Afghanistan

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Deano said:
I can say with some authority that the accusations of using Afghan children for mine clearing are unfounded. Could it have happened? Possibly, but I have known EOD techs from several different nations that went out everyday to clear large stretches of land and this was never the tactic. These guys are amongst the most professional of military occupational specialties for obvious reasons.

It is a shame that a German soldier is speaking out like this. Again, I cannot outright say that the possibility of some of this information has the chance of being true but it was never observed on my part. I really enjoyed the time I spent there with German soldiers; I can honestly say that I had a few beers with them but at no point was the consumption enough to cause drunkenness. The quantity is just not there. Perhaps it would be enough for some, but for a nationality with the intestinal fortitude for alcohol like Germans, no way.
Click to expand...

Where exactly were you? Wohlgethan's reports are limited to Kabul.

BTW, that blogger blows things out of proportion. Wohlgethan said he witnessed this once, not that it was common practice.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

All over, but I worked with NATO forces primarily in Kabul. As I stated in a previous post, I was very impressed with the job that allied nations are doing there (for the most part). Of course more troops are needed across the board and this whole war on terror should have been run differently from the beginning but this is beating a dead horse. For what the average soldier has to go through, the job is being done to the best of its ability. I'm afraid it is going to take another global catastrophe for everyone to get their heads out of their asses and get this done right but only time will tell. Afghanistan as a nation, or loose confederation, or whatever you want to call it does not have much to look forward to because of their extremely unfortunate geographical location but they can succeed to some degree without the Taliban and Al-Qaeda breathing down their backs.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

5 times, starting in 2002 - recently. Many parts are in better shape than they were 6 years ago.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

I'd like to post something interesting, though I prefer to find an English language article on it.

For now you have to do it with my translated summary of the site of Arnold Karkens, war reporter and research journalist. More on this later:

Karskens speaking:

I was busy with an inventarisation of damage that the Task Force Uruzgan has done until now.
Since August 1st of 2006, the Netherlands bring in the province Uruzgan stability, on behalf of the NATO-led International Safety force ISAF. And this, as you might now, happens with lots of violence.

During the air- and artillery bombardment on the village Qala-e-Ragh in the district Chora on June 16th around 80 civilians died. In the village Kakrak in the district Deh Rawod died according to witnesses on September 25th around 76 civilians, also by bombardments.

Under the survivors, one man lost 22 family members in one night. But I have more testimonies of people who lost family members by air bombardments.

Several of these militairy actions, where the Netherlands is responsible as leading nation of Task Force Uruzgan
would be done without warning and with exceptional (out of proportion) violence which goes against the Genevian Conventions.

Family members now have asked Amsterdam based lawyer and also professor in International Humanitarian Law,  Liesbeth Zegveld to start a lawsuit for them.

It's the first time that Dutch soldiers will have to defend themselves against the charge of war crimes. This case will have a very long "tail".

-------------

Yesterday I saw Karskens on TV and he told that not necessarily only Dutch militaries committed the crimes, but that high officials must have been responsible, or must have given the order. This could be a very high commander, or even our Minister of Defense. To be continued.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Interesting article. I had not seen anything on this. 2 important factors to keep in mind however: negative propaganda and the unintentional and unfortunate cost of war. Just as in any war, atrocities and "accidents" happen. Is it right? No. .... but unavoidable in some instances? Yes.

The EXTREMELY difficult part of this conflict is the difficulty in determining combatants from non (or potentially future combatants depending on the day of the week and what they had for breakfast). Very hard indeed.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Deano said:
Interesting article. I had not seen anything on this. 2 important factors to keep in mind however: negative propaganda and the unintentional and unfortunate cost of war. Just as in any war, atrocities and "accidents" happen. Is it right? No. .... but unavoidable in some instances? Yes.

The EXTREMELY difficult part of this conflict is the difficulty in determining combatants from non (or potentially future combatants depending on the day of the week and what they had for breakfast). Very hard indeed.
Click to expand...

The atrocities were in this case very exceptional, and very out of proportions. It is said that 4 different reports have been written about this, and if I understood well only one of them was very critical.

Still, I'd like to know the truth and Dutch people or not, if the things Karskens told, are true, or come only near the truth, let the responsibles be punished.

I understand what you say about this determining, but to have artillary and air bombardments for hours on complete villages is forbidden, definitely without warning. In one case of these villages (forgot the name), the village was about 8 kilometers away from where some "fighting" happened or from where some "cause" started it all.

So how I understood it, there was artillary from that distance (8 km), then the air bombing, and then the soldiers coming to the village, inspecting the dead bodies.

Because of the distance it was IMPOSSIBLE to even see if the people were combatants or not, so in any case it was an outrageous act (if it will be proven in court of course).
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Of course. If this is what happened, it is totally uncalled for. Maximum punishment should be forthcoming. It is a shame, many innocents in situations like this aren't even aware there is a war going on around them.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

It is generally expected that today the pressure on Germany will increase at a NATO meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania.
If Germany will refuse to fight, the chance is that they'll isolate themselves.

Many countries think that the German soldiers (which are widely regarded as development workers, who by chance happen to care a rifle on their back) should take their responsibility!

To be continued.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The NATO members should know what they are dealing with. Putting pressure on a German delegate, or even the German government, is not enough. They need to put pressure on the parliament, since it is they who decide over the mandate.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

That mandate... *sigh*

I'm curious how all this will develop, if that's the best way. Maybe the Germans themselves could put some pressure as well. If they know what's happening.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The German people?
They'd rather have the army out of Afghanistan completely.

Even so, the only way they'd have any influence on it is through de-electing the parliament. Next elections are in 2009. As it is, the government won't continue for a second term, but both the SPD and the CDU are supporting the mission as it is. The SPD because they are who started it in the first place, and the CDU because... well, they're arseholes.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

I know this might sound provocative, but what an egoïstic attitude the German people have (do they ever learn?), if it's true what you say. They probably don't have a clue what it is about.

Germany is a NATO-partner, one of the biggest countries. I know they have more than 3000 people in Afghanistan, but they are in a relative calm area.

In the Netherlands also a lot of people disagree with the mission but thank God, not (e.g.) 99%.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Provocative to whom? I fully agree with you. This serves to show once again how egoistic, hypocritical and sanctimonious the Germans are. In that excerpt from Achim Wohlgethan's book which I talked about in an earlier post, the author encounters a small Afghan boy in Kabul who does not speak a word of Pashto or Dari, but instead speaks perfect German, and explains to him that he and his mother got deported back to Afghanistan from Frankfurt, where the boy spent most or all of his life, after the liberation from the Taleban. The reason: There is no political or ideological persecution in Afghanistan anymore, and development helpers are working to improve the rest.

There are two schools of thought in Germany that oppose the war in Afghanistan. The first one is that of the radical left, who like to style themselves as pacifist, anti-imperialist and against social or other injustice. They keep preaching that the NATO should pull out of the country so it can get back to peace (no, I'm not making this up, this is what they say). They also claim that Germany is supporting American imperialism, capitalism, blah blah blah. You get the picture. Weed-smoking hippies. The second one is that of  (mostly, but certainly not always) conservative Germans, usually patriots, who strictly oppose the war because they don't see how it supports German interests and (often) think that the money spent on that war should be used for improving the situation in Germany. And then there is the majority of Germans who are unpolitical and have no clue what's going on, but if asked would probably say "uh... war is, like, totally stupid and stuff".

It feels good to swim against the stream, especially in such a bigoted country as this one. I usually think of myself of a very left-winged and uncompromisingly pacifist person. However, I do not like to be associated with the German leftists, who are usually appear to have stopped thinking either in 1968 (West) or in 1989 (East), and I also think that the Taleban -as a group and an identity- should be annihilated (note: I do not say the individuals should be killed, but they should be caught and brainwashed. Yes, you heard me.). I regularly laugh at the people, the leader of Germany's biggest political party included, who say that we should negotiate with "moderate and reasonable Taleban". Newsflash: The Taleban are religious fanatics. That is the exact opposite of being moderate and reasonable. Besides, what is the goal of such negotiations? Re-integration of Taleban, as a group, in the Afghan society? Last time the Taleban were part of said "society" (and I use that word loosely here, as anyone with a clue of Afghan history should) it was a very unpleasant experience for everyone, and it ended with the war we have now. The only alternative is to have a Taleban state in the south of Afghanistan. Nice, only that such a state was exactly what this war was aimed against.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Sounds familiair. But what about the group of people (politicians or civilians) who think that both development work AND fighting is needed?

The negotiating aspect is quite interesting. If all the fighting indeed would not help, and if peace would only return after negotiating, would you still be an opponent of such ideas?

But indeed: what peace is a peace of oppression and "no change"? Is peace possible with Taleban around?

Difficult subject.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

There are two schools of thought in Germany that oppose the war in Afghanistan. The first one is that of the radical left, who like to style themselves as pacifist, anti-imperialist and against social or other injustice. They keep preaching that the NATO should pull out of the country so it can get back to peace (no, I'm not making this up, this is what they say). They also claim that Germany is supporting American imperialism, capitalism, blah blah blah. You get the picture. Weed-smoking hippies. The second one is that of  (mostly, but certainly not always) conservative Germans, usually patriots, who strictly oppose the war because they don't see how it supports German interests and (often) think that the money spent on that war should be used for improving the situation in Germany. And then there is the majority of Germans who are unpolitical and have no clue what's going on, but if asked would probably say "uh... war is, like, totally stupid and stuff".
Click to expand...

This sums up the left and the right in all of our countries. Same school of thought across the board. As for the last sentence of the paragraph; yeah.... that too. Mindless idiots getting their brains spoon fed to them by the media. All it takes is a little self research on the subject to form, get this, your own personal, informed opinion! I respect you for how you do this Perun; despite being a stout pacifist, you inform yourself on what is going on around you and come to, what I believe, is the correct opinion.

This is why I choose to barely post in the American presidency thread. When it comes down to it, it is a freakin' popularity contest. Most voters here don't know who or what the hell they are voting for (some of these same people go protest soldier's funerals).

Done with the rant, back on topic, Afghanistan anyone?
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

A bill is being set forth in the Canadian parliament to extend our combat mission.  It should be very interesting.  Recently, PM Harper commissioned a report, led by a very prominent Liberal, which came back as saying that Canada should stay in Afghanistan so long as some minor conditions were met.  I expect to see this become a confidence issue, which means I expect to be voting in an election shortly.  The NDP and the BQ are entirely against the war in Afghanistan (the NDP represents the left-wing pot smoking hippies, the BQ believes that sending soldiers overseas is contrary to their wish for an independent Quebec, especially since the Van Doos are currently deployed), which means the vote would need Liberal support to pass.  Stephane Dion is a complete retard, and will be against the extension because the Conservatives support it.

I'm voting Green.
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Foro:

Forostar said:
Sounds familair. But what about the group of people (politicians or civilians) who think that both development work AND fighting is needed?
Click to expand...

Not present in the media, therefore, they don't exist...

The negotiating aspect is quite interesting. If all the fighting indeed would not help, and if peace would only return after negotiating, would you still be an opponent of such ideas?

But indeed: what peace is a peace of oppression and "no change"? Is peace possible with Taleban around?

Difficult subject.
Click to expand...

Excellent question. It would be a no-win situation. The Taleban must disappear for so many reasons that it would kill this forums bandwidth if I listed them all. The war started on the premise that the Taleban are evil, and what they do is bad for Afghanistan and its people. I agree with that. As I said, that doesn't mean killing all members. It means destroying the movement, by erasing its credibility, removing its breeding grounds and exposing its ideology. If all of the sudden, the Taleban wanted to negotiate, but the West still fought them, that would obviously be more supportive to them than anything else. Therefore, I wouldn't know. But I suppose I wouldn't support such negotiations.
But no, I don't think that peace is possible with the Taleban around. The reason for that is that Taleban ideology forbids that. Their interpretation of Islam says that there will only ever be peace if every person on this planet became Muslim- and followed their school of thought.

Deano,

I respect you for how you do this Perun; despite being a stout pacifist, you inform yourself on what is going on around you and come to, what I believe, is the correct opinion.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate that. Judging by your posts, you are a well-informed and critical person as well, and your affiliation to the US army obviously gives you some valuable first-hand insight into these matters. Sadly, I guess neither of us have the perfect recipe for peace in the country...

Done with the rant, back on topic, Afghanistan anyone?
Click to expand...

...although it might be useful to discuss our ideas on this. What, in your opinion, would be a good plan for Afghanistan's future?
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

In the meantime:

NATO struggles for unity amid Afghan troop concerns

By Patrick Lannin and Sue Pleming

VILNIUS/KABUL (Reuters) - NATO struggled to maintain unity over the war in Afghanistan on Thursday after the United States raised concerns that some members were not willing to let their troops "fight and die" to achieve victory.

On a visit to troops fighting the Taliban, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice kept up the pressure on reluctant allies to share the combat burden.

A first round of talks among NATO defense ministers in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius yielded no formal offers of troops. However, a government spokesman in Paris said France was considering a possible new deployment.

"Frankly, I hope there will be more troop contributions and there needs to be more Afghan forces," Rice told reporters traveling with her on the flight from London with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid bare U.S. concern about NATO on Wednesday when he said the alliance could split into countries that were willing to "fight and die to protect people's security and those who were not".

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer acknowledged more forces were needed to combat mounting Taliban and al Qaeda violence but dismissed Gates' fears that NATO could become a "two-tiered alliance" based on a country's willingness to fight.

"I do not see a two-tier alliance, there is one alliance," de Hoop Scheffer told reporters as he arrived in Vilnius, where Gates met 25 other NATO defense ministers.

He renewed an appeal for countries to reserve requests for reinforcements for closed-door discussions. "Usually we do not do that in public," he said.

The NATO-led ISAF force has about 43,000 troops in Afghanistan. Canada, Britain, the United States and the Netherlands are involved in most of the fierce fighting in the south, and they want other countries to contribute more in what has become the toughest battle in NATO's 59-year history.

SHORTFALLS

On Wednesday Germany said it would send around 200 combat soldiers to northern Afghanistan as part of a NATO Quick Reaction Force but would not move troops to the south.

"I think we are doing our bit fully in Afghanistan," Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters. He noted Germany's 3,000-plus contingent was the third largest in Afghanistan.

In Paris, a spokesman for President Nicolas Sarkozy said France was considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, but did not confirm French media reports that some 700 paratroopers could be deployed to the south.

"These are issues that are being examined. To my knowledge no decision has been reached yet," Sarkozy's spokesman David Martinon said of possible new deployments.

NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the alliance had not expected firm troop offers to emerge from the Vilnius talks and said all nations understood the need for reinforcements.

"There was clearly a sense around the table that there are shortfalls that need to be met, that we need as quickly as possible to meet them," he told reporters.

Gates said the difference in attitude among allies clouded the future of the alliance.

"My view is you can't have some allies whose sons and daughters die in combat and other allies who are shielded from that kind of a sacrifice," he told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.

"MAKE OR BREAK"

After flying into the Afghan capital Kabul, Rice and Miliband traveled in a U.S. military plane to a sprawling base in the southern city of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban and the main city in Afghanistan's most volatile region.

Canada's minority government plans a parliamentary vote of confidence late next month on prolonging its military mission in Afghanistan, officials said on Wednesday.

"We want to see more of a one-for-all approach, including more burden-sharing in the south," Canadian Defense Minister Peter Mackay told reporters in Vilnius, reaffirming a demand for reinforcements to help its 2,500 troops in Kandahar province.

A report issued by analysts at the NATO Defense College this week highlighted the stakes for the alliance in Afghanistan.

"From a U.S. perspective, Afghanistan is a 'make or break issue'. A perceived failure would be blamed primarily on insufficient European engagement in the region," concluded the report, based on the conclusions of a seminar of NATO officials, military commanders, diplomats and security experts on January 28.

(Additional reporting by Mark John in Vilnius, Francois Murphy in Paris, Paul Taylor in Brussels)

(Writing by Mark John; editing by Robert Woodward)
 
Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

...although it might be useful to discuss our ideas on this. What, in your opinion, would be a good plan for Afghanistan's future?
Click to expand...

As I have stated before, I believe that I have seen very positive change in this nation over the 5-6 years that I have become "intimate" with it. It is certainly a far cry better there now than several years ago. I accredit some of this to a positive NATO military presence to police the area and keep the fundamentalists out; but, in my opinion, I think the largest single factor that has contributed to this positive turn-around is the financial investments of allied nations. Much that has been built (and re-built) in Afghanistan has been through charitable efforts but actual businesses are starting to take a foot hold there thanks to investment efforts. There are literally almost no natural resources in this region; profit from non-tangible sources is what is required.

This is happening. I believe this, beyond anything else, is what needs to continue to happen for improvement in Afghanistan. The underlying benefit of these efforts is giving the people something to live for. The overall population is becoming happier and more content with their lives. As this happens more and more, they are going to realize what they have and put up with rogue groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda less and less.

I'll be visiting there for a couple of days soon. (of course I am limited to what and how much I can discuss in this sort of an environment). I can, however, give you guys a kind of a state of the union as I have been; and let you know if I feel that the efforts that NATO is putting out is continuing to reap rewards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top