The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
NATO Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Do your fair share in Afghanistan, Nato told
AdamB    3/10/2007 6:53:34 AM
Do your fair share in Afghanistan, Nato told

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

10/03/2007


Britain's Nato allies who refuse to fight in Afghanistan were accused yesterday of causing "huge resentment" and a sense of betrayal among UK forces.

With four British soldiers killed within the last week, and the Taliban expected to launch a Spring offensive, senior military figures have called for Nato forces to contribute more or risk fracturing the alliance.

The 60-year-old coalition has come under pressure as countries such as Britain, America and Canada continue to shoulder the burden of the fighting, while others such as Germany and France have held their troops back.

Commanders are angry that despite pleas for reinforcements or to have "operational caveats" removed, some countries are still not heeding their requests.

Tony Blair yesterday failed to win a pledge of more fighting troops after he called for European allies to commit to a "maximum collective effort" during a summit in Brussels.The example of German troops not being allowed to operate at night is one of many caveats that have infuriated Britain's military leaders.

Lord Inge, who was head of the Armed Forces during the 1990s, told The Daily Telegraph that the limitations were making the alliance ineffective.

"When you go on an operation as complex and dangerous as this, where some Nato nations are not playing a full part, it makes the job of a commander much more difficult if he cannot use half the troops. It breaks a fundamental military principle."

Lord Inge added that there was now "huge resentment" among troops who were putting their lives on the line when "others are not".

He said: "It also undermines Nato's credibility in the long term if it cannot respond to operational challenges such as this."

Nato had to be prepared for a "very long haul" of up to 20 years' fighting, he added.

The lack of troops and the caveats issue "reflected very badly on Nato", agreed Lord Guthrie, who was a former head of the Armed Forces and advisor to Mr Blair.

"Considering the amount of people the British have out there they are doing an amazing job but it's a smaller part of the overall picture in Afghanistan," he said.

"Tactically we are winning but the strategic battle is a long way off from being won. That is many years off and we will see if Nato has the stomach to see it through."

Col Tim Collins, who served in Iraq, believes that at the very least other countries should provide more finance for those doing the hard fighting. "Helmand province is no place for defence forces that cannot go out at night without their mothers," he said.

Since the Riga summit last year there have been an extra 7,000 troops pledged, taking the total numbers to 39,000.

Following the announcement last week of a further 1,400 troops, the British contingent will soon top 7,700.

Meanwhile, the German government yesterday agreed to send six Tornado jets and 500 support staff to Afghanistan. However, the aircraft will be used primarily for reconnaissance and the soldiers will not be involved in combat.

But while Britain and America will continue to put pressure on their allies to provide more fighting men, a Nato source summed up the situation when he said:

"You are not going to get the Germans to fight for you by shouting at them."

The British soldier who died from injuries received in a grenade attack in the town of Sangeen on Thursday has been named as Michael Smith, who was 39 and came from Liverpool.

The Warrant Officer Class 2, of 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, had 22 years of service in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan.

His commanding officer, Lt Col Neil Wilson, called him "an indomitable character and an institution both within his battery and the wider regiment".

BRITAIN (6000, soon rising to 7700)
Royal Marine frontline fighting force heavily involved in Operation Achilles


CANADA (2500)
Frontline troops disrupting Taliban supplies and reinforcements on Kandahar / Helmand border


AMERICA (14,000)
Frontline search and destroy operations, plus tactical reinforcements for Achilles


DENMARK (400)
Provincial reconstruction team in north, reconaissance unit fighting in Helmand


FRANCE (1000)
Security force in Kabul, special forces leaving south after heavy losses (running away).


AUSTRALIA (500)
Engineering team and some special forces in Uruzgan


GERMANY (3000)
Reconstruction team in north-east, some soldiers in Kabul


HOLLAND (2200)
Frontline troops in Uruzgan, F16 jets used in Helmand.


ITALY (1950)
Reconstruction team in Herat. No frontline presence


SPAIN (550)
Reconstruction and security in Badghis province


telegraph.co.uk
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

jean    one again....Cheating.   3/10/2007 9:31:11 AM
link

the link , the true one.
Once again , AdamB added personal elements to this copy/past press article. ( specially the "running away " for france)
You're more than stupid,you should leave this board, now. Sysops , do you job , please.


 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       3/10/2007 10:08:18 AM

link


the link , the true one.
Once again , AdamB added personal elements to this copy/past press article. ( specially the "running away " for france)
You're more than stupid,you should leave this board, now. Sysops , do you job , please.




Hey all that he did was to add the troop strengths to the article and his little quip about running away, Hardly overtly nationalistic when compared to some of FS's rants about French Military Dominance
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       3/10/2007 11:29:57 AM
Hey all that he did was to add the troop strengths to the article and his little quip about running away, Hardly overtly nationalistic when compared to some of FS's rants about French Military Dominance
There is a difference between AdamB chauvinist and french bashing comments and me.
I never do such insulting comments and anybody can check it.
France has strenghts and weaknesses and I only try to restablish a fair view.I'm not nationalist but patriot.And I never overestimated our capabilities on this board.
 
Now, on Afghanistan issues:
Afghanistan is outside NATO treaty scope.However post 911, France as Germany fully supported NATO involvement in Afghanistan and France has done the second contribution in air support in 2002 after USA.
However USA shifted their foreign policy towards their allied, by using WOT to fullfill their own agenda especially in middle east without consulting its allies on some major issues like Iraq.
Since you would understand that we are not now ready to obey if we do not have any regard on WOT policy especially in Afghanistan  were our troops were involved.
USA want to act alone? Let it be and I agree we do only symbolic effort now.
We don't ran away, we leave a coalition doing a war which is not ours.As german do.
We leave USA alone in their sh@t with their vassal/poodle allies who can not do more.Good luck.
 
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia    FS Insulting - you are now.   3/10/2007 2:35:27 PM



Hey all that he did was to add the troop strengths to the article and his little quip about running away, Hardly overtly nationalistic when compared to some of FS's rants about French Military Dominance


There is a difference between AdamB chauvinist and french bashing comments and me.

I never do such insulting comments and anybody can check it.

France has strenghts and weaknesses and I only try to restablish a fair view.I'm not nationalist but patriot.And I never overestimated our capabilities on this board.

 

Now, on Afghanistan issues:

Afghanistan is outside NATO treaty scope.However post 911, France as Germany fully supported NATO involvement in Afghanistan and France has done the second contribution in air support in 2002 after USA.

However USA shifted their foreign policy towards their allied, by using WOT to fullfill their own agenda especially in middle east without consulting its allies on some major issues like Iraq.

Since you would understand that we are not now ready to obey if we do not have any regard on WOT policy especially in Afghanistan  were our troops were involved.

USA want to act alone? Let it be and I agree we do only symbolic effort now.

We don't ran away, we leave a coalition doing a war which is not ours.As german do.

We leave USA alone in their sh@t with their vassal/poodle allies who can not do more.Good luck.

 

1. That's insulting to allies who do not pick and choose which particular campaign of the GWOT they will or won't fight in.

2. The US consulted you until it was blue in the face. All you could do was worry about the contracts you would lose if Saddam's regime lost power. If you equate the US "listening" to you with "doing as you say" then your arrogance is truly unfathomable. The US talked and listened and talked and listened and finally decided it had to do what it had to do and did it with real allies who share similar interests and values.

We have a saying: "Either lead, follow, or get out of the way of those who will."

I read elsewhere on SP today the German ROE don't allow them out at night. Germans afraid of the dark? Now I've heard everything. A pity they weren't afraid to go out at night from 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. My extended family today might be a bit larger.

Cheers.

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       3/10/2007 3:05:20 PM
To name some countries poodles (ex: Poland) or vassal  (ex: Oz) are not personnal insults to people of these countries but facts.
 
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia    Opinions are not facts   3/10/2007 3:38:38 PM

To name some countries poodles (ex: Poland) or vassal  (ex: Oz) are not personnal insults to people of these countries but facts.

 


Your arrogance is, as I suggested above, unfathomable. Not a fact but an opinion. I daresay the opinion of most.

A little humility would not go astray.

link Foch: "We intend today in Amiens to express to you and the Commonwealth of Australia our gratitude......Our aspirations and our will had to be agreed, they could not be too closely allied. Although our task was never easy, it was made less difficult by the patriotism and the passionate valour of the Australians which served as an example to the whole world. That wonderful attack of yours at Villers Bretonneux was the final proof, if any were needed, that the real task of the High Command was to show itself equal to it's soldiers. You saved Amiens. You saved France. Our gratitude will remain ever and always to Australia."

Australians, including my ancestors (one of whom is buried in your soil), did this not because we were poodles or vassals of France, nor simply for gratitude, but because we believed we had shared national interests and cultural values. We have always believed in helping our mates.

For the same reasons we now fight alongside the USA.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver    AdvanceAustralia   3/31/2007 2:48:25 AM



.... All you could do was worry about the contracts you would lose if Saddam's regime lost power. If you equate the US "listening" to you with "doing as you say" then your arrogance is truly unfathomable. The US talked and listened and talked and listened and finally decided it had to do what it had to do and did it with real allies who share similar interests and values.

We have a saying: "Either lead, follow, or get out of the way of those who will."

Indeed this is a major issue isn't it? Immediately prior to GWII, the French, Germans, and Russians were working furiously to obtain a UN vote to completely free Saddam of sanctions. Turns out they had already been paid with contracts worth billions if the sanctions were lifted - as well as other gratituties from the oil for food scandal.  Once released of sanctions, Saddam could have done virtually anything he wanted. Some of his people claimed he fully intended to resume developing WMD. He may have stopped WMD development during sanctions, but had apparently carefully preserved the research information. I have frequently speculated this upcoming vote with support by the French et al is what largely motivated Bush to attack when he did.   With this admittedly different view in mind, I somewhat blame the French for Bush's attack...
In Afghanistan, if the other NATO members would show solidarity and determination, it would help the effort tremendously - not only militarily, but also in reducing the morale of the enemy. Instead, the half-hearted efforts by some nations only encourage the enemy.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that.
 
In the current Iranian crisis - both nuclear and UK hostages - I fear a similar trend. If the EU would act decisively and have the guts to implement a scheduled series of ever strengthening sanctions against Iran - leading all the way up to a full embargo and even a war-precipitating blockade, there might not be a war with Iran. Just enacting such a set of sanctions might be sufficient if the EU was unanimous in enacting it. It would show they'd prefer there be no war but were strong enough to risk war. 
 
But this isn't going to happen. Again, it is because the EU is more worried about business with Iran or the price of oil then the long term future of the western world. I keep saying - Iran is counting on this division in the west.  It is precisely this attitude that will bring about war with the US and the UK. Without the west strongly standing together and saying we'll do this regardless of the outcome, I believe war will happen. In this sense, I will once again blame France and the EU for an Iranian war. 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       3/31/2007 7:03:10 AM
It would be different when a joint EU/NATO decision was made after a conference. Even when support would be refused things would have been different when the statement would be along the lines of "We can feel your pain, but we don't see any good come of this Iraq invasion." According to some US foreign policy experts this would have been way more acceptable to the US than what actually happened.

What happened was France and Germany were immediately opposed the US invasion of Iraq without bothering to consult any other EU members.  What made it worse was the way the opposition was laced with anti Americanism. There was no regard for what the US was going through. Then there were the diplomatics in the UN (the no matter what veto from the French). There were the revalations of French involvement in Iraqi oil. All the while this was going on with the most anti America rethoric.

France in the media and in politics and in diplomacy has been swearing at the US for the last 4 years and now the French are suprised that US aren't exactly all that friendly towards France.







 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy