(UK) Nato in a spin over Afghan expansion

[Beer Monster]

Mmmmmmmh half the troops and no Apache (to expensive to maintain!) ....... but accomplish the same job ....... riiiiight ..... interesting decision.


The size and mission of the British military force due to be sent to southern Afghanistan next year as part of Nato plans to expand its peacekeeping operations are being scaled back, the BBC has learned.

The move comes amid continuing uncertainty over the commitment of other European alliance members to the plan for Nato to take over responsibility from the US for the more dangerous south and east, the heartland of the four-year-old Taleban-led insurgency.

Last week, the Dutch government again postponed a decision on sending 1,100 troops to the volatile southern province of Uruzgan, amid domestic concerns about casualties.

For similar reasons, the UK government is now considering sending only about 1,000 combat troops to the equally challenging province of Helmand, well-placed sources have told the BBC.

That is about half the number originally discussed.

The government may also shelve plans to deploy Apache attack helicopters to support them.

'Number one priority'

Part of the problem, the BBC was told, is that the government "has still not decided what it wants the military to do in Helmand".

However, according to these sources, proposals for British units to hunt drug traffickers in Helmand - Afghanistan's number one opium producing region - have now been abandoned.

On paper though, Nato nations remain committed to the expansion of the peacekeeping force.

Foreign ministers agreed to provide 6,000 troops for the move south at a meeting last week in Brussels, with most coming from Britain - which will lead the alliance's forces - and Canada.

But as so often in the past since Nato took over leadership of the Afghan peacekeeping mission - which it calls its number one priority - the details of this commitment had not been resolved.

Only the Canadian part of the plan is on track, with about half their 2,000 promised troops already in place in Kandahar.

'Dutch wobble'

In Afghan government circles, there is some frustration at the confusion, directed especially at the Dutch.

"They agreed to go to Uruzgan a long time ago," said one official. "Didn't they realise it was dangerous?"

However, jocular remarks reportedly made by a senior Afghan official to a visiting Dutch delegation about the number of "body bags" they might need for the Uruzgan deployment didn't help, several western diplomats have told the BBC.

Politicians in The Hague have also been worried about the treatment of any detainees their troops capture and the possibility of the death penalty being used.

But assurances have been given by both US and Afghan officials on both counts, and it is hoped that the Netherlands will eventually come on board.

But the Dutch wobble has served as useful cover for British indecision.

It is now two months since the UK government was expected to announce a robust and ambitious deployment of up to 4,000 troops to Helmand.

It would have involved sending the UK's 16 Air Assault brigade, which has three parachute battalions at its core, with back-up from US-made Apache attack helicopters, as well as artillery and many other support elements.

But the latest plan is for no more than two battalions of paratroops to be deployed - up to 1,200 soldiers - and with much less support.

'Lost his bottle'

The eventual number of combat troops could be far lower.

One source said proposals had been floated for just 200 paratroops to be deployed.

The Ministry of Defence may also resist making what would be the first deployment of Britain's recently acquired Apaches - because of the cost of providing support to these high-tech aircraft.

Instead, they could be replaced by less effective Lynx helicopters.

But such changes will force British commanders to be far less ambitious.

The problem is "John Reid has lost his bottle", said one source referring to the UK defence secretary.

"There was a plan to go after traffickers. But now they're worried about casualties and public reaction. So it's off the agenda now."

But although there are growing numbers of British troops - and civilian advisers already on the ground in Helmand preparing - their mission is still not clear.

"PJHQ is tearing its hair out," said another well-placed source, referring to the British military's UK headquarters.

But the expansion south - due to be completed by June next year - is not the end of the story.

Nato is then supposed to take over responsibility for eastern Afghanistan, along the border with Pakistan, an area many regard as even more dangerous.

Link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4521318.stm)

[Pindeho]

Damnit why are paras getting the action here. Where are the Commandos.

[NewsMan]

The Americans short changed Afghanistan, now the Europeans...

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

....another reason why Europe should never be trusted again.
Ever!!
Let's just shake hands and part ways.

[Beer Monster]

....another reason why Europe should never be trusted again.
Ever!!
Let's just shake hands and part ways.

Jumping to conclusions my man. This is a very fluid situation. Last month we were increasing the numbers of troops going (see here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1880012,00.html)). This month we are halving. Remember this is just press speculation ......

[dedgod]

Well it makes sense..
all the Al Qaeda are in Iraq, not in afghanistan..

[Uncle Sam]

This is like those "Military Analysts" that come on CNN or FOX, and try to explain what's going on...Funny sh*t.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Very frustrating. NATO appears to be nothing more than a gentleman's club, that's suspiciously devoid of gentlemen.

Is this a game? I have more troops than this in my f*ckng pants. Please somebody tell me that this chart does not represent the true numbers on the ground.

ISAF contributing nations
(as of 21 February 2005)
NATO Nations
Belgium 616
Bulgaria 37
Canada 992
Czech Republic 17
Denmark 122
Estonia 10
France 742
Germany 1816
Greece 171
Hungary 159
Iceland 20
Italy 506
Latvia 9
Lithuania 9
Luxemburg 10
Netherlands 311
Norway 313
Poland 5
Portugal 21
Romania 72
Slovakia 16
Slovenia 27
Spain 551
Turkey 825

Partner Nations
Albania 22
Austria 3
Azerbaijan 22
Croatia 45
Finland 61
former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1 (http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm#FN1)) 20
Ireland 10
Sweden 85
Switzerland 4

Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations
New Zealand 5



This is the "good war" remember....the one that had to be done, the one that was fully justified - the place that will revert to a terrorist haven again if a legitimate government cannot gain control. There's no bickering about this one - we are all in agreement that this is an unpleasant job that has to be done.

Why isn't there overwhelming military might being poured in there to maintain control? At least the US & UK have an excuse, with large numbers of troops and lots of $ going to Iraq. Why isn't the rest of the "West" stepping up to the plate? Surely these wealthy societies that lavish such extensive benefits upon their citizens can afford a modest military deployment of 20,000 - 30,000 troops.

No wonder Europe is so up in arms (pun intended) about America's Middle-East adventures. If these troop levels are the best Europe can muster, I'd be terrified too. The US would appear to be not just an 800 lb gorilla but more like a 80,000lb gorilla by comparison.

If we are all on the same page here about terrorism, and the modus operandi that they use, and the processes involved, then Afghanistan is not Americas' problem - but the West's problem. Most Europeans enjoy social benefits that Americans cannot even dream of. Why are Americans footing the bill to keep Europe safe when they are fully capable of doing it themselves? These levels are an embarrassment.

and /rant off

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

Luxembourg has more people in the ground than NZ??????? Little LUXEMBOURG???

Are you sure those numbers are right?

[sp2c]

Very frustrating. NATO appears to be nothing more than a gentleman's club, that's suspiciously devoid of gentlemen.

Is this a game? I have more troops than this in my f*ckng pants. Please somebody tell me that this chart does not represent the true numbers on the ground.

don't know about the others but for the Netherlands it's about right (375 actually), we had 1000 or so marines in country with ISAF during the elections but they've gone home and their hospital was shipped to pakistan.

then there's the special forces detachment near Kandahar which is little over 250 strong including chinooks and about 550 on 4 ships deployed for Enduring Freedom


This is the "good war" remember....the one that had to be done, the one that was fully justified - the place that will revert to a terrorist haven again if a legitimate government cannot gain control. There's no bickering about this one - we are all in agreement that this is an unpleasant job that has to be done.

the one that the Americans kept refusing offers for because Rumsfeld wanted to do it with just commando's, air traffic controllers and aircraft.
people simply turned their attentions elsewhere


Why isn't there overwhelming military might being poured in there to maintain control? At least the US & UK have an excuse, with large numbers of troops and lots of $ going to Iraq. Why isn't the rest of the "West" stepping up to the plate? Surely these wealthy societies that lavish such extensive benefits upon their citizens can afford a modest military deployment of 20,000 - 30,000 troops.

we don't even have 30.000 combat troops, let alone the ability to deploy such numbers :D

anyhow, there's also the Balkans which is to most Europeans a bit more important then far away Afghanistan.


No wonder Europe is so up in arms (pun intended) about America's Middle-East adventures. If these troop levels are the best Europe can muster, I'd be terrified too. The US would appear to be not just an 800 lb gorilla but more like a 80,000lb gorilla by comparison.

don't flatter yourself dude, nobody is terrified in Europe except maybe by it's disregard of international law and treatment of prisoners of war.


If we are all on the same page here about terrorism, and the modus operandi that they use, and the processes involved, then Afghanistan is not Americas' problem - but the West's problem. Most Europeans enjoy social benefits that Americans cannot even dream of. Why are Americans footing the bill to keep Europe safe when they are fully capable of doing it themselves? These levels are an embarrassment.

and /rant off
Afghanistan is the Afghans' problem ... don't think for a second that 9-11 would not have happened if Afghanistan was a stable democratic country.

most European nations are still pissed of with American politicians telling us we suck ... therefor European politicians have a hard time gathering up the support for the fight in Afghanistan they had before the Iraq war, and thus they can't send troops (democracy is a bitch).

[dedgod]

If the Dutch (or any country for that matter) are worried about loosing people in Afgan. why bother to have an Army to start with? I'm not flaming , but if you can't or won't put your people in harms way why bother at all.


I think its because no one's bombing amsterdam..
Terrorsists bomb the US and UK...not amsterdam, so why send dutch troops in harms way?

Some european governments will not change their thinking until they face terrorist attacks..Heck neither did we until 9/11..so why blame them?

[Vorian]

don't know about the others but for the Netherlands it's about right (375 actually), we had 1000 or so marines in country with ISAF during the elections but they've gone home and their hospital was shipped to pakistan.

then there's the special forces detachment near Kandahar which is little over 250 strong including chinooks and about 550 on 4 ships deployed for Enduring Freedom

the one that the Americans kept refusing offers for because Rumsfeld wanted to do it with just commando's, air traffic controllers and aircraft.
people simply turned their attentions elsewhere

we don't even have 30.000 combat troops, let alone the ability to deploy such numbers :D

anyhow, there's also the Balkans which is to most Europeans a bit more important then far away Afghanistan.

don't flatter yourself dude, nobody is terrified in Europe except maybe by it's disregard of international law and treatment of prisoners of war.

Afghanistan is the Afghans' problem ... don't think for a second that 9-11 would not have happened if Afghanistan was a stable democratic country.

most European nations are still pissed of with American politicians telling us we suck ... therefor European politicians have a hard time gathering up the support for the fight in Afghanistan they had before the Iraq war, and thus they can't send troops (democracy is a bitch).

At last. Somebody said it. US wars are not our problem.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

At last. Somebody said it. US wars are not our problem.

Ditto for European wars, but there seems to be a really bad precedent in the past 100 years for Europeans demanding that the US get involved. And that's why I say that we need to shake hands with Europe, wish each other the best of luck, and part ways. Permanently.

Adieu vielle Europe!

[sp2c]

If the Dutch (or any country for that matter) are worried about loosing people in Afgan. why bother to have an Army to start with? I'm not flaming , but if you can't or won't put your people in harms way why bother at all.

the problem is not putting our people in harms way, it's putting them in harms way on a mission they can't possibly accomplish. It would be stupid to loose people for a lost cause. We learn from our mistakes, 10 years ago we send troops to Srebrenica with bad intel, relluctant allies and barely any means of actually fighting off the enemy and we all know what happened ... that's not going to happen to us again and I for one am glad that my politicians don't look at the military as you do.

we're not there to die simply because we are troops, we are there to defend our country

The mission we signed up for was peacekeeping, but the province in question has no peace whatsoever so there need to be some changes in the mandate


The reason to go there sounds sound to me, to interdict the dope coming out of Afgan. that will make its way to Amsterdam, London, New York, and Toronto, is a damn good reason for one.
Most if not all the people that want to kill us are armed with weapons not pillows, and sometimes you just have to stand up and take "it" to the bad guy.
no the reason (as advertized by the Americans) to go there is the reconstruction and stabilisation of the country, that's a bit hard with all the shells and bullets flying around.

if we wanted to stop dope coming in our country we'd be better off invading south America ... or putting troops on our own streets :D

[Pille1234]

Why isn't there overwhelming military might being poured in there to maintain control? At least the US & UK have an excuse, with large numbers of troops and lots of $ going to Iraq.
That's not an excuse, that's a mistake. Believe it or not, but the Iraq war has destroyed much of the goodwill and legitimacy of the Afghan war, at least in the eye of the european public. And many don't want to support the Iraq adventure, not even by proxy when filling the gaps the US&UK opened when going for Iraq.
In fact there are many ppl (majoritiy?) who don't see any european interests in Afghanistan, no security and no strategic interests and therefore consider european troops to be the deputy sheriff for US american global alignment, camouflaged as GWOT.

[sp2c]

I think its because no one's bombing amsterdam..
Terrorsists bomb the US and UK...not amsterdam, so why send dutch troops in harms way?

Some european governments will not change their thinking until they face terrorist attacks..Heck neither did we until 9/11..so why blame them?

we have allready send troops in harm's way, over 7.500 to Iraq and the number of troops that went to Afghanistan is even higher and still counting (exact number is still a big secret untill it's over)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Mmmmmmmh half the troops and no Apache (to expensive to maintain!) ....... but accomplish the same job ....... riiiiight ..... interesting decision.



Link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4521318.stm)

This is absolutely typical of Tony Blair. Talk tough, promise the earth then try and do it on the cheap.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the airborne brigade plus Apaches eventually turns out to be a couple of blokes sharing a rusty Lee-Enfield.

[sp2c]

Ditto for European wars, but there seems to be a really bad precedent in the past 100 years for Europeans demanding that the US get involved.

that argument kind of went out the window after your politician's involvement in Indonesia's independance.




And that's why I say that we need to shake hands with Europe, wish each other the best of luck, and part ways. Permanently.

Adieu vielle Europe!
right :D

[2Sheds_Jackson]

At last. Somebody said it. US wars are not our problem.

"At last" ? Isn't this all that Europe ever says? "it's not my problem". Until it grows to a size that does become a problem, and then they can't manage it, and then the hand goes out. Over and over. What was it Einstein said about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results...



That's not an excuse, that's a mistake. Believe it or not, but the Iraq war has destroyed much of the goodwill and legitimacy of the Afghan war, at least in the eye of the european public. And many don't want to support the Iraq adventure, not even by proxy when filling the gaps the US&UK opened when going for Iraq.
In fact there are many ppl (majoritiy?) who don't see any european interests in Afghanistan, no security and no strategic interests and therefore consider european troops to be the deputy sheriff for US american global alignment, camouflaged as GWOT.

This at least is an explanation that makes sense and that I can live with. Europe is simply using Afghanistan and it's people as a political lever to contain the US/UK. Make us devote more resources etc. That's fine, but there are those here who see what's happening and understand it well -and who will exercise our political will against Europe elsewhere. As long as everybody understands the game that's afoot -

Listen - either Afghanistan is a necessary conflict or it is not. If it is, then the nations involved owe their committed forces the fullest measure of support - and that means much larger numbers for better security. If it is nothing but an American diversion, then Europe should have the political courage to say so, back out of it, and take the consequences. Our fighting men and women - all of them regardless of nationality in A-stan, deserve better than some half-assed effort that drags on for years.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

At last. Somebody said it. US wars are not our problem.

Remember that old saying "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan"??

Oi mate! If the Afghan situation is straightened out, and it clearly is headed in that direction, you're going to see the members of the "Coalition of the Sidelines", those with very small numbers-if any-all of the sudden step up to the front and take full credit for saving the situation, while denegrating the actions of the two big players (UK/USA).

Likewise, if the election in Iraq produces positive results, stand by for the rapid appearance in-theater of elements from the "Coalition of the Sidelines" and the OG of the "Colation of the We Left You In The Field" (that would be Spain's current Government--their Army is blameless).

[Beer Monster]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the airborne brigade plus Apaches eventually turns out to be a couple of blokes sharing a rusty Lee-Enfield.

What? What? How dare you!!! ........... It would be a couple of very well turned out servicemen with an immaculate Lee-Enfield .......... but probably with only 5 rounds. ;)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

What? What? How dare you!!! ........... It would be a couple of very well turned out servicemen with an immaculate Lee-Enfield .......... but probably with only 5 rounds. ;)

Well if it was my Lee-Enfield it would be immaculate:)

[Kingswat]

The Americans short changed Afghanistan, now the Europeans...

It's gonna come down to the canadians and 1 or 2 other countries eventually.

[Beer Monster]

Well if it was my Lee-Enfield it would be immaculate:)

Ahhh fair enough :)!!

If Oman and the Dhofar are anything to go by I suppose all we need is a small bunch of dedicated men with well maintained rifles and eventually the support of the local populace!

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Ahhh fair enough :)!!

If Oman and the Dhofar are anything to go by I suppose all we need is a small bunch of dedicated men with well maintained rifles and eventually the support of the local populace!

I suspect that given AFG's recent history 'a few good men' is not likely to be enough any more.

[sp2c]

Remember that old saying "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan"??

Oi mate! If the Afghan situation is straightened out, and it clearly is headed in that direction, you're going to see the members of the "Coalition of the Sidelines", those with very small numbers-if any-all of the sudden step up to the front and take full credit for saving the situation, while denegrating the actions of the two big players (UK/USA).

Likewise, if the election in Iraq produces positive results, stand by for the rapid appearance in-theater of elements from the "Coalition of the Sidelines" and the OG of the "Colation of the We Left You In The Field" (that would be Spain's current Government--their Army is blameless).

there's only one big player in Afghanistan ... UK's contribution is along the lines with everybody else's and the German contribution is bigger

[AROUETLJ]

This is rapidly turning into a flame subject, but before it does, remember that the Afghanistan deployment question is the result of the problem with NATO, viz. whenever an operation is under NATO control there are more European troops than American troops on the ground, but overall NATO command is still in the hands of the US. There was a brief period when SACEUR was a European, but then the threat from the Soviets, real or imagined, provided a good excuse for the US to take over NATO command. The system worked for 50 years, because the US a large number of troops as a deterrent against aggression. After the Balkans, and after naan-ulevun, when US public interest (and government attention, for that matter), were switched off after their customary three-month maximum duration, it was European troops who were left to do the cleaning up after the party.

My point is that ISAF is an almost exclusively European affair, but it is controlled, ultimately, by an American NATO general. Offensive operations in Afghanistan are even worse, being under American, not NATO, control.

Now don't go thinking that I'm in favour or against this and that, I'm just stating some facts before the usual emotional outbursts from everyone.

[Sabre]

I suspect that given AFG's recent history 'a few good men' is not likely to be enough any more.

On the contrary, Afghanistan's history would suggest that it is all too easy to overrun the country with thousands of troops, but much harder to control it. This is, after all, our (UK) third go at the place!

The fuedal/tribal nature of Afghanistan means that the 'status quo' never really stays in place for very long. As soon as some order/regeime is installed, another rival faction is gunning to take it's place. The various warlords are only looking out for what is best for them right now. You have longstanding pro-taliban warlords 'converting' to 'our side' at the blink of an eye, just when they see their luck is running out. Then you've got others who are 'allies', but stick to their 'principles' (ie that they run their own show with no help from the government) when asked to join the ANA. End result being they turn on the ANA, rival warlords turn on them and hey presto you've got a localised, 4-way conflict! :roll:

It will take ALOT of hard graft to get that place sorted out. And that's not even touching the south!

[Wolf]

Damnit why are paras getting the action here. Where are the Commandos.


Why shouldn't they "get the action"?

The Paras are just as well trained as the Marines!

They have the highest level of fitness of any regiment in the British army(outside UKSF obviously) are totally determined and are extremely aggressive all this serves to make a very effective fighting force that is more than a match for any enemy they're likely to encounter.

Their motto is "ready for anything" and believe me they are!

[EsoognomEhT]

They have the highest level of fitness of any regiment in the British army(outside UKSF obviously)


bollocks.
Its the RLC.

[Wolf]

bollocks.
Its the RLC.


Ha ha ha that's funny.

[babydave]

another example of european politicians still trying to play games against the UK and US.

making a token contrbution of 10 troops is a joke, the UK forces are already vastly overstretched, we have troops all over the world on peacekeeping operations and in Iraq. The US has Iraq to deal with as well as keeping an eye on Iran/South Korea.

Its time for other european NATO nations to step up to the plate and make a sizeable contribution, especially those that are pulling out of Iraq or already have done so.

Europe isnt under threat from Russia anymore (The US sent plenty of troops back then to protect Europe), theres no need to be stingy. Especially countries like France and Spain that have strong militaries.

Whatever your opinion on the Iraq war, afghaistan was completely different and is about defeating terrorism as well as giving the afghans a better life. there is no excuse not to make an effort

/end rant

[a_very_ex_STAB]

bollocks.
Its the RLC.


No its the TAs but obviously they're not available for AFG during the week

[TheHombre]

I think its because no one's bombing amsterdam..
Terrorsists bomb the US and UK...not amsterdam, so why send dutch troops in harms way?

Some european governments will not change their thinking until they face terrorist attacks..Heck neither did we until 9/11..so why blame them?

Nobody´s bombing Stockholm either but we still have 124 swedes serving in Afghanistan. The government recently also decided to increase the swedish engagement in Afg to 375 despite the fact that an IED killed to swedish SF and got a third still hospitalized.

I really hope that the dutch doesn´t think the way you suggesting m8.

[sp2c]

we have 375 troops in Afghanistan right now and that's not counting the 250 strong detachment in Kandahar and a rnlmc battallion that has just returned

I keep saying this but nobody seems to notice?

[TheHombre]

we have 375 troops in Afghanistan right now and that's not counting the 250 strong detachment in Kandahar and a rnlmc battallion that has just returned

I keep saying this but nobody seems to notice?

I notice bro...just loved the NL Apaches in Afg. The guy is, I guess, US and he was just using Amsterdam as an example...so there´s no need for us to get all heated up. :)

[sp2c]

well my guess would be that the guy doesn't really know what he's talking about ;)

last year we had at some point over 2000 troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and 500 in Bosnia our military can't sustain that so this year has been a bit more relaxed regarding deployment figures ... it's take it or leave it, if the yankees don't appreciate our troops for their war then we might as well just keep them home

[babydave]

i appreciate what the dutch soldiers do, theyre one of the strongest allies

but is it a cost issue or is about too many men abroad? because there's isnt a threat to the netherlands mainland anymore.

i dont buy the fact that they are scared, you join the armed forces of any country knowing one day you may have to make a sacrifice.

[sp2c]

both ... after the latest (insane!) budgetcuts the army was supposed to be able to deploy 2 battallions (infantry/groundtroups) abroad at any moment

first thing the politicians do is send a heavily reinforced battallion to Iraq that kept getting larger and larger, iit ended up being a little over 1300 troops at its strongest point and 1700 during the withdrawal! during that period a PRT, Apache's and F16's went to Afghanistan and all that on top of the contribution in the Balkan's (another battallion) that is simply too much I talked they had to give troops from the guided weapons group infantry refresher courses to man the PRT ... and they were replaced by SAILORS!!!

And of course it all has to be paid by our ever shringking military budget (though parts of the iraq mission was funded by development money for third world countries) ... the government needs to make a choice either stop cutting the budget and start spending more money on the military or stick to the 2 battallion maximum on 1 mission at the time (and stop cutting the goddamn budget!)

and no, the troops aren't scared ... they're pissed off but that has nothing to do with Americans or Afghans but with some Dutch people ... the government is scared, they aren't as solid as they want to be or try desperately to look like and they don't want to send out troops to a dangerous mission that's failed by default ... it'll kill their political careers