Nato in Afghanistan -'European nations must not turn 'coward.'

[riksavage]

The American ambassador to Kabul has accused European members of NATO of jeopardizing the future of the alliance by refusing to send troops to Afghanistan, or banning their forces from entering areas with heavy fighting. Ronald Neumann, who has survived two attempts on his life this year, said European nations must not turn "coward" and "run away" from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan.

Mr. Neumann criticized the "caveats" placed on forces from Germany, Norway, Belgium and other nations — variously keeping them away from the south, away from heavy combat zones, or forbidding them from going out at night.

He said: "If you can't fight in the place that produced al-Qa'eda and September 11 and a series of terrorist attacks in Europe, what is the point?"
Clearly there is growing frustration amongst the NATO countries engaged in heavy combat (US, UK, Canada and Netherlands) that they are not receiving adequate support. I find this surprising when you consider the size of armies such as Germany, who have excellent equipment and sizable man-power resources, but appear reluctant to take part in anything other than peacekeeping.

I cannot see how NATO can continue with a two-layer system, those that are prepared to fight (combat, offensive operations) and the rest (peacekeeping, restrictive rules of engagement).

Comments, observations?

 

[Capt. Picard]

Interesting comments.

The American ambassador to Kabul has accused European members of NATO of jeopardizing the future of the alliance by refusing to send troops to Afghanistan, or banning their forces from entering areas with heavy fighting.

Much like the US jeopardises the alliance by refering to them as "old Europe" and other juvenille anti European acts because they didn't want to start the Iraq war? Are the Americans "cowards" or are they "running away" from a confrontation with Sudan over Darfur?

The simple truth is that in Europe no one wants to be involved with anything the US has been involved with recently. It is good to see the that their govt. are listening to public opinion.

You can be your bottom dollar that there are not many in Europe that buy the connection between 911/Al Queda and the European attacks, particularly since the failure of the US response to 911.

The best thing about Europe is that, though it is a union countries still can follow their own path if their citizens demand it.

What is so difficult about NATO continuing as a defence alliance where the members retain their own national rights? The US ignores treaties all the time, citing national interest.

 

[tomahawk6]

To meet the shortfall of troops from NATO, the US has decided to place 12,000 US troops in Afghanistan under NATO command. Washington has also named General Dan McNeil the next commander of ISAF.

 

[riksavage]

NATO's future

The 12,000 US and future 1000 Poles is good news and provides much needed additional resources. However it’s the usual suspects stepping up to the plate again.

Afghanistan is a NATO operation, and as such, member states are obliged to commit resources as promised, which is simply not the case.

Moving on beyond what we are witnessing in Afghanistan, what if we have another Balkans type scenario in Europe’s backyard where NATO is required to operate beyond just the straightforward realms of peacekeeping and engage in more aggressive peace enforcement action. It would not surprise me if the US stepped back and said ‘right based on the support we received in Afghanistan’ it’s now your turn (major European powers) to step up and take aggressive action whilst we stand back and provide logistical support only.

What comes around goes around!

Personally I’m very doubtful NATO will survive the war on terror in its current format

 

[Grand Danois]

Afghanistan is a NATO operation, and as such, member states are obliged to commit resources as promised, which is simply not the case.

What does the shortfall consist of ?

 

[orko_8]

In Afganistan we see a typical dilemma which defense ministries will be more frequently facing in the coming decades of 21st century.

Multinational peace keeping and peace enforcing operations are rising above in the task lists of world's militaries, including both developed, developing and third world countries. With different reasons and motives to participate for each. "National interests" are in the very center of each of those motives, without exception.

John or Jane Doe on the street may well ask himself/herself and around: "Why the heck are we sending troops to Mankalistan? Why my brother, husband, boyfriend is dying for some third world, under developed country's internal yada yada?" A bureucrat, high ranking officer or another spook can easily describe the strategic, political and tactical necessities of [put you country name here]'s military presence in [put a third world country name here] in an academic article format. But for ordinary John and Jane Doe, this is pure bloody bullshit. And, hello! Populations are formed of millions of John and Jane Doe's!

This is very interesting since in a mainstream of globalization, borders becoming meaningless, we wittness societies becoming more nation oriented, more inner-focused, nationalism becoming more popular as well.

These are my two cents.

 

[Rich]

John or Jane Doe on the street may well ask himself/herself and around: "Why the heck are we sending troops to Mankalistan? Why my brother, husband, boyfriend is dying for some third world, under developed country's internal yada yada?"

When I signed on the dotted line I did so with the knowledge I may get thrown into a war , and , that my opinion on it wouldnt be asked for. If someone doesnt want to fight then they probably shouldnt join a military service. Dont get me wrong, our casualties and those of our allies sadden me. Ive never seen a mission so clear cut and righteous as the one in Afghanistan.

 

[icelord]

In Afganistan we see a typical dilemma which defense ministries will be more frequently facing in the coming decades of 21st century.

Multinational peace keeping and peace enforcing operations are rising above in the task lists of world's militaries, including both developed, developing and third world countries. With different reasons and motives to participate for each. "National interests" are in the very center of each of those motives, without exception.

John or Jane Doe on the street may well ask himself/herself and around: "Why the heck are we sending troops to Mankalistan? Why my brother, husband, boyfriend is dying for some third world, under developed country's internal yada yada?" A bureucrat, high ranking officer or another spook can easily describe the strategic, political and tactical necessities of [put you country name here]'s military presence in [put a third world country name here] in an academic article format. But for ordinary John and Jane Doe, this is pure bloody bullshit. And, hello! Populations are formed of millions of John and Jane Doe's!

This is very interesting since in a mainstream of globalization, borders becoming meaningless, we wittness societies becoming more nation oriented, more inner-focused, nationalism becoming more popular as well.

These are my two cents.

Thats why John or Jane doe stay out of such decisions, because they don't look at the bloody facts and try not to get involved, they're too god damn self centered to care about anything, including Sudan. If the people actually cared, the ANU would have stronger support for their operation, and a bigger backing by NATO and the US in terms of supplies, logistic carriers and Intel. as well as UN mandate for the operation, Instead the soldiers get a front row seat to a daily religious slaughter not seen since Nero put Christians in the colleseum for Lions to feed on. There can be no greater test of will for a soldier then to hold his rifle while people around him are being killed, and all he can do is watch.

With Afghanistan, they don't care about it because their only intel source (the media) does no bother to show too much about it, and why, cause they don't care.

 

[abramsteve]

Thats why John or Jane doe stay out of such decisions, because they don't look at the bloody facts and try not to get involved, they're too god damn self centered to care about anything, including Sudan. If the people actually cared, the ANU would have stronger support for their operation, and a bigger backing by NATO and the US in terms of supplies, logistic carriers and Intel. as well as UN mandate for the operation, Instead the soldiers get a front row seat to a daily religious slaughter not seen since Nero put Christians in the colleseum for Lions to feed on. There can be no greater test of will for a soldier then to hold his rifle while people around him are being killed, and all he can do is watch.

With Afghanistan, they don't care about it because their only intel source (the media) does no bother to show too much about it, and why, cause they don't care.

Well said mate! You hit the nail right on the head. Unless its negative the media wont show it, which means that when a euro nation sends it troops to Afganistan and three of them are killed (heaven forbid of course) the weak minded public cry for their withdrawal. This is how the terrorist fight this war. And unfortunatley its happening all over the world.

The way I see it, and I know its not neccesarliy true, European nations, no longer needing American protection, feel they are above getting there hands dirty and prefer to take cheap shots at nations involved (the ammuntion for which is supplied by the media). I mean it took the US to do somthing before they even got involved in Serbia, there own backyard!!!!

Europe needs to get involved in the world abroad, because being self centred never helped anybody.

Thats 2 cents worth anyways!

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The way I see it, and I know its not neccesarliy true, European nations, no longer needing American protection, feel they are above getting there hands dirty and prefer to take cheap shots at nations involved (the ammuntion for which is supplied by the media). I mean it took the US to do somthing before they even got involved in Serbia, there own backyard!!!!

Europe needs to get involved in the world abroad, because being self centred never helped anybody.

Thats 2 cents worth anyways!

Hear Hear!!! i dont mean to offend any continental european members but the short sighted decisions made by several european powers (Germany, France) reguarding their substantial obligations to the war on terror and conflicts in undeveloped nations are allmost criminal and seem to be purely directed at the next set of ellections. The developed world as a whole has a moral responsibility, and a responsibility to its own long term self interests to make sure situations like afghanistan end up the right way! Whether you agree with the U.S's actions or not the fact is the WOT is not an American campaign, its a world wide problem that has economic, political, religious and military elements and is not just young jihadi's hurling RPG's at marines in Iraq. The ONLY way the WOT can be "won" is if all of the western world, from the U.S. to Norway to New Zealand, does what is nesisarry to make sure that countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor Leste do not become failed states. If this means we all have to make sacrifices, even if these are horrific, the alternative is far worse. Playing the blame game or saying that its not my problem is definately not a constructive way to move forward. Short term self interest is only going to mean long term self destruction! That makes six cents.

 

[Grand Danois]

1. You don't just hurl your nation into the heat of the fight if the mindset of your hinterland population isn't geared for it. It takes time to change such a thing and the route typically goes through increasingly demanding missions over decades, to eventually accepting offensive warfare and casualties.

Denmark and Holland are examples of countries that are well underway at this path. Germany has been mentally neutered in this regard, and though it would be good to see them take on more responsibility, it will be their choice in the end. So it takes time to mentally adjust a population to be militarily aggressive. On top of this, end of conscription and transformation has just begun to enter the end phase at this point. Substantial expeditionary capabilities have to come online.

Btw, regarding Germany in Afghanistan.

Defense Ministry Admits German Planes in Action in Afghanistan


2. Goals and methods of the "anglosaxon" sphere of the West, may not necessarily be the same as on the European continent. Iraq is an example of this, where most of continental Europe didn't commit as they didn't consider Iraq part of GWOT.

Basically, allies are still allies, even when they might consider alternate approaches more appropriate.


3. Europeans are deployed across the world in far greater numbers than you would immediately believe. And their missions are more demanding and dangerous than you would think from the previous posts.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

1. You don't just hurl your nation into the heat of the fight if the mindset of your hinterland population isn't geared for it. It takes time to change such a thing and the route typically goes through increasingly demanding missions over decades, to eventually accepting offensive warfare and casualties.

Denmark and Holland are examples of countries that are well underway at this path. Germany has been mentally neutered in this regard, and though it would be good to see them take on more responsibility, it will be their choice in the end. So it takes time to mentally adjust a population to be militarily aggressive. On top of this, end of conscription and transformation has just begun to enter the end phase at this point. Substantial expeditionary capabilities have to come online.

Btw, regarding Germany in Afghanistan.

Defense Ministry Admits German Planes in Action in Afghanistan


2. Goals and methods of the "anglosaxon" sphere of the West, may not necessarily be the same as on the European continent. Iraq is an example of this, where most of continental Europe didn't commit as they didn't consider Iraq part of GWOT.

Basically, allies are still allies, even when they might consider alternate approaches more appropriate.


3. Europeans are deployed across the world in far greater numbers than you would immediately believe. And their missions are more demanding and dangerous than you would think from the previous posts.

1. Australian special forces and the RAAF were on offensive operations from day one in Iraq and afghanistan, so were U.S., polish, spanish, british and canadian. And public opinion here was so different from most contiental european nations? i dont buy it. And were not talking stalingrad here. Sure public opinion is an important factor in any democracy, but saying that you cant send the forces you have allready deployed on offencive operations, in a situation where they are really needed, in a conflict you are commited to because of adverse public reaction to any casualties is a soft answer. And taking a decade to slowly wean the public on to offencive operations and the posibility of casualties while your allies take those casualties is in my mind criminal. P.S. Aircraft seeing action in an enviroment with allmost no AA threat isn't that impressive.

2. I agree originally that Iraq was not part of the WOT, but now both tactically and strategically it would be hard to argue that its not. (i.e. jihadi's fighting in iraq and the shift in muslim opinion because of the war). There's nothing wrong with different approaches, It's clear that we need a change. But a rift between the 'anglo saxon' powers and the 'continental' powers is not going to be productive. I'm not saying that we should all just jump in behind the U.S. and follow where they lead, but we all need to take responsibility for our obligations to the economic and military security of the rest of the world. And to be honest, many european nations dont seem to taking their responsibility seriously.

i really dont mean to be offensive and i have the utmost respect for all european armed forces. But there is a real problem in the world at the moment and we all need to pitch in.

 

[Waylander]

Remember that after WWII germany has been reeducated into one of the most peacefull countrys.
And for the normal guy here unemployment, bad education and crime is much more interesting than Afghanistan.
You just do not change this in a few years.
And in every time they ask people on the street the majority is against mor combat actions, against more oversea missions, against more missions in the middle east, etc.
This is the public opinion.
And I don't know how you look at democracy but saying that the crowd is dumb and you should give a shit about their opinion is not my definition of it.

I agree that this is not the right policy. I think that we need more Tornados and UAVs there for recon and CAS missions, more mortars and artillery for fire support, more IFVs, etc and we need to support the south.
But this is just my opinion.
And don't tell us something about short sighted decisions. We did not supported the Taliban before 9/11, supported dozens of regimes and ended democracies since WWII.

And with round about 10.000 soldiers in oversea missions, with Billions of € for development aid, with 18 dead and dozens of wounded soldiers since the beginning of the Afghanistan mission, not to talk of the ones killed and wounded during our other missions since Somalia we have done our bit in helping the world.

IT IS NOT YOUR DECISION!

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Dude relax. when did i say you dont give a shit about public opinion in a democracy? did you even read my post? And you dont think political parties and the media have an influence on public opinion? The decision to invade Iraq was made before they even started selling the idea. Its not perfect but its the way it works.

As far as the the U.S. supporting corrupt regimes scince WW2 i coun't agree with you more. But its really not that productive to say you guys did this and point fingers when we're trying to resolve a situation. This is the type of crap we need to get over if we're going to going to win the WOT.

Your country has made great sacrifices for the rest of the world in blood and money. I'm not doubting that. But it seems unjust to me that units from several nations cant go on offencive operations or even out at night, in a situation that is deteriarating, when those units are soarly needed, and allied units from many other nations have to.

i never said it was my decision????

P.S.i am truely sorry for the young lives your country has lost in afghanistan. and all the lives lost.

 

[Grand Danois]

1. Australian special forces and the RAAF were on offensive operations from day one in Iraq and afghanistan, so were U.S., polish, spanish, british and canadian.

And many others. French, Swedish, Danish...

And public opinion here was so different from most contiental european nations? i dont buy it. And were not talking stalingrad here. Sure public opinion is an important factor in any democracy, but saying that you cant send the forces you have allready deployed on offencive operations, in a situation where they are really needed, in a conflict you are commited to because of adverse public reaction to any casualties is a soft answer.

That was not my argument. It is a transition from a mental posture from defending your homeland from WARPAC to expeditionary warfare.

And you can't commit unless public opinion is with you. You can call it a soft answer all day long re allies, but it won't change the facts. Europeans will fight if need be.

And taking a decade to slowly wean the public on to offencive operations and the posibility of casualties while your allies take those casualties is in my mind criminal. P.S. Aircraft seeing action in an enviroment with allmost no AA threat isn't that impressive.

I guess you're not talking the heavily defended Serbian/Kosovo airspace here. Or that Danish troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq are similar to Aust. Or that Danish combat troops has seen a very good bit of intense, extended infantry fighting in Afghanistan?

2. I agree originally that Iraq was not part of the WOT, but now both tactically and strategically it would be hard to argue that its not. (i.e. jihadi's fighting in iraq and the shift in muslim opinion because of the war). There's nothing wrong with different approaches, It's clear that we need a change. But a rift between the 'anglo saxon' powers and the 'continental' powers is not going to be productive. I'm not saying that we should all just jump in behind the U.S. and follow where they lead, but we all need to take responsibility for our obligations to the economic and military security of the rest of the world. And to be honest, many european nations dont seem to taking their responsibility seriously.

No matter the objectives, Iraq could never be a good deal cost-benefit wise.

i really dont mean to be offensive and i have the utmost respect for all european armed forces. But there is a real problem in the world at the moment and we all need to pitch in.

Agree re the problems of the world...

I think 40,000-50,000 of highly trained and well-equipped soldiers deployed in theatres involving all levels of security is a big deal.

 

[Grand Danois]

I think that we need more Tornados and UAVs there for recon and CAS missions, more mortars and artillery for fire support, more IFVs, etc and we need to support the south.

Denmark is also reinforcing with 15 M113G3 + 60mm mortars + 30 extra soldiers on the October rotation.

Btw, IIRC the US supported the Mujahedin, not the Taliban against the Soviets.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I guess you're not talking the heavily defended Serbian/Kosovo airspace here. Or that Danish troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq are similar to Aust. Or that Danish combat troops has seen a very good bit of intense, extended infantry fighting in Afghanistan?

No matter the objectives, Iraq could never be a good deal cost-benefit wise.



Agree re the problems of the world...

I think 40,000-50,000 of highly trained and well-equipped soldiers deployed in theatres involving all levels of security is a big deal.

No actually i was talking about your statement re german aircraft in afghanistan.

look i thought Iraq was a bad idea from the start. But now its not just an american preblem, its EVERYONE's problem and its up to all of us to find a soloution. anglo saxon, european whatever.

Yeah that is a serious deployment. But the E.U. is probably the second most powerfull military body on the plannet (i'm not sure of numbers so correct me if i'm wrong) and you have to look at things in perspective, maybe next to the "Anglo Saxon" powers which would have probably deployed at least 4 times that number. Look i'm not trying to insult any europeans. But as i have stated three times above, restrictions on some units from taking offencive operations , in a situation that is getting worse by the day, when every man is needed, while other allied units are going out, is unjust and doesnt make much sence operationally. i'm going to bed!

 

[Grand Danois]

i'm going to bed!

Sleep well.

:sleepy2



Edit:

No actually i was talking about your statement re german aircraft in afghanistan.

Sorry, misunderstood you.

 

[Waylander]

The passage about democracy was because of this sentence by Icelord and not directed to you. Got confused of the names, sorry.
"Thats why John or Jane doe stay out of such decisions, because they don't look at the bloody facts and try not to get involved, they're too god damn self centered to care about anything, including Sudan."

BTW, German special forces (KSK) have also been involved into major combat operations from the beginning of the A-stan operation and are also operating in the south now. But this is fore sure not enough

The Taliban and the US tried to come to terms about a pipeline after the total victory of the Taliban against the northern alliance.
But you are right and I apologice. Pointing with the finger at everybody is not the right way.

In the end the army in germany is still not seen like the armys in other states. Many people here just don't feel good to the german soldiers in combat. Not just because they could get killed or wounded but also because of our past. And I think we just need some years to normalise our behaviour in terms of foreigh policy and the use of our armed forces.

 

[icelord]

The passage about democracy was because of this sentence by Icelord and not directed to you. Got confused of the names, sorry.
"Thats why John or Jane doe stay out of such decisions, because they don't look at the bloody facts and try not to get involved, they're too god damn self centered to care about anything, including Sudan."

Heres my point, and i should have made it much more clear, the opposition here as well as Europe to Afghanistan, Iraq and anywhere else, is dictated to by the media, they don't get their facts straight. the biggest problem i had going through these arguments with people is that they knew nothing of the situation and its purpose, for our soldiers as well as anyone elses, as long as they got their 6 o'clock summary, they didn't care-or the 7.30 reports summary, which is much worse:dodgy
Europe is the same, media dictates all, same in the US, thats why FOX News is the highest rating, people prefer their news in 30mins and with as little opinion and thought needed to analyse. Little do they relise, news cannot be given in a small package, especially if you want to understand more about the situation, thank god for the internet here, as people can expand their opinion:type , but they don't. :frown

And many others. French, Swedish, Danish...

Sweden...really? They are so neutral even the people of the Neutral planet would attack them(sry,see Futurama for ref.) For the swedes to send 400 is pretty impressive, for them really, seeing as Afghanistan is not UN mission.

In the end the army in germany is still not seen like the armys in other states. Many people here just don't feel good to the german soldiers in combat. Not just because they could get killed or wounded but also because of our past. And I think we just need some years to normalise our behaviour in terms of foreigh policy and the use of our armed forces

This is a real shame, because pre-hitler, Germany had nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for their military, beyond any other nation, and when they jumped into bed with the Nazis, it kinda changed public opinion, and the US post-WW2 didn't want the German army to be as grand as it once was, just enough to stop USSR, so they neutered it.
I doubt it will ever reach such a pinicle of perception as it once had, but thats because the new generation don't hold any right view of their soldiers in any western country anymore, and thats because the feel diplomacy works, but as a great man said, "when it comes to diplomacy tread softly, and carry a very large stick":nono
In Aus, thats slowly changing with the whole Kikoda, Long tan, ANZAC day being more public minded, and given more respect, and for us, the Vietnam view is disapearing, this perhaps is what destroyed it most for people, when any countries troops came home, all they thought of was US Marines torching homes, pillaging villages and USAF dropping Napalm, and this became the common view of all soldiers, including ours, let alone any Euro forces returning. And this was far from how either served, which was with honour and distinction.
With these sorts of images, as well as Abu Gharib, bodies being dragged along the road by cars, the media is able to exploit it for ratings, without any need for facts. Afghanistan is a mountain desert, with no grass, irag is a desert, with no grass, Afghanistan has muslim terrorists, Iraq has muslim terrorists, automatically,they are both the same war and the same problem, which is BS. Both have different missions, different agendas, but hey, who cares right?
And since this mindset is set in, it will get harder and harder for anyone to commit to anything, see Sudan, Somalia, well, lets just say Africa full stop, hell we know its a shit fight, but the locals can deal with it...right?

And i'm not attacking anyone, i'm just clearing my muddled and crazy mind

thats 4 cents from me, and can i get change to this? The economy might be slowing.