he first wants to make sure there's a sound strategy in place to secure Afghanistan and make certain that it can't be used as a haven for al Qaida terrorists, as it was before 2001.
His hesitation reflects deep divisions within his own administration and deep uncertainty about whether, even with tens of thousands more troops, the U.S. can succeed in Afghanistan without a less corrupt and legitimately elected Afghan government, greater cooperation from neighboring Pakistan and more time and money than the American public and the Congress may be willing to commit.
Opponents of escalation, led by Vice President Joe Biden and his national security adviser, Antony Blinken ; Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon; and deputy secretaries of state Jacob Lew and Jim Steinberg , fear that Afghanistan is a quagmire that will further undermine the administration's domestic political agenda and hurt the Democrats in next year's congressional elections.
The Pentagon itself is sharply divided over what to do, said several defense officials who weren't authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity, with much, but not all, of the uniformed military lined up behind Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan . McChrystal wrote the leaked memo, but top policy advisers such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy oppose his plan. Some senior officers also are concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan would add to the already severe strains on an Army and Marine Corps from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .
Opponents of a buildup contend that al Qaida , which they note is based in Pakistan , not in Afghanistan , could be neutralized by having U.S. special forces standing by and ready to attack bin Laden's followers once actionable intelligence on their locations is acquired.
This group "wants to find an area where you can pay off enough warlords to provide you with security and then launch from there," another defense official said, requesting anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. Meantime, he said, this group would continue building up and training Afghan security forces.
That alternative, however, would require more U.S. troops to train Afghan forces.
McChrystal and other proponents of committing more troops argue, as his memo does, that success in Afghanistan is "still achievable" but without more U.S. troops soon, the war "will likely result in failure."
The internal debate behind closed doors comes as the American people increasingly oppose the war. In one recent poll for CNN , 58 percent said they opposed the war, while 39 percent favored it. The poll was conducted Sept 11-13 .
They also don't much like the idea of sending more troops. A McClatchy-Ipsos poll at the end of August found 56 percent of Americans opposed to sending more troops, while 35 percent favored it.
Not surprisingly, many Democrats in Congress oppose sending more troops. Many of them will face re-election next year.
"It would be a major mistake to increase troop levels — we're getting sucked into something we'll never be able to get out of," said Rep. Jim McGovern , D- Mass.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey , D- Calif. , said it would be a waste of manpower to send more troops to Afghanistan . "There's no military solution to Afghanistan ," she said.
Other Democrats want to wait for Obama to take the lead rather than risk splitting with their leader over a controversial war in the first year of his presidency.
"Until the president makes a decision on this, I think we're really jumping way ahead of ourselves to find out what we need in Afghanistan ," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev.
Republicans are urging Obama to give McChrystal what he wants — and threatening to lambaste Obama if he backs down.
Rep. John Boehner , R- Ohio , his party's leader in the House of Representatives , noted that Obama in March endorsed the idea of a strong counterinsurgency strategy to secure Afghanistan .
"I am deeply troubled, however, by reports that the White House is delaying action on the general's request for more troops . . . . It's time for the president to clarify where he stands on the strategy he has articulated, because the longer we wait, the more we put our troops at risk."
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky echoed Boehner in calling for Obama to give McChrystal what he asks: "Anything less would confirm al Qaida's view that America lacks the strength and the resolve to endure a long war."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama refuses to be rushed into a decision and that he won't order more troops unless a clear strategy demands that.
"The president obviously has seen General McChrystal's report and has had a chance to look at it and is in the process of, with his national security team and those at the Pentagon , working through some of the strategic assessments that the president thinks need to be evaluated," Gibbs said.
Gibbs refused to say whether that might include scaling back the Afghanistan mission to a strategy focused more narrowly on al Qaida leaders.
"The president is going to focus on getting the strategy right," Gibbs said, "and I'm not going to go through what options he may or may not have."
There are currently 65,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan . There are expected to be 68,000 by November with the arrival of the last of the 17,700 troops and 4,000 trainers Obama ordered in the spring. There are an additional 39,000 NATO troops.
( William Douglas and Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.)
QuoteThere are currently 65,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan . There are expected to be 68,000 by November with the arrival of the last of the 17,700 troops and 4,000 trainers Obama ordered in the spring. There are an additional 39,000 NATO troops.
It seems Wikipedia's behind or not recording correctly.
I don't have a breakdown for the above figure, but assuming it would mostly come under army personnel, that would be 6.2% as well. Same level of effort, Berkut, although your army is better equipped.
Actually, it would have been better if I expressed the figures as a percentage of total armed forces, although that still distorts the figures (due to the size of the US navy relative to he Royal Navy, neither of which service can have many troops on the ground.)
According to Wikipedia
68000 out of 2932400 inc reserves. - 2.3%
9000 out of 233600 inc. reserves. - 3.9%
The thing of it is, I don't disagree with you - NATO needs to get its' act together and flood Afghanistan with something like a hundred to a hundred and fifty thousand more troops. If we fail in Afghanistan it will be another message to the extremists that democracies cannot stay the course for a long war. If British troops need to be in Afghanistan 30 years from now, then they should be there 30 years from now.
What I can't stand is the way you have insulted the efforts my country has already put in with your off-hand remarks.
QuoteHe can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.
Fuck the Liberal base...what are they going to do? Vote Republican?
Isn't this the guy who was so gung ho about prosecuting this war he wanted to invade the Pakistan tribal areas during the primaries? WTH?
Obama better not fuck this one up.
I used to support German involvement in Afghanistan, I even supported more involvement, e.g. helping out in the south. But I am no longer convinced that it does anything tangible. We should consider withdrawing with the Canadians and Dutch in the next two years.
It's possible that an increased amount of soldiers and money like the surge might result in more tangible results, but frankly that's not a price I am willing to pay. I think there are other things that are more important and we should use our limited resources for that.
I wish the old languish hadn't gone tits up, I had said a few years ago to the people whining that Iraq was hopeless and we should focus on Afghanistan that Iraq was a much easier problem to solve than Afghanistan (while also stating that success in Iraq would have much higher external benefits than success in Afghaistan would bring). Running COIN in Afghanistan has always seemed an incredibly difficult task, and even though big Army has finally grasped COIN the environment is still extremely difficulty. Even the rumoured request for an additional 40,000 troops would leave Afghanistan with less troops than Iraq had prior to the surge, while having a landmass thrice the size with a 20 percent larger population and much smaller Afghani securty forces. And I haven't even talked about the logistical challenges (which are about 2.5 times higher per Soldier than in Iraq). We're looking at a very long path towards progress, probably at least three years before we can even think about reducing our footprint again, and that is under the most optimistic scenario. When asked at my think tank about Afghanistan I always say that we have to think in terms of generations not in years. Alas, most of them seem to think Afghanistan is either hopeless or not worth the effort and we should focus on hunter/killer teams chasing down Al Qaeda, a strategy that of course has about zero chance of success.
Obama's been sitting on the report because he doesn't want it to distract from the health care issue, which isn't going anywhere. Thus, the report was leaked to the press to force his hand. McCrystal was ordered to provide a strategy report without accompanied force level requests, which is odd but again played into the WH strategy of trying to evade debating the subject. The problem is that even without the request for forces element the report is dire enough to cause alarm. The NSA advisor Jim Jones had already flat-out stated that any additional request for forces would result in a WTF? from the WH. The WH and their advisors are against any increase of troops, while Gates, Hillary, and Holbrooke are very much for it.
In the end I don't think Obama can refuse the request, because he then would own failure in Afghanistan. There is no way Obama could convince a sceptical public that he knows better than McCrystal, whom he put in charge in Afghanistan, and Patreus, who won in Iraq, how we can achieve success in Afghanistan (though he does seem at times delusional as to the ability of his own oratory, no doubt helped along by the idolation of the msm).
Quote from: Warspite on September 21, 2009, 05:17:29 PM
AFAIK the Canucks had the highest casualty rate per thousand personnel years - by far.
I do, unfortunately, believe that sad record is with the Danes atm :(
And despite the US centric ways of Berkut and the usual overloking of small nations, Denmark has been in from the start, in Kandahar, with the british, in full combat roles, with, in terms of ratio men/total armed forces sizes, one of the largest contributions at all.
V
Quote from: Valdemar on September 22, 2009, 07:23:35 AM
And despite the US centric ways of Berkut and the usual overloking of small nations, Denmark has been in from the start, in Kandahar, with the british, in full combat roles, with, in terms of ratio men/total armed forces sizes, one of the largest contributions at all.
Danes and the Dutch have both taken on quite a lot, I believe.
Thanks for your post Hans, we were talking today here at work about whether Obama could refuse this request.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2009, 07:24:29 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on September 22, 2009, 07:23:35 AM
And despite the US centric ways of Berkut and the usual overloking of small nations, Denmark has been in from the start, in Kandahar, with the british, in full combat roles, with, in terms of ratio men/total armed forces sizes, one of the largest contributions at all.
Danes and the Dutch have both taken on quite a lot, I believe.
Aye :) But there are 3 times as many Dutch to throw at the Taliban as there are Danes :D
We are atm close to 1000 men there (927 IIRC, penquin would know) most if not all in combat roles in forward bases in Helmand and of those we have lost if memory serves me 29.
I know these numbers seem small to the US, UK, CA, but in relative terms this is very close to the limit of what can be supported with the very small armed force base of pro soldiers Denmark has avaiable while still contesting Canada over HAns island :P and fighting pirates of Somalia with a frig :)
V
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2009, 12:32:33 AM
QuoteHe can escalate an unpopular and open-ended war and risk a backlash from his liberal base or refuse his commanders and risk being blamed for a military loss that could tar him and his party as weak on national security.
Fuck the Liberal base...what are they going to do? Vote Republican?
Isn't this the guy who was so gung ho about prosecuting this war he wanted to invade the Pakistan tribal areas during the primaries? WTH?
Obama better not fuck this one up.
I agree. I support Pres Obama on Afghanistan, but that's dependent on him pursuing policies for success, or at least putting forth a strong, good faith effort. Seems we, finally and belatedly did so in Iraq, and while it remains to be seen over the long haul how that turns out, I feel we showed that we/West could win an insurgency. I think that should now be touted more strongly that we have some good success in Iraq and that we can pursue similar goals in Afghanistan, rather than the doom and gloom even before Obama makes a strong commitment.
On that note, I am getting a bit annoyed that the admin can't decide what to do, though in their defense they have added more troops already. But are now indecisive on strategy and direction. After all, they had massive TARP, Stimulus bills passed, Cap and Trade and Health Care bill proposals, and more, all in the first few months. For Afghanistan the administration has smart Generals who have good ideas, plans and knowledge; put more of that into action, and get going.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 22, 2009, 12:05:33 AM
According to Wikipedia:
29950 out of 1097050 (including reserves) 2.7%
9000 out of 146100 (including reserves) 6.2%
Sorry, but I don't accept the excuse that you have a pathetically small military. That is a choice, and one that could have been rectified at any point in the last decade had there been a little will to do so.
Quote
Yes, you are committed to Iraq as well, I know, but before you start mouthing off about -
Quote* 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.
please note that as a proportion of our army we have twice as high a percentage as your country does in Afghanistan.
A meaningless measure of national will.
Quote
Canada did and is still doing sterling service in Afghanistan, but please do not blow off your other allies and their soldiers who have died alongside yours.
I have not blown anyone off.
Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US :D
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2009, 06:24:19 PM
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.
American allies are leeches on the ass of America.
Quote from: Valdemar on September 22, 2009, 08:10:59 AM
Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US :D
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.
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 22, 2009, 08:22:25 AM
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.
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)
Berkut's problem is that he overestimates the significance of Afghanistan.
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2009, 08:42:40 AM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Valdemar on September 22, 2009, 08:10:59 AM
Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US :D
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 22, 2009, 08:51:55 AM
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
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 08:51:12 AM
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.
If it's about Germany not pulling her weight militarily, then even most Europeans (with a knowledge of defence issues) would agree with you. Hell, I'm the first in line to say the Germans have to ditch their pacifist hangover and start forking out for European expeditionary capability.
Britain, on the other hand, has currently committed the near total majority of her combat formations (those suitable for Afghan ops, that is) to the operation. The figure I heard today is that we only have 1,300 combat troops spare - just about enough to form a battlegroup.
Maybe it is a "sad" state of affairs, but unlike the USA, the EU is made up of 27 different militaries. You may not like it, but there it is. Britain already spends 65 billion on defence - and why should the electorate rationally vote for more, when a) schools and hospitals matter more to them and b) there is a good argument to be made that the UK's terror threat is actually domestic, and so if anyone should get the extra billions it is the intelligence services and police.
The issue is not as clear cut as your dichotomy paints.
EDIT: and to further muddy the water, in the back of all policy-makers heads on this issue is the resort of turning to a containment strategy. That is, building a new Afghanistan is not the only way to serve our own purposes. I'm not saying this is the correct course, but it is an option.
QuoteThat could be true - although that isn't the argument that I have ever heard made to justify the alck of commitment to the mission.
It's pretty implicit. If states considered the mission that be
that important, they would send in more troops and raise spending. Like how states that consider social welfare to be that important have generously funded systems.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 22, 2009, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on September 22, 2009, 08:10:59 AM
Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US :D
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.
I agree. All this finger pointing regarding percentage deployed in Afghanistan is completely off the mark. If other countries have a higher percentage deployed than the US, that just means that we have far fewer places in which we deploy our troops. A much more meaningful measure would be percentage deployed in all areas around the world.
The fact is that only a few NATO countries meaningfully participated in Afghanistan and we few who did lacked the manpower, equipment and resources to do the job properly.
I accept Berkut's criticism for what it is. In the good old days we could rely on the US to keep us safe from the big bad Russians. But the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war. The Western world can no longer rely on the US to carry all the defence load. The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 10:42:10 AM
I agree. All this finger pointing regarding percentage deployed in Afghanistan is completely off the mark. If other countries have a higher percentage deployed than the US, that just means that we have far fewer places in which we deploy our troops. A much more meaningful measure would be percentage deployed in all areas around the world.
The fact is that only a few NATO countries meaningfully participated in Afghanistan and we few who did lacked the manpower, equipment and resources to do the job properly.
I accept Berkut's criticism for what it is. In the good old days we could rely on the US to keep us safe from the big bad Russians. But the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war. The Western world can no longer rely on the US to carry all the defence load. The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
:cry: :wub:
QuoteThe west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
The West and NATO are out of their Cold War thinking.
That is precisely why European defence expenditure - ie, 'hard' capacity - has declined since the end of the Cold War. The US too was doing this, until 9/11.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has undertaken ever-expanding roles for which it was emphatically not used during the Cold War: three interventions (Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia) and two out-of-area missions (Afghanistan, Gulf of Aden).
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
The problem is not that NATO itself is outdated, the problem is that the underlying political bargain that created and sustained NATO is in danger of unravelling. A lot of people, experts among them, simply don't believe that invading states that support terror, and that hard military capacity, is the best way to combat terror. Remember that a number of key European states are battling terror on the inside - in our council estates and run-down neighbourhoods. This is a problem that the US does not have, and so does not have to consider as part of its own anti-terror strategy.
QuoteBut the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war.
Hmm, personally I consider the "new insecurity" a bit over-hyped, and the product of some questionable rose-tinted assessment of the Cold War.
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
"Completely and utterly"?
Who are you arguing with?
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:23:26 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
"Completely and utterly"?
Who are you arguing with?
QuoteThe west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
The problem is not that NATO itself is outdated, the problem is that the underlying political bargain that created and sustained NATO is in danger of unravelling. A lot of people, experts among them, simply don't believe that invading states that support terror, and that hard military capacity, is the best way to combat terror. Remember that a number of key European states are battling terror on the inside - in our council estates and run-down neighbourhoods. This is a problem that the US does not have, and so does not have to consider as part of its own anti-terror strategy.
QuoteBut the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war.
Hmm, personally I consider the "new insecurity" a bit over-hyped, and the product of some questionable rose-tinted assessment of the Cold War.
To your first point. No, I am arguing that NATO must adapt to the new threats better then it has. Is this even a contentious point? I thought not until I read the rest of your post which seems to argue that many NATO members do not have the political will to do so which just reinforces Berkuts original criticism doesn't it?
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:23:26 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
"Completely and utterly"?
Who are you arguing with?
QuoteThe west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:26:12 AM
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
If your point is that NATO should not be expected to adapt to modern threats then what is the point of NATO exactly?
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:23:26 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
"Completely and utterly"?
Who are you arguing with?
QuoteThe west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.
I'm "going on" about the debate of the purpose of NATO that has been going on for the last twenty years. Of course, since you have never thought about it, it is clearly not an issue.
I don't think I am going to argue with him on this anymore - if he thinks NATO cannot and should not be anything more than a counter to the USSR (and cannot and should not change its mission either), which in case he hasn't noticed doesn't exist anymore, then he should be arguing that NATO should simply disband entirely, as it has no purpose, and absent a shift in priorities, cannot have any purpose.
This is just the kind of weak argumentation that I mean - a fig leaf cover for not having the honesty to simply admit that NATO doesn't want to be bothered - they lack the will to go and fight a few thousand poorly trained and armed insurgents.
We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 11:36:07 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:26:12 AM
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
If your point is that NATO should not be expected to adapt to modern threats then what is the point of NATO exactly?
Because a lot of people in NATO member states think that NATO does not serve a purpose any more.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:41:14 AM
I don't think I am going to argue with him on this anymore - if he thinks NATO cannot and should not be anything more than a counter to the USSR (and cannot and should not change its mission either), which in case he hasn't noticed doesn't exist anymore, then he should be arguing that NATO should simply disband entirely, as it has no purpose, and absent a shift in priorities, cannot have any purpose.
This is just the kind of weak argumentation that I mean - a fig leaf cover for not having the honesty to simply admit that NATO doesn't want to be bothered - they lack the will to go and fight a few thousand poorly trained and armed insurgents.
We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".
You wouldn't know the first thing about my views on NATO. :lol:
As for your last sentence, people in the defence sector have been having that exact debate since
at least Kosovo. But, since you don't know about that, it didn't happen. So much for your superior argumentation. :)
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:40:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:23:26 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
"Completely and utterly"?
Who are you arguing with?
QuoteThe west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.
I'm "going on" about the debate of the purpose of NATO that has been going on for the last twenty years. Of course, since you have never thought about it, it is clearly not an issue.
You claimed that CCs was demanding that NATO "utterly and completely" change - in a manner that of course suggests that this was some kind of incredible request. Those are your words.
Of course NATO does not need to do any such thing to create the capability to deal with situations like Afghanistan. The members just have to spend some more money, time, and blood. Bringing the purpose of NATO when it was formed a half century ago into the argument is just a red herring.
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:41:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 11:36:07 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:26:12 AM
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
If your point is that NATO should not be expected to adapt to modern threats then what is the point of NATO exactly?
Because a lot of people in NATO member states think that NATO does not serve a purpose any more.
So now your argument for why NATO should not invest more into the capability to deal with things like Afghanistan is that NATO should not exist to begin with - rather than that NATO cannot possibly make this "utter and complete" strawman transformation you previously claimed was the problem?
BTW, my point has nothing to do with NATO, except insofar as NATO is a group of countries that roughly matches up with the group of countries I think should be more willing to deal with issues like Afghanistan. I couldn't care less whether countries like Germany start hitting at their weight under the auspices of NATO or not - I was all for the EU military, if it meant a net increase in capability.
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
As for your last sentence, people in the defence sector have been having that exact debate since at least Kosovo.
And yet NATO is still here, so apparently the idea that NATO should just dissolve hasn't exactly won out.
Quote
But, since you don't know about that, it didn't happen. So much for your superior argumentation. :)
Ahhh, I see you have moved onto the vague and indecipherable personal insult portion of your "superior argumentation".
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:43:11 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:40:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:23:26 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM
Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.
"Completely and utterly"?
Who are you arguing with?
QuoteThe west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.
Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?
I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.
I'm "going on" about the debate of the purpose of NATO that has been going on for the last twenty years. Of course, since you have never thought about it, it is clearly not an issue.
You claimed that CCs was demanding that NATO "utterly and completely" change - in a manner that of course suggests that this was some kind of incredible request. Those are your words.
Of course NATO does not need to do any such thing to create the capability to deal with situations like Afghanistan. The members just have to spend some more money, time, and blood. Bringing the purpose of NATO when it was formed a half century ago into the argument is just a red herring.
If NATO were simply a command structure, and a piece of paper with a treaty on it, then you would have a point - but it is more than that. It is the basis of transatlantic defence co-operation, and is therefore also a political bargain.
The circumstances have changed with reference to this bargain. Many people went along with the idea that NATO should continue after the end of the Cold War, even though Russia grumbled it was not overly keen on having its old foe keep going. Rightly, they were not listened to.
Then the new idea was that NATO should respond to insecurity in the European neighbourhood - ex-Yugoslavia, for example. More people, now within Europe, grumbled about this, because this is not what NATO was designed to do. A NAC that operated on unanimity, for example, does not work so well in operations that are politically divisive (such as Kosovo, for which the French were never really enthusiastic and a different German government could quite concievably have refused to take part in).
Then the idea was that NATO would also a political tool, starting the painful reforms in ex-Communist states needed for membership of the alliance, and then the EU. This is one of its unsung triumphs, IMO. But it is a far cry from its original aim and was a marked expansion of its activities.
Now the idea that NATO is some kind of pan-global organisation reaching across continents. Even more people are grumbling now, especially because multi-national operations are frought with such problems. Some observers worry that by risking failure or discrediting in Afghanistan, what remains still a very useful 'in-area' defence pact between EUrope and North America is being sacrificed for the sake of a creeping mission in Afghanistan that went from kicking the Taliban out to state-building.
What I am saying is that the political commitment and the fundamental strategic concept that governments sign up to or whole-heartedly support is very, very different when you compare the territorial defence of Europe, near-abroad operations, and far-abroad operations. As a hypothetical example, you would not see the dithering of European states to contribute troops if the Russians were suddenly pouring across the Belarussian border into Poland.
In my opinion, transforming NATO into an organisation that is focused on out of area stability, state-building and anti-terrorist operations
is a complete and utter change in the political sense and, to a great extent, the organisational sense. It might work - but then again, it might not, and we end up with a NATO that is held together only by its own bureaucratic inertia.
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
In my opinion, transforming NATO into an organisation that is focused on out of area stability, state-building and anti-terrorist operations is a complete and utter change in the political sense and, to a great extent, the organisational sense. It might work - but then again, it might not, and we end up with a NATO that is held together only by its own bureaucratic inertia.
Nice post.
But I think it still misses the point.
The Afghanistan mission being under the auspices of NATO is a result of NATO making it so since they responded to the 9/11 attacks as an attack on a member. Maybe that was or was not the right thing to do - I don't know. More to the point, I don't think it matters to MY point.
If you are arguing that NATO countries should not contribute more to Afghanistan because that is not what NATO is all about, or should be about- fine. Of course, the problem you cite already exist - NATO is already in Afghanistan, and a failure will already be seen as a NATO failure. This would argue for making sure the failure does not occure however, rather than arguing that we should bail, ensuring failure.
So that argument fails.
However, the point still remains anyway - it is not like all these countries would love to help out in Afghanistan, but are just a little nervous about what that means in regards to NATO. That is an excuse. If Afghanistan fails, it won't be because NATO should not be involved in nation stabilization in Afghanistan, it will be because the West lacks the will to put in the treasure and blood necessary. Whether that is under the auspices of NATO, the UN, or some special arrangement created just for this crisis is not relevant to my point.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:41:14 AM
We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".
Not really. We're still back on 'We can't!'. We never moved past that.
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2009, 12:20:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 11:41:14 AM
We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".
Not really. We're still back on 'We can't!'. We never moved past that.
Actually the argument Warspite is making now is "We dont want to"
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 12:20:55 PM
Actually the argument Warspite is making now is "We dont want to"
Which is the reason we can't. So long as the German people feel the way they do about Afghanistan nothing is going to happen.
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2009, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 12:20:55 PM
Actually the argument Warspite is making now is "We dont want to"
Which is the reason we can't. So long as the German people feel the way they do about Afghanistan nothing is going to happen.
That does not mean they cannot, it means they choose not. "Can not" implies that they are not capable. I think that is pretty insulting - the idea that one of the wealthiest nations on the Earth cannot send several thousand soldiers to Afghanistan to actually fight if they wanted to is rather pathetic.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:11:15 PM
The Afghanistan mission being under the auspices of NATO is a result of NATO making it so since they responded to the 9/11 attacks as an attack on a member.
This is really the point. Once NATO committed to this mission all the debate of whether they should do it or not is moot. Warspite, you seem to be justifying the lack of commitment to the notion that they should not have committed to the mission in the first place. But that is a separate issue. The decision was made. The sad fact is that it was not fulfilled by NATO and we have several hundred dead from each of the nations that did participate who will likely have died for no purpose in part because NATO did not back up its commitment with action.
I have to tell you it makes me a bit angry to think Canada committed troops in good faith to a NATO mission only to hear our allies say NATO didnt really want to do it in the first place. That is the worst kind of misrepresentation.
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2009, 12:22:20 PM
So long as the German people feel the way they do about Afghanistan nothing is going to happen.
I don't think it's Afghanistan-specific. I think Afghanistan's only the second military mission post-war Germany's taken part in. It'll be difficult for the Germans to shift from viewing their military as a conscript force necessary for the defence of Germany and Europe (largely from Russia) to a military like the US or the UK has, that is able and willing to deploy abroad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 12:31:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:11:15 PM
The Afghanistan mission being under the auspices of NATO is a result of NATO making it so since they responded to the 9/11 attacks as an attack on a member.
This is really the point. Once NATO committed to this mission all the debate of whether they should do it or not is moot. Warspite, you seem to be justifying the lack of commitment to the notion that they should not have committed to the mission in the first place. But that is a separate issue. The decision was made. The sad fact is that it was not fulfilled by NATO and we have several hundred dead from each of the nations that did participate who will likely have died for no purpose in part because NATO did not back up its commitment with action.
I have to tell you it makes me a bit angry to think Canada committed troops in good faith to a NATO mission only to hear our allies say NATO didnt really want to do it in the first place. That is the worst kind of misrepresentation.
I was explaining how NATO is hamstrung by a split within itself over differing interpretations of its purpose.
The British will stick it out because our governments are committed to the alliance with the US, even if the cost is high. This is partly due to cultural affinities but also partly due to a realisation that a close relationship with America helps us punch above our weight elsewhere.
However, for other European states, this motivation is not present - especially those in which there are key constituencies that believe in a Europeanist defence orientation.
The other related issue is that no one thought, when NATO invoked Article V, that it would involve 10 years (and indeed many more) of nation-building in Afghanistan.
That last point is the basic crux of my argument - in retrospect, we were all wrong when we thought the job would be easy, and we may have gotten a number of small militaries in over their heads. The point is not whether or not Europeans can contribute more. They could, yes - if they had the will. But we knew even then that many European militaries would be reluctant - indeed, the US didn't really call on its partners in the first phase of OEF (apart from select British assets).
I'm saying you have to have an appreciation of what is politically feasible in your partner countries. In essence, "They can't" is not really a useful question - it is more important to ask "what will they", and "how will they do more"?
Take France - it spends the same as the UK on defence (about 3% of GDP, IIRC), but has a markedly smaller contingent. Yet, aside from this disparity, would we really doubt their commitment to countering terrorism? Like I said, they do not see AFghanistan as the central theatre in this battle. I presume they are more concerned with their own minorities. Even in the UK attention is increasingly focused on Pakistan's instability as the great threat.
I have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 12:47:36 PMI have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!
So what you're saying is that Berkut's position is solidly grounded, academically sound and has more than twenty years of thought behind it?
Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2009, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 12:47:36 PMI have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!
So what you're saying is that Berkut's position is solidly grounded, academically sound and has more than twenty years of thought behind it?
:yeah:
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:58:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 22, 2009, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 22, 2009, 12:47:36 PMI have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!
So what you're saying is that Berkut's position is solidly grounded, academically sound and has more than twenty years of thought behind it?
:yeah:
Yes, but without the normative dimension. :lol:
The Afghans fought (and arguably won, at least in the immediate sense) our war in the 1980s with our weapons at a cost higher than any American can imagine. Then we just pulled our dick out and let the Taliban turn what was once a vacation spot into an economically, environmentally and political hell hole where the lot of half the population is so terrible that they regularly set themselves on fire (http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_story=f9a66be7c029e51f00595371f6d9f2e82040dfda&rf=bm).
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 12:31:17 PM
I have to tell you it makes me a bit angry to think Canada committed troops in good faith to a NATO mission only to hear our allies say NATO didnt really want to do it in the first place. That is the worst kind of misrepresentation.
An argument could be made that NATO didn't really want to do it. They were signing on to annihilate the Taliban and then to set up an Afghan government that was somewhat friendly towards the West, not to participate in an occupation longer than either Germany's or Japan's.
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2009, 02:11:42 PM
An argument could be made that NATO didn't really want to do it. They were signing on to annihilate the Taliban and then to set up an Afghan government that was somewhat friendly towards the West, not to participate in an occupation longer than either Germany's or Japan's.
My recollection was that all NATO nations were full of rhetoric of staying till the job was done and vowing not to repeat the mistake made when the West left Afghanistan to its own devices after the Soviets were defeated.
Your argument is fine in hindsight but nobody was putting limits on their involvement until the resurgence of the Taliban.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 22, 2009, 01:09:53 PM
The Afghans fought (and arguably won, at least in the immediate sense) our war in the 1980s with our weapons at a cost higher than any American can imagine. Then we just pulled our dick out and let the Taliban turn what was once a vacation spot into an economically, environmentally and political hell hole where the lot of half the population is so terrible that they regularly set themselves on fire (http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_story=f9a66be7c029e51f00595371f6d9f2e82040dfda&rf=bm).
What's your point? That if we had kept out dick in none of that would have happened?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 22, 2009, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2009, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 22, 2009, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 08:43:16 AM
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.
We could double our military budget and still we could not send more men. The fact is being a soldier in here is seen as a failure worse than flipping burgers. With the odd exception, only total losers end up serving. It has taken a lot of immigrant volunteers, a worldwide crisis and the collapse of the housing bubble (close to 20% unemployment now) to finally allow the military to meet its timid recruitment goals, which had gone unfulfilled ever since it went professional.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 08:18:59 AMAnd 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.
Most Germans don't want that though. Simple as that. If that means failure in Afghanistan, I doubt many Germans will care. It's seen as an American war here anyway. That makes supporting the effort in Afghanistan a suicide mission for politicians here.
I would rather see Afghanistan succeed, if only for the poor Afghanis who deserve a better life. I don't care for the prestige of the NATO (or the West). But I am also not really willing to commit more resources. We have so many other problems that seem more important to me and I would rather we spend our resources on that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 03:40:33 PMYour 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?
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:54:58 PM
But I am also not really willing to commit more resources. We have so many other problems that seem more important to me and I would rather we spend our resources on that.
That's how Afghanistan was lost after the Soviet pullout. :(
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:54:58 PM
I would rather see Afghanistan succeed, if only for the poor Afghanis who deserve a better life.
What makes you think that they deserve a better life?
Quote from: citizen k on September 22, 2009, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:54:58 PM
But I am also not really willing to commit more resources. We have so many other problems that seem more important to me and I would rather we spend our resources on that.
That's how Afghanistan was lost after the Soviet pullout. :(
What makes you think that we ever hda Afghanistan to lose?
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 03:40:33 PMYour argument is fine in hindsight but nobody was putting limits on their involvement until the resurgence of the Taliban.
So the situation changed.
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2009, 05:10:39 PM
Quote from: citizen k on September 22, 2009, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:54:58 PM
But I am also not really willing to commit more resources. We have so many other problems that seem more important to me and I would rather we spend our resources on that.
That's how Afghanistan was lost after the Soviet pullout. :(
What makes you think that we ever hda Afghanistan to lose?
Not referring to Western interest, just human interest. Something an Old One like yourself wouldn't be concerned with.
:cthulu:
Quote from: citizen k on September 22, 2009, 05:17:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2009, 05:10:39 PM
Quote from: citizen k on September 22, 2009, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:54:58 PM
But I am also not really willing to commit more resources. We have so many other problems that seem more important to me and I would rather we spend our resources on that.
That's how Afghanistan was lost after the Soviet pullout. :(
What makes you think that we ever hda Afghanistan to lose?
Not referring to Western interest, just human interest. Something an Old One like yourself wouldn't be concerned with.
:cthulu:
How does helping Afghanistan help the cause of humanity?
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 03:40:33 PMYour 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.
It is unwise to expect moral courage from a European.
It might have been better to let the Russians have them.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 22, 2009, 04:26:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2009, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 22, 2009, 03:59:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2009, 03:55:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2009, 06:10:46 PM
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. :lol:
Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet...
QuoteJapan'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
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 06:02:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 03:40:33 PMYour 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2009, 10:29:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 06:02:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2009, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 03:40:33 PMYour 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. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 22, 2009, 06:02:14 PMWhen 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 22, 2009, 05:12:53 PMTo 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.
Quote from: KRonn on September 21, 2009, 02:19:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
:yeahright:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 02:04:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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
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.
QuoteAdd 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
:)
Quote from: Valdemar on September 23, 2009, 02:28:14 AM
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...
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 02:04:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 02:14:31 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Being there is more then just sending troops.
Who was it that had orders to not engage in any Military actions? The Germans?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2009, 08:41:57 AM
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
The French is a deliquate question. The Legion does stuff we rather not know about.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 08:11:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 02:04:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 21, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
* 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...
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 22, 2009, 11:14:38 PM
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. :lol:
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."
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 02:14:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 23, 2009, 08:50:40 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2009, 08:54:31 AM
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!! :lmfao:
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2009, 10:28:21 PM
Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet...
QuoteJapan'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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 09:22:50 AM
NATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.
Or perhaps NATO needs to do less. ALL of NATO.
Quote from: Valdemar on September 23, 2009, 02:28:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 08:11:36 AM
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.
As of March, there were 32 000 US troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-26-afghanistan-troops_N.htm
Obama has promised to increase the number of troops to 59 000. No way there's 60k troops now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Increase_in_US_troops
Quote from: Valdemar on September 23, 2009, 02:28:14 AM
I know the French HAVE NOT sent in the Legion which would otherwise be an obvious choice in this situation.
V
They did, atleast in 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm
The English article doesn't say where the soldiers were from but a French Official Communiqué does.
QuoteCommuniqué de M. le Président de la République
Dans son combat contre le terrorisme, la France vient d'être durement frappée.
Hier, 10 de nos soldats appartenant au 8ème Régiment de parachutistes d'infanterie de marine, au 2ème Régiment étranger de parachutistes et au Régiment de marche du Tchad sont morts en Afghanistan. 21 autres ont été blessés, au cours d'une mission de reconnaissance conjointe avec l'armée nationale afghane. D'importants moyens, aériens notamment, ont été mis en œuvre avec le soutien des Alliés pour appuyer et dégager nos hommes pris dans une embuscade d'une extrême violence. Cette mission se déroulait dans la région de Kaboul, où nos forces sont présentes avec nos alliés depuis 2002.
Je m'incline avec respect et émotion devant le courage de ces hommes qui ont accompli leur devoir jusqu'au sacrifice suprême. Mes pensées vont d'abord à leurs familles et à leurs proches auxquels je transmets, au nom de la Nation, mes condoléances. Je dis aux blessés ma sympathie et mon soutien dans cette épreuve. Je partage également la peine de leurs camarades et au-delà de tous les militaires français. Dès ce soir je me rendrai en Afghanistan pour les assurer que la France est à leurs côtés.
Ma détermination est intacte. La France est résolue à poursuivre la lutte contre le terrorisme, pour la démocratie et la liberté. La cause est juste, c'est l'honneur de la France et de ses armées de la défendre. Au nom de tous les Français je renouvelle à nos armées la confiance de la Nation pour remplir leur mission.
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2009, 10:57:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 08:11:36 AM
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.
As of March, there were 32 000 US troops in Afghanistan:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-26-afghanistan-troops_N.htm
Obama has promised to increase the number of troops to 59 000. No way there's 60k troops now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Increase_in_US_troops
From that article:
QuoteThe latest troop commitment gives Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander there, roughly the amount of troops he said he needed late last year. McKiernan asked for double the 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. President Bush committed 6,000 troops, and Obama's commitment of 21,000 brings the total number of troops to 59,000.
And this is only counting actual troops, not other personnel, which by last count that I have seen there were tens of thousands more.
Whether they are there now, or going to be there shortly is rather irrelevant to Marty's claim that the US has less than 30,000 troops committed. Not that that claim has anything to do with anything anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 09:22:50 AMNATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.
Why does it matter again whether we win in Afghanistan or not?
One argument I can see is that it would make the life of the Afghanis better. That's a noble goal, but I am not sure NATO is currently taking the right steps towards that (Warspite can probably tell us more about that). However, it's reasonable and legitimate to define how much making their lifes better is worth to us. I assume you, Berkut, have a different willingness to commit to that cause than I do. But I don't think there is a "right" level of goodwill.
Another argument that might be considered is security. But frankly, I feel much more threatened by the home grown terrorists we have here. The previous German defense minister has said that "Germany is defended at the Hindukush". I think that's bullshit. Germany is defended in Germany. Invest into better police or intelligence or whatever if you want to combat terrorists. But not into fighting in Afghanistan.
Quote from: Zanza on September 23, 2009, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 09:22:50 AMNATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.
Why does it matter again whether we win in Afghanistan or not?
One argument I can see is that it would make the life of the Afghanis better. That's a noble goal, but I am not sure NATO is currently taking the right steps towards that (Warspite can probably tell us more about that). However, it's reasonable and legitimate to define how much making their lifes better is worth to us. I assume you, Berkut, have a different willingness to commit to that cause than I do. But I don't think there is a "right" level of goodwill.
Another argument that might be considered is security. But frankly, I feel much more threatened by the home grown terrorists we have here. The previous German defense minister has said that "Germany is defended at the Hindukush". I think that's bullshit. Germany is defended in Germany. Invest into better police or intelligence or whatever if you want to combat terrorists. But not into fighting in Afghanistan.
Memories are short unfortunately. Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2009, 11:39:06 AM
Memories are short unfortunately. Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?
I don't think it will matter, no.
1) There are a truckload of safe havens left that we aren't doing anything about. Take a look at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64333.htm
2) Note that a lot of the training for 9/11 was done outside of Afghanistan. Take a look at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502977.html
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2009, 11:39:06 AMMemories are short unfortunately. Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?
Yes, I don't think it would matter. There are other failed states and terrorists are probably not picky on where they put up camp.
And a considerable part of the planning and organizing was done from Hamburg. And we had multiple other domestic islamist terrorists. My take is that it makes more sense to fight them here than in Afghanistan. Because I think the guys here are much more dangerous than the guys there.
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2009, 10:55:20 AM
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.
I'll repeat:
"I know ours (Denmark) 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 :) "
Denmark, Netherlands and UK have covered Helmand province together, Denmark has by FAR the majority of their troops there. The remainder of troops are a spot of command types in Kabul and engineers rebuilding stuff.
V
Quote from: Zanza on September 23, 2009, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 09:22:50 AMNATO needs to do more. ALL of NATO.
Why does it matter again whether we win in Afghanistan or not?.
Because security threats to the West in the present day come from non-state or transnational organizations as much as from traditional state actors. One of key limitations of non-state actors is that although they may be organizationally virtual, they are existentially real: their leaders and rank-and-file occupy physical space and require real physical sustenance and equipment. That in turn means that they cannot operate efficiently without at least the tacit cooperation of some state that can provide them with physical space to exist, sustain themselves, recruit and train, and access to the instrumentalities of modern finance and commerce. This turns out to be a critical vulnerability because states are vulnerable to outside pressure - even countries like Iran, North Korea or Syria don't dare to overtly support al-Qaeda, for example.
With failed states, however, there is no effective state authority on which to exert effective pressure, and that is why so there has been so much emphasis in the past decade about combatting the problem with failed states. The revivial of widespread piracy in the Indian Ocean is another demonstration of the danger of allowing such failed state conditions to fester, even aside from the direct threat of terrorism.
Quote from: ulmont on September 23, 2009, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2009, 11:39:06 AM
Memories are short unfortunately. Do you really think that it wont matter if Afganistan once again becomes a safe and secure location for the training and organization of terrorist units?
I don't think it will matter, no.
1) There are a truckload of safe havens left that we aren't doing anything about. Take a look at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64333.htm
2) Note that a lot of the training for 9/11 was done outside of Afghanistan. Take a look at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502977.html
Ok so your logic is that because there are other failed states around the world that one more shouldnt matter?
There may have been some training done for 9/11 outside Afghanistan but the hub for that training and planning was Afghanistan. It is incredibly short sighted to suggest that giving that country back to terrorist organizations will not have the potential for extreme harm in the future.
Zanza, why does it make sense to limit your fight against terrorists that threaten your country?
Can't we just declare Exterminatus and saturate the place with fusion and virus bombs?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2009, 12:30:16 PM
Ok so your logic is that because there are other failed states around the world that one more shouldnt matter?
No, other terrorist safe havens (not the same thing if you look at the list). Unless you're suggesting we go into all the others (or at least all other havens in the Middle East and Africa), you're kidding yourself that you're making a difference.
Quote from: The Brain on September 23, 2009, 12:34:57 PM
Can't we just declare Exterminatus and saturate the place with fusion and virus bombs?
No. Apparently, being 'Western' is the same as being cowardly and unable to fulfill your duty.
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 02:04:34 AMI fail to see how you could single out Canada like that. But then again, facts have never been your strong side.
My understanding is that Canadian troops, like British and American troops but unlike troops from most of the other countries on that list don't have all sorts of restrictions on their deployment so they're left guarding buildings in safe areas and staying in their camps most of the time.
Quote from: ulmont on September 23, 2009, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2009, 12:30:16 PM
Ok so your logic is that because there are other failed states around the world that one more shouldnt matter?
No, other terrorist safe havens (not the same thing if you look at the list). Unless you're suggesting we go into all the others (or at least all other havens in the Middle East and Africa), you're kidding yourself that you're making a difference.
No, the person kidding themselves is the one that thinks that every situation that can possibly be described as a "safe haven" is pretty much the same, so there is not point in doing anything about a state harboring and abetting terrorists.
And you can be sure that if some group manages to pull of a large attack from Somalia, then in fact there will be a response.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 12:51:08 PM
No, the person kidding themselves is the one that thinks that every situation that can possibly be described as a "safe haven" is pretty much the same, so there is not point in doing anything about a state harboring and abetting terrorists.
And you can be sure that if some group manages to pull of a large attack from Somalia, then in fact there will be a response.
QFT
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 12:51:08 PM
the person kidding themselves is the one that thinks that every situation that can possibly be described as a "safe haven" is pretty much the same
Presumably there are some consistencies, otherwise there's no use in defining the term "safe haven."
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 12:51:08 PM
And you can be sure that if some group manages to pull of a large attack from Somalia, then in fact there will be a response.
Like the invasion of Yemen, one of the places on the State Department's list of safe havens, in response to the USS Cole bombing?
Quote from: ulmont on September 23, 2009, 11:47:14 AM
1) There are a truckload of safe havens left that we aren't doing anything about. Take a look at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64333.htm
This report it seems to me supports the opposite conclusion - it points to the fact where failed states do exist in whole or in part at present, there are significant existent (Somali piracy) or emergent (active AQ splinter) threats.
Also there is a difference between a failed state tout court like Afghanistan under Taliban rule and "failed regions" of weak states like the Saharan areas decribed in the report or the wilds of the Pakistan-Afghan border. Mali for example, while weak, is not a failed state, it just lacks the ability to control and police the entirety of its vast land area. However, most of that land area is trackless, virtually inhabitable desert posing serious logisitical challenges to even small operations. The same is true for bin Laden's mountain hideout in the Afghan border region.
Quote from: The Brain on September 23, 2009, 12:34:57 PM
Can't we just declare Exterminatus and saturate the place with fusion and virus bombs?
I'd say that the enemy rae worshippers of Khorne. Your idea has merit.
Quote from: ulmont on September 23, 2009, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2009, 12:30:16 PM
Ok so your logic is that because there are other failed states around the world that one more shouldnt matter?
No, other terrorist safe havens (not the same thing if you look at the list). Unless you're suggesting we go into all the others (or at least all other havens in the Middle East and Africa), you're kidding yourself that you're making a difference.
I think it does make a difference if we address the issues that we can. Not all failed states, terrorist havens, and the like are the same. Each situation differs, and requires a different, or even maybe no response. I think it makes a difference since if radicals are blunted or stopped in one place, it sends a positive signal to populations threatened by such groups. And these guys generally threaten their own people, nations, as well as carry out attacks outside. And losing some of the fights sends a signal to terrorist/radical types that they can't get away with things, and dries up their resources and volunteers. Already we've seen that Al Qaida is a damaged brand over all. If they hadn't been strongly opposed, I'd think they'd have a lot more successes, which would bring in volunteers, donors and assistance.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 11:21:30 AM
Whether they are there now, or going to be there shortly is rather irrelevant to Marty's claim that the US has less than 30,000 troops committed. Not that that claim has anything to do with anything anyway.
It is relevent. The troops are not there. They are not on the way either, your government is still debating if they really need to send 30 000 more troops in the country, hence the report by the General in command of Afghanistan.
Afaik, the 6000 troops committed by Bush have not arrived yet.
If Generals were to fight with imaginary troops, Germany would have won WWII.
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2009, 02:29:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 11:21:30 AM
Whether they are there now, or going to be there shortly is rather irrelevant to Marty's claim that the US has less than 30,000 troops committed. Not that that claim has anything to do with anything anyway.
It is relevent. The troops are not there. They are not on the way either, your government is still debating if they really need to send 30 000 more troops in the country, hence the report by the General in command of Afghanistan.
Afaik, the 6000 troops committed by Bush have not arrived yet.
If Generals were to fight with imaginary troops, Germany would have won WWII.
No they wouldn't, we were a lot more imaginative than they were.
QuoteI think it does make a difference if we address the issues that we can. Not all failed states, terrorist havens, and the like are the same. Each situation differs, and requires a different, or even maybe no response.
Precisely.
Afghanistan offered a haven for Al-Qaeda because, while in a terrible state, in the Taliban areas there was at least some kind of authority. And the Pushtunwalli code and Taliban leadership provided AQ with safety. Thus, from there, they were able to marshal resources, train and radicalise recruits, and so on.
Now, why did I mention authority? Because in total anarchy, or unhospitable cultural environments, foreign terrorists actually face a similar set of problems to foreign aid workers. This is the reason Al-Qaeda have never really set up shop in Somalia beyond the odd, short-lived training camp from well before 9/11 (and we know that they have tried). Somalis know instantly who a foreigner is. So the Arab Al-Qaeda terrorist arrives. He will find himself in a country with no infrastructure; like the foreign NGO, he has to pay off the different factions along the way for "protection" if he wants to move anywhere or have anything moved. He'll have to pay protection money for wherever the camp is. He'll find a thousand potential bounty hunters who, having no kinship relation, will gladly turn him in or shoot him for a $500 reward. The foreign terrorist will also have no real appreciation of the nuanced layers of clan protocol or interaction. There's also another key reason: in truly failed states, there are far fewer repercussions for covert military strikes.
So actually, the best haven for a terrorist is a stable state - at least, stable enough to provide a modicum of security for the terrorist (fairly ironic, no?).
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2009, 12:31:44 PM
Zanza, why does it make sense to limit your fight against terrorists that threaten your country?
Priorization of limited resources.
If I was convinced that we could actually defend Germany (or the West) at the Hindukush, I would support it. However, in the last few years, virtually all terrorists in Europe seem to be homegrown. So I would rather make that my priority.
Maybe the reason we only hear about the domestic terrorists is that fighting them in Afghanistan is actually spectacularly successful? I don't know. That's not the impression I am getting.
So that's how I form my opinion. If I would be convinced that the mission in Afghanistan is actually a big benefit, I would probably change my mind. After all, I used to be convinced of that until say a year or so ago.
Quote from: Warspite on September 23, 2009, 02:38:44 PM
QuoteI think it does make a difference if we address the issues that we can. Not all failed states, terrorist havens, and the like are the same. Each situation differs, and requires a different, or even maybe no response.
Precisely.
Afghanistan offered a haven for Al-Qaeda because, while in a terrible state, in the Taliban areas there was at least some kind of authority. And the Pushtunwalli code and Taliban leadership provided AQ with safety. Thus, from there, they were able to marshal resources, train and radicalise recruits, and so on.
Now, why did I mention authority? Because in total anarchy, or unhospitable cultural environments, foreign terrorists actually face a similar set of problems to foreign aid workers. This is the reason Al-Qaeda have never really set up shop in Somalia beyond the odd, short-lived training camp from well before 9/11 (and we know that they have tried). Somalis know instantly who a foreigner is. So the Arab Al-Qaeda terrorist arrives. He will find himself in a country with no infrastructure; like the foreign NGO, he has to pay off the different factions along the way for "protection" if he wants to move anywhere or have anything moved. He'll have to pay protection money for wherever the camp is. He'll find a thousand potential bounty hunters who, having no kinship relation, will gladly turn him in or shoot him for a $500 reward. The foreign terrorist will also have no real appreciation of the nuanced layers of clan protocol or interaction. There's also another key reason: in truly failed states, there are far fewer repercussions for covert military strikes.
So actually, the best haven for a terrorist is a stable state - at least, stable enough to provide a modicum of security for the terrorist (fairly ironic, no?).
Good summary, and it makes good sense. I hadn't really looked at the issue of Somalia but that makes great sense as to the difficulties of operating there, or a place like it, without the cover and relations needed to get along with the locals.
Afghanistan was a perfect place perhaps. AQ had a compliant, helpful government, so had the cover and relations, and assistance of a national government. And it was a government that was as radical in ideology as AQ. So it just seems to me that Afghanistan is the one place we'd want to try and oppose those types setting up shop. Now especially with all that Pakistan is going through with fighting like minded groups, I'd think that helps efforts in Afghanistan if it affects groups that operate in Afghanistan. That must have some spill over to negatively affect Afghan groups, though that may not be so significant, depending on where the pressure is hitting, as some of the Pakistani efforts are targeting their own in house groups anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2009, 12:51:08 PM
And you can be sure that if some group manages to pull of a large attack from Somalia, then in fact there will be a response.
Al-Qaeda's had to pull out of Somalia. It's too chaotic and violent and doesn't have enough infrastructure for them. Given that al-Qaeda have previously had bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, while they've failed in Somalia, suggests that they need a degree of stability.
I'm reading through the report right now. I find it weird that the reporting's been all about the resources - and it does says 'more resources won't win, but too few will lose' - given that the extra troops seems to me to be an adjunct to changing strategy which McCrystal seems to rate far more highly.
They don't need stability, they need some form of organized authority that nonetheless does not rise to the level of a proper state. And they need physical access to the geographies and instrumentalities of civilization, such as the ability to execute and receive wire transfers.