Afghanistan

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
In the dangerous south of Afghanistan, it's time for more unity.
Read on:

source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... 8020071026

By James Grubel

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia promised to keep troops in Afghanistan on Friday after a second Australian soldier in a month was killed in action, but urged NATO countries to send more forces to Afghanistan's troubled south.

"It's not going to alter our commitment," Prime Minister John Howard said on Friday.

Australia has about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, working alongside Dutch troops in Uruzgan province, including special forces units who conduct long-range raids on Taliban strongholds in the country's south.

Taliban insurgents have intensified their attacks over the past 20 months, the bloodiest period since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in Kabul in late 2001.

Australia's Foreign minister Alexander Downer said European NATO countries needed to send more troops to Afghanistan, and to lift restrictions on their activities.

"We would like to see more European contributors contributing in the south where we have a particularly difficult environment," Downer told reporters in Adelaide.

"At the moment in the south, you have the Australians, the Canadians -- who have lost a large number of soldiers -- the Americans, the British, the Dutch of course," he said.

"But many of the European NATO countries have their troops in the north, which is not free of Taliban activity of course but it is a good deal quieter and a less threatening environment.

"We would like to see some of the restrictions that particularly European parliaments have placed on their troops lifted ... so that the European NATO countries that aren't making a big contribution in the south could make a more active contribution in the south."

Germany has lost 26 military personnel in Afghanistan, while Spain has lost 23. The U.S. has lost 451 while Canada has lost 71, according to the latest casualty figures.

The United States has also urged European NATO countries to send more troops, trainers and equipment to Afghanistan, and to lift restrictions on what activities they can do.

In the latest incident, an Australian special forces soldier based in Uruzgan was shot and killed fighting Taliban insurgents. His death follows the death on October 8 of another Australian soldier, killed by a roadside bomb in Uruzgan.

They are the first Australians killed in action in Afghanistan, although a third Australian soldier died in 2002 when his vehicle hit an old landmine from an earlier conflict.

Australia, a close U.S. ally, was one of the first nations to commit troops in late 2001 to the U.S.-led war to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda militants from Afghanistan. It also has about 1,500 troops in and around Iraq.

The deaths came during campaigning for Australia's national elections on November 24. The centre-left opposition Labor Party has promised to withdraw frontline troops from Iraq, but both sides of politics support the troop deployments to Afghanistan.

Howard made a private visit to the special forces base in Perth on Friday to offer his condolences for the tragedy. Labor's leader Kevin Rudd also visited the barracks to express his condolences and support for the military role in Afghanistan.


+

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM ... xsWUFbulbg

Nato troops launch Afghan offensive
12 hours ago

Dutch troops backed by Afghan and British forces have launched a major offensive against the Taliban in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan.

The announcement came as Defence Minister Eimert van Middelkoop attempted to drum up support for the Dutch force of 1,600 troops at a NATO meeting in the Netherlands.

"This operation, code-named Spin Gahr, is aimed at improving security in specific parts of the province before winter," a Defence Ministry statement said.

"This security is essential for continuing development and reconstruction in Uruzgan province," it said.

Despite the Dutch troop presence, Taliban forces have gained in strength in Uruzgan in recent months, hindering attempts to help locals rebuild their lives after years of violence and Taliban rule.

Local officials approved the offensive and sought support from tribal elders before it began, the ministry said.

The Dutch government will shortly announce whether its troops will stay in Uruzgan when their mandate ends in August.

At a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Noordwijk, Van Middelkoop sought pledges of troops from other Alliance allies to bolster the Dutch presence.

On Wednesday, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates also called on other nations to join Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and the US, which are leading the fight against the Taliban in the south.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Forostar said:
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia promised to keep troops in Afghanistan on Friday after a second Australian soldier in a month was killed in action, but urged NATO countries to send more forces to Afghanistan's troubled south.

For once that it's not a canadian soldier who's killed in Afghanistan !
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

It doesn't matter who does the dying.  As allies, I like to hope we're all in it together.  It's very sad that many Canadians have died in Afghanistan, but it's sadder that there are many Canadians who seem to link up the illegal war in Iraq with this conflict, and condemn them both.  Personally, I hope for an extension of Canada's role in Afghanistan - not necessarily a combat role, maybe we could take a turn doing the quiet north, but it'd be nice to see other countries choose to make the same sacrifice, in name of our supposedly equal alliance.

After all, it was NATO what fucked this country up.  We should have to help put it back together, hmm?
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

LooseCannon said:
After all, it was NATO what fucked this country up.

Hell no. It was the Taleban. And before them the Mujaheddin. And before them the Soviets. And before them the Brits. It was always burning, since the world's been turning.

We should have to help put it back together, hmm?

I'd love to have your confidence. Afghanistan is an untamable country. It destroyed the Soviet Union. It halted the Brits and the Czars, the Turks, the Mongols, the Arabs. It's been the ultimate widow-maker for anyone who tried to conquer it for millennia.
We can destroy evil forces like the Taleban or al Qaeda, but we should never believe that we will be able to make Afghanistan work as a nation or a modern state.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

That's a bit pessimistic, isn't it?  I'm not suggesting that we (NATO) can rebuild Afghanistan and turn it into a pillar of an independent nation/democracy.  I am suggesting that there is enough will there to give the country a fighting chance.  If the central government falls after it has a leg to stand on, then so be it.

We're not there to occupy or win or anything.  Just to allow the new government a chance to not just be turned back over to the Taliban.  I don't think the Soviets, the Brits, or anyone had that in mind last time they went into Afghanistan.  The men and women whom I have spoken to that were deployed in Afghanistan get the sense from the locals that they want to make a run of it, and try to build some sort of country that isn't reliant on religious extremism.  It may take 10 years, it may take 20.  However, the length of time is because it takes awhile to allow for cultural change.

Consider the state of female education in Afghanistan.  Under the Taliban it was punishable by death for a woman to become educated, if I remember correctly.  Either that, or they just punished so many things by death for women that I just get them confused.  Even today, when NATO establishes a school, they will find that local elders will often clear all the girls out of the school as soon as the troops are gone.  This behaviour persists most often in the south, which was the Taliban's stronghold.  Other areas are taking to the reforms more readily.  However, many youthful men and women are in favour of this sort of change.  It will just take time.

If we can help buy this country some time, to give them a chance to stop the sort of domination that the mujaheddin, Soviets, and Taliban exerted upon them, then shouldn't we?

Note: I understand that Perun is a pacifist and thus these sorts of things never make an impression on him, so it's less directed at Perun than the world in general.  Damn you, world!
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

LooseCannon said:
Note: I understand that Perun is a pacifist and thus these sorts of things never make an impression on him, so it's less directed at Perun than the world in general.  Damn you, world!

Oh, I'm not saying the NATO presence in Afghanistan is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is a good thing, and it should be stocked up. There are some groups of people you can't deal with other than fighting them. Among those are the Taleban and al Qaeda. The Taleban reign over Afghanistan was inarguably the worst thing that could come out of the disastrous war following the Soviet invasion/departure. Islamic fundamentalism is like a terrible disease: You have to fight the cause and the symptoms at the same time; and as far as the symptoms go, there is no other choice than complete elimination. I'm not advocating a merciless killing spree against the members of either organisation, but I am completely and entirely for the elimination of them as entities.
The only thing is, we shouldn't make ourselves unfounded illusions. Removing Taleban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan and supporting a new government that combines western ideas of freedom and democracy with Afghan traditions is a good thing, but considering this very country in particular, we should be aware that it is most unlikely that this will last for more than one or two generations. Afghanistan is a very special case in the entire history of the world, so it should not discourage us from trying our best with other countries.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

For the Dutch, this matter is complicated. The "deal" with our parliament (and with NATO) was that our troops would stay until summer 2008. However, the mission was not (only) to be a fighting mission but a "rebuilding" mission. This rebuilding has become more and more difficult and so it seems, that it has becoming a military mission. The Netherlands still have not decided if they will leave in 2008, or if they will prolongue their stay in Uruzgan.

In Uruzgan are around 1600/1700 Dutch, 900 Australians, and some Gurkhas. This is simply NOT ENOUGH. The Netherlands pay 800.000 euro per day for this mission where other NATO countries don't contribute much, or have troops in the calm north. Besides money, more is needed to defeat the Taleban.

The real goal is to help the people in Afghanistan, so leaving in a situation like this, would be disastrous. So I'm afraid it will be leaving or staying, but then with MORE support. It seems a few countries will provide 50 people, and Georgia, which isn't even a NATO member, 200! I have no clue what the Netherlands will do, but when it comes to helping other countries, they've often chosen an independent role.

But how will they deal with the situation when this helping will mainly consists of fighting? Right now, many soldier-families & opposition parties want the troops back. Even one political party in particular, the Partij van de Arbeid (literally "Party of the Labour", a social-democratic political party), which is also in the government coalition, is divided on this matter. They are quite under pressure, from within and from without.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Forostar said:
In Uruzgan are around 1600/1700 Dutch, 900 Australians, and some Gurkhas. This is simply NOT ENOUGH. The Netherlands pay 800.000 euro per day for this mission where other NATO countries don't contribute much, or have troops in the calm north. Besides money, more is needed to defeat the Taleban.

After that, I began to wonder how many soldiers are in the ISAF and how was the repartition of the troops. This link refers to a page on NATO's website. The only matter is that the stats are dated of 2005. Georgia's contribution is more recent, that's why they're not in this list.

Can anyone tell us why are there so many german soldiers ?? And why "only" 89 american soldiers ? For what I remember about the beginning of this story about Afghanistan, it's the U.S. who began this operation with "sergical strikes" mistakes (!) on China's embassy.

For what's about other countries' contributions in Afghanistan, don't forget there are also conflicts in Lebanon, Africa and, the last but not the least, Iraqi.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

That is a very odd table there. The real troop numbers are, and have always been, much higher. The US alone provide some 17,000 soldiers.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

porcnoz said:
Georgia's contribution is more recent, that's why they're not in this list.

It's because they're not there yet. If they'll go, they'll go next year I guess.
I'm sorry to say but the link you gave is to old to talk about now. I think those data are from June 2004.

Also, we have to be careful to not mix up "Afghanistan" with "Uruzgan" or other southern provinces.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Forostar said:
I'm sorry to say but the link you gave is to old to talk about now. I think those data are from June 2004.

2005 actually, and I haven't been able to find more recent stats. I visited White House's and NATO's websites but couldn't find anything about composition of the troops. But I'm not really the best seeker for informations !!
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Perun said:
The only thing is, we shouldn't make ourselves unfounded illusions. Removing Taleban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan and supporting a new government that combines western ideas of freedom and democracy with Afghan traditions is a good thing, but considering this very country in particular, we should be aware that it is most unlikely that this will last for more than one or two generations. Afghanistan is a very special case in the entire history of the world, so it should not discourage us from trying our best with other countries.

Unfortunately I've got to agree with your pessimistic view, Perun. Afghanistan does not have a tradition for nationwide peace. It seems like if no external force is invading, there is a significant part of the Afghans that are more than willing to fight each other. The country has been dominated by war between groups for decades - or could we extend to centuries? I'm not into Afghan history between the Mongolian conquest and the 20th century ... however, I have the impression that local war chiefs are always present and eager to fight each other.

Perhaps the Taliban can be beaten, it seems to require a bigger effort than today, but I don't think Afghanistan will be in a state of stability and peace for very long even if each and every member of Taliban is killed, captured or disarmed. But since Taliban stands for the most suppressive form of Islam that is imaginable, they should not be let back into power. If that happens, Afghanistan will again be put decades back. The only good thing the Taliban has done is to fight the production of opium ...
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Eddies Wingman said:
Unfortunately I've got to agree with your pessimistic view, Perun. Afghanistan does not have a tradition for nationwide peace.

Even more basic, Afghanistan does not even have a tradition of a nation. The idea of "Afghanistan" is not older than 300 years, and even then it was just a number of tribes following a strong leader who really only wanted to conquer Persia. The only reason why it did not disappear like so many other confederations and short-lived dynasties that are the very staple of Central Asian history is because during that exact time, the British and the Russians decided they'd like to have a buffer zone between their empires. They set it up in randomly drawn geographic borders (most ethnicities still residing on both sides) and called it "Afghanistan".  But apart from a thin intellectual group in Kabul and Kandahar, nobody ever acknowledged its existence.

It seems like if no external force is invading, there is a significant part of the Afghans that are more than willing to fight each other. The country has been dominated by war between groups for decades - or could we extend to centuries? I'm not into Afghan history between the Mongolian conquest and the 20th century ... however, I have the impression that local war chiefs are always present and eager to fight each other.

Not quite correct. The basic pattern in Afghan history is, heavily distorted, the following: Afghans live in peace. Somebody comes and tries to conquer the country. The Afghans fight back, usually successfully, and try to figure out how to deal with the aftermath. That's when they start to fight. In fact, before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was at peace for quite a long time. Don't quote me on it, but I think that there was no large-scale war in Afghanistan between the 1850s and 1979. Local conflicts between individual tribes, perhaps, but nothing that is comparable to what had been there before and what would follow afterwards.

The only good thing the Taliban has done is to fight the production of opium ...

Good for whom? Some western junkies, perhaps, although the actual opium consumption has not significantly decreased. Definitely not good for the Afghans farmers, because they were deprived of their only source of income.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Perun said:
Good for whom? Some western junkies, perhaps, although the actual opium consumption has not significantly decreased. Definitely not good for the Afghans farmers, because they were deprived of their only source of income.

I see that point. It is a pity that the drug industry is so lucrative for those who are in it that a typical Afghan farmer would face economical ruin if he decided to grow, say, wheat instead of poppies. So from the view of an Afghan farmer it is of course not good. And unfortunately, if Afghan poppy production was stopped, there are always enough places where they are grown anyway - any Western "war on drugs" would be a lost fight even before it had begun.

On the historical stuff, I guess I should just stand corrected, because you are obviously far more into this than I am. My view is based on the impressions I get through the news (then I mean in-depth news and documentary, not tabloid press and FOX News, but I haven't really studied the topic).
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Eddies Wingman said:
I see that point. It is a pity that the drug industry is so lucrative for those who are in it that a typical Afghan farmer would face economical ruin if he decided to grow, say, wheat instead of poppies. So from the view of an Afghan farmer it is of course not good. And unfortunately, if Afghan poppy production was stopped, there are always enough places where they are grown anyway - any Western "war on drugs" would be a lost fight even before it had begun.

I wonder what some of those poppy farmers might think, given that it was the Europeans who initiated and supported large-scale poppy farming in the first place- after all, the country was frequented by European visitors mostly because of that not even forty years ago.
However, I don't think that a war on drugs in that area would be destined to be lost... the farmers just need to be offered an alternative. Well, considered someone would come up with an alternative that is just as lucrative and predestined for the climatic conditions in Afghanistan...  :S

On the historical stuff, I guess I should just stand corrected, because you are obviously far more into this than I am. My view is based on the impressions I get through the news (then I mean in-depth news and documentary, not tabloid press and FOX News, but I haven't really studied the topic).

Don't worry, mate. I study a closely related subject at the university, and most of my fellow students know less than you do. :)






[/quote]
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has implored Australia's NATO partners to lift their game in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has just returned from a meeting in Scotland with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) nations with military forces in southern Afghanistan.

During a break in his first cabinet meeting on Monday, Mr Rudd issued a blunt warning to Australia's NATO partners that they must do more in Afghanistan.

"We're there for the long haul. And we made that very plain to our American ally and to our NATO partners," he told reporters in Canberra.

"The defence minister was also underlining the point, which is necessary to make publicly, and that is to encourage our NATO partners to do more when it comes to Afghanistan.

"This is quite critical, particularly given the further resurgence of the opium crop, the illicit economy, the amount of narco-finance which is rolling out of that part of the world.

"Unless we stabilise Afghanistan we have got problems beyond those that we experience at the moment."

Among those defence ministers at the Edinburgh meeting were United Kingdom Defence Secretary Desmond Brown, Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay and United States' Secretary of Defence Robert Gates.

The eight countries involved in Regional Command South in Afghanistan are: Australia, Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands, Romania, United States, United Kingdom and Canada.

Three Australian soldiers have died in Afghanistan this year.

The federal opposition has supported the prime minister's call for a greater contribution from Australia's NATO partners in Afghanistan.

Speaking to reporters in Sydney, Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said the battle in Afghanistan was very important and echoed the government's call for greater assistance.

"I think it's very important that more NATO countries deploy their troops to Afghanistan, that a number of those NATO countries actually remove caveats that is stopping them being deployed to the south," Dr Nelson said.

"Australia is currently about the eighth-largest contributing country in Afghanistan.

"Whilst there has been some significant progress made over the last year especially on a military front, the real struggles are against poverty, against ignorance, the need for education, aid development and the coordination of activities across the NATO countries."

Dr Nelson said all Australians must remember that 88 Australians were killed in Bali by al-Qaeda troops trained under the support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Whichever part of the world we are in we need to stand up to these people, the Taliban in particular," Dr Nelson said.

---------------
Dutch debate on longer stay in Uruzgan
by political editor Hans Andringa

The attitude of the Dutch population towards the mission in Uruzgan has changed since troops were first sent there one and a half year ago. A majority of the public does not support it anymore.

Surprisingly, the number of Dutch soldiers killed in action has not affected public opinion. It is the chance of success of the mission that makes the difference whether one is for or against it. Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos realises there is a problem:

"I believe that the only way we could respond to scepticism among ordinary citizens of the Netherlands about this mission is by proving that it actually works, that we're actually able to achieve improvements in the daily lives of Afghan people in those provinces where the Dutch are present. And that's something you won't find on paper in the proposal. It will have to be shown on the ground in Uruzgan."

The Dutch cabinet says the Netherlands' mission to the Afghan province of Uruzgan can be extended to 2010 if defence spending is increased and other countries contribute troops to the international force in Afghanistan. The mandate originally expired in 2008.

To get a better grip on the NATO mission in Uruzgan, some say that the Netherlands should have more influence on the political goals at the heart of the entire NATO operation. Harry van Bommel, of the opposition Socialist Party does not see this in the cabinet's proposal:
"A military mission cannot be successful if there is no change in the overall political strategy. We should try and get more influence on the bigger political picture. And reading the letter that the Dutch government has sent to parliament, we do not see a wish to change that overall political picture."

An important element in the ISAF approach is that the national Afghan army and police forces can take over more and more tasks from the NATO forces. Afghan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak tried last week to convince the Dutch parliament that this is actually the case:

"We do most sincerely hope and expect that we will be helped by the international community, that the Afghan national army and Afghan national police should be able to be in a position to take the lead from Dutch forces, meaning that they shall take the physical security themselves, and that the Dutch troops should become 'in support'"

In the run-up to today's debate, the cabinet answered 577 questions put forward by parliament, a mammoth task in itself. And Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos thinks the answers will help to get a sufficient majority later this week:
"But there is quite a range of demands that have been put upon us  to get consent on a decision to stay in Uruzgan. I believe that most of those demands have actually been met in the cabinet proposal as it has been put before parliament."

In an attempt to take away the last hesitations among the Dutch parliamentarians Afghan Defence Minister Wardak made an emotional appeal:

"We hope you will stay for the later stage of our journey. I thank you most sincerely for what you have done, for what you are doing, and I hope and I'm sure, for what you will continue to do."
--------
ISAF
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission has as its main aim to support the Afghan government, and its army and police force, to help create a stable and safe environment for the population of Afghanistan.

The Netherlands is participating in the ISAF mission in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan with 1512 troops. The entire ISAF operation involves some 41,700 military personnel from 39 countries.
--------

The Dutch parliament is pretty divided on this issue. Expect more news within a few days/weeks!
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The mission has a chance of success.  But it's a longshot, and it's going to take a long time. A generation.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

This afternoon, I listened to the debate and a few politicians are pissed off that strong European countries like Italy, France and Germany hardly do anything in the dangerous south of Afghanistan. Where are they? Where's the unity in NATO? Where is solidarity?

I tend to agree with that, it's annoying. But should this be the very reason to leave? I doubt that. To be continued.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Coming from the country that is doing a fucking lot in Afghanistan, and doing most of the dying if memory serves, yes, it is frustrating that France, Italy, and Germany haven't deployed comparable combat forces of their own.  But someone should do the job.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

If memory serves me well, the Germans are in the relatively safe north of Afghanistan.
 
Back
Top