Afghanistan

[LooseCannon]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The difficulty, of course, is that the Taliban have to be held off militarily for the economic and reconstruction benefits to be of use.

 

[Forostar]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Yes, the medal has two sides.

@Perun, coming back to:

Foro:

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

And the political parties also don't talk about both necessities (in defence of criticism)?

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.

I have no better ideas than this plus what Deano said. I believe that the country is getting better by all the investments, however the NATO soldiers should be deployed in a more efficient way.

I hope they'll have some kind of agreement in Vilnius, and that the NATO indeed won't break into two parts.

 

[Deano]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The difficulty, of course, is that the Taliban have to be held off militarily for the economic and reconstruction benefits to be of use.

Indeed! Right now this is, of course, our responsibility. The point being, as economic life continues to improve (thus the state of infrastructure and health), the better able and willing the citizens will be to police themselves. Not saying at all that they haven't done a fine job of this over the past several hundred years but a more self-promoting ideology will be great ammunition to battle religious extremists.

LC, I am sorry to say that I haven't had the opportunity to work with many Canadians in the region but have done fairly extensive work with them in CONUS. I hope things go well up there for your continued support. I owe the Canadian military a high debt of gratitude for providing the model that our (recently) new camouflage uniform is taken from. It is definitely much more serviceable and comfortable than the older versions

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/08/europe/nato.php

Some candid public diplomacy from U.S. defense chief
By Thom Shanker
Published: February 8, 2008

MUNICH: Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that many Europeans were confused about NATO's security mission in Afghanistan and that they did not support the alliance effort because they opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq.

"I worry that for many Europeans the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are confused," Gates said as he flew here to deliver a speech at an international security conference.

"I think that they combine the two," Gates continued. "Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan and do not understand the very different - for them - the very different kind of threat."

Gates's comments were the first time he had explicitly linked European antipathy to U.S. policy in Iraq with why large segments of the Continent's public do not support the NATO security and reconstruction operation in Afghanistan.

Even more, his assessment was an unusually candid acknowledgement from a senior member of President George W. Bush's cabinet that the war in Iraq had exacted a significant political cost, even among Washington's closest allies.

Over recent weeks, Gates has made a public and private effort to persuade NATO governments to provide more combat troops for the Afghan mission, as well as military and police trainers. At the conclusion Friday morning of a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Lithuania, Gates expressed confidence that "a number of the allies are considering what more they might be able to do."

He said that his public comments, as well his keynote speech here Sunday, were intended to "focus on why Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and failure in Afghanistan would be a security problem for Europe." He said that Qaeda leaders hiding in and near Afghanistan, and foot soldiers linked to the organization, were already responsible for terror attacks in Europe.

In a public diplomacy strategy somewhat unusual for an American defense secretary, Gates said he would attempt to speak directly to the people of Europe, and not their governments, "in an effort to try and explain why their security is tied to the success in Afghanistan and how success in Afghanistan impacts the future of the alliance."

Gates acknowledged that there was a risk in making a personal appeal to Europeans for support in stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan if their own governments had not been able to make the case with complete success already.

There is no need to rethink the NATO strategy in Afghanistan nor to reshape the mission, Gates said. But while he is pressing for immediate increased commitments from NATO nations and other allies for combat troops, trainers and transport aircraft, he also stressed that rebuilding Afghanistan was "a long-term project."

"Afghanistan is going to need significant international help and support for a long time," he said.

The goal should be to move toward civil reconstruction as insurgents are defeated, Gates said. Yet 2007 was a violent year for the NATO mission, and a series of studies by various policy institutes have said the international mission in Afghanistan is at risk of failure.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The U.S. defense chief has the right strategy.  NATO nations need to be convinced that Iraq and Afghanistan are separate issues.  Only the latter actually deals with terrorism.  Madrid and London bombings are all examples of why Europe needs to stabilize Afghanistan.  Like the article said, it is rare for a high official in the Bush government to admit that the war in Iraq is putting diplomacy and other missions like Afghanistan at risk of total failure.

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Gates isn't a bad type.  He's not really a Bush crony, and he was brought in to clean up some of Rumsfeld's mess - which, of course, includes the linking of Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and Iraq in public and international conception.

 

[Deano]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

This is a terrific move by Secretary Gates. I believe this to be a growing stride globally to getting to the true mission that requires focus and a beginning in stepping away from the other.

I know it's all semantics but I wish everyone would stop talking about reforming Afghanistan and tell it like it is, reforming Kabul.

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

It's going to take a long time to make Afghanistan a viable nation, and to make Kabul a viable national capital.  I'm reading a very good book about personal experiences and it explains why we will have a long time to go to make the country work.

 

[Deano]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The #1 problem being that there are some in remote regions that don't even know they are part of a country, nor care. If China can make it work, I guess anyone can though.

 

[Forostar]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

I know it's all semantics but I wish everyone would stop talking about reforming Afghanistan and tell it like it is, reforming Kabul.

I don't get this to be honest. Uruzgan, the south, that's where the trouble is the biggest. Or do you mean something in the vein of step by step?

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

The #1 problem being that there are some in remote regions that don't even know they are part of a country, nor care. If China can make it work, I guess anyone can though.

China makes it work through armed occupation and through a terrible stance on human rights.  Maybe we're best not modeling our theory of reconstruction on the Chinese model.

 

[Deano]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

I don't get this to be honest. Uruzgan, the south, that's where the trouble is the biggest. Or do you mean something in the vein of step by step?

Kabul and to a lesser degree some smaller towns around the country recognize that they are part of a country called Afghanistan. To reach all of this "country" is going to take a VERY long time.

China makes it work through armed occupation and through a terrible stance on human rights.  Maybe we're best not modeling our theory of reconstruction on the Chinese model.

This was only meant to illustrate the portion of Chinese people who do not realize they live in a country called China, I don't advocate modeling anything after Chinese policies.

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

I don't get this to be honest. Uruzgan, the south, that's where the trouble is the biggest. Or do you mean something in the vein of step by step?

The South is the problem because they don't see themselves as belonging to Afghanistan (or anywhere, really) - the only law is the local elders, and whosoever has the most guns or money in the region at the time, balanced by who is buying the poppy crop or who shares a common religion.  It's also the prime recruiting ground for the Taliban (or a prime recruiting ground), and it's the area of the country least likely to accept any change.  However, the theory is that by strengthening Kabul, eventually the central government can bring these areas in.

The theory is, according to this book I've been reading, failing just a little bit.

---

This was only meant to illustrate the portion of Chinese people who do not realize they live in a country called China, I don't advocate modeling anything after Chinese policies.

I know.

 

[Forostar]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Kabul and to a lesser degree some smaller towns around the country recognize that they are part of a country called Afghanistan. To reach all of this "country" is going to take a VERY long time.

Perhaps I still don't understand it but what's the use of simplifying the problem by limiting the area. I don't think this theory isn't the greatest one, or at least it's not the way I (and even the torn NATO) think about (helping) Afghanistan. Just my 2 cents.

Would you explain more specifically how you would translate this in a practical way? Moving all troops to Kabul? Moving all development work to Kabul?

 

[Deano]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

There are really two separate and distinct discussions here; the long-term economic health and stability of Afghanistan as an independent nation, and policing the geographical area against threats from Islamic extremists.

NATO will need to continue, for quite some time I'm afraid, to provide a military presence in south-central Asia to eradicate all forms of terrorism that stem from the region (that was an absolute kind of statement, sorry, I don't think that terrorism will ever be completely defeated). This action will help in clearing the way for meaningful work to be accomplished in making Afghanistan a viable nation. In other words, real progress can't be made until undivided attention can be allocated to improving the state of the nation. It can't really be done as you're continuously swatting flies.

Creating a national sense amongst the entire public of an actual "Afghanistan" will be far more difficult however. As I stated before, there are some regions that realize that they are part of a functional government and participate in it. Most of the outlying areas do not, however. These are tribal areas that are loyal to whoever happens to be leading them at the time and that is the way they have been doing things for millennia. Convincing these people that they are part of an actual government with structure and a capital, etc. will not be easy. This, in my mind has always brought up a very important point regarding the area. Some people on this Earth do not want western civilization and democracy thrust upon them. They don't take kindly to being told what's good for them, especially when they don't have traditional or globally acceptable ways to actual do what is good for them. They know, they've been taking care of themselves for a long time.

Once stability is achieved, it may be best to just leave a lot of these people alone. Believe me, there's no oil or anything else there for Western nations to be bickering and creating borders over.

 

[LooseCannon]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Except for poppies.

 

[Forostar]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

I can personally say that the Dutch have done a superb job in Afghanistan. I am not sure of their combat related role but they have contributed greatly to rebuilding (or lets just say building) infrastructure throughout a good portion of the country. The difference between 2002 and now is evident.

Afghanistan has almost no natural resources (it is extremely cruel that that region was not even blessed with oil deposits); money must be made primarily from opium growth, as in most places that is all that is suitable for growth and the money is good for the farmers. You cannot blame them for this and as discussed previously in this topic, is a cause for much of the tribal warfare in outlying regions.

From what I have seen, I have to praise NATO European (and other nations) for taking the risk of investing in this area. The only way this country will be able to support itself is by means that do not rely on the land to bring forth practical profit. Communications, IT and hosting opportunities have been made possible because of these initiatives taken by allied nations. This will play a key part in getting the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other nuts out of there in coming years and generations; giving these deserving people a leg to stand on. From my point of view: Kudos NATO, what you do behind the scene is just as important and sending a round down range.

These are tribal areas that are loyal to whoever happens to be leading them at the time and that is the way they have been doing things for millennia. Convincing these people that they are part of an actual government with structure and a capital, etc. will not be easy. This, in my mind has always brought up a very important point regarding the area. Some people on this Earth do not want western civilization and democracy thrust upon them. They don't take kindly to being told what's good for them, especially when they don't have traditional or globally acceptable ways to actual do what is good for them. They know, they've been taking care of themselves for a long time.

No one said it will be easy, or that everyone will be kind.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

This one is a bit older (07.02.08), but still serves well to portray things:

Germans Remain Divided Over Bundeswehr's Role in Afghanistan


Germany should expect US pressure to continue unless Berlin expands its Afghanistan military mission, a key official said. The Defense Ministry plans to decide on a US request to widen combat operations on Wednesday.
The German government coordinator for German-American relations, Karsten Voigt, said Berlin was likely to continue facing requests from the United States and NATO to expand its military mission outside the relatively safe northern Afghanistan.
"The Americans want Europe to become more engaged in the military as well organizing police and civilian reconstruction efforts," he told the daily Frankfurter Rundschau on Tuesday, Feb. 5.
Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung has rejected calls from both NATO and the United States to send combat units to southern Afghanistan and is likely to emphasize that position in a press conference on Wednesday.
Jung is, however, also expected to approve the deployment of some 240 combat troops to a NATO Quick Reaction Force for northern Afghanistan. The troops would replace Norwegian soldiers who are leaving the country in the summer.

Not a bilateral issue

"We are not being choosy, but are prepared to take on responsibility," deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters in Berlin, adding that the situation in northern Afghanistan is not stable enough to warrant stationing Bundeswehr troops to other parts of the country.
"We see our responsibility as being in northern Afghanistan," Steg said. "That's where we aim to be successful, and that's how it will remain."
Under current mandates, Germany can station up to 3,500 troops in northern Afghanistan as part of the 40,000-strong NATO International Security Assistance Force.
Germany does not expect the issue of troop deployments to add tension to its ties to the United States other NATO members, according to Steg.
"This is not a bilateral question directed at German-US ties," he said, adding that a request for more troops from US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was sent to several European NATO members.

Political division remain

While the German public remains largely opposed to increasing the Bundeswehr's commitments in Afghanistan, politicians are divided on what exactly the country's role in Afghanistan should be.
Breaking ranks with other members of his party, Social Democratic Party lawmaker Hans-Ulrich Klose, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs committee, said the German military's mandate should not set geographic boundaries.
"Germany should take over the Quick Reaction Force and make it strong enough for it to be deployed to the whole of Afghanistan in case of emergency -- including the south," he told the mass-market Bild newspaper. "There may well be situations in which it is inevitable to fight."
He added that NATO was an alliance based on solidarity and that all countries should "carry the same risk."

Bundeswehr approaching limits

Eckart von Klaeden, foreign policy spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, said the US should not expect too much as Germany's military capabilities were reaching their limits.
Naming helicopters as an example of equipment needed, he said, "Unfortunately, we don't have them."
"There [are] no used helicopter sellers around the corner where we can say, 'let's buy it,'" he added.

Military row overshadows humanitarian crisis

In the opposition, the free-market liberal FDP defense expert Birgit Homburger said armed troops were not the only way to help Afghans.
"Sending more and more soldiers will certainly not bring success to the Afghanistan mission," she said.
The opposition Green party also said Germany needs to stay aware of the humanitarian problems in Afghanistan instead of focusing on military deployments.
"While NATO defense ministers and some foreign policy officials have lashed out at each other over who is militarily responsible for what, they're forgetting the people they're in the country to help," said Fritz Kuhn, the Greens parliamentary leader.


Source: DW (Deutsche Welle) World is Germany's public international broadcaster, comparable in role (though certainly not rank) to BBC World.

 

[Deano]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

Except for poppies.

Yes, well, bickering openly anyway. 

 

[Deano]

Re: More NATO forces needed for south Afghanistan

As promised, an Afghanistan update:

I really only spent time amongst the population in Kabul this time but these are my thoughts:

Weather - It was snowing and raining the whole time I was there. The mountains were covered more than I have ever seen them, so I think they will have a terrific Spring for the "crops". Still cold as hell right now.

Economy - As expected, Kabul seems to be thriving. I was stuck in very heavy traffic in the city for several hours and didn't feel threatened once. Once upon a time, westerners were looked upon with either curiosity or hostility; now the people are focused on working and improving their town (not to say threats aren't out there, just not as prevalent as before). I believe the population growth to be a direct reflection of Karzai's limited sphere of influence. People are coming into Kabul from other regions because there is money to be had there *more on this later*. I did notice that the sphere of influence has grown a bit but efforts need to be made to push this farther into the country and eventually blend with the other major cities. There are actual gas stations scattered around the area and billboards are starting to pop up all over the place advertising a myriad of different products. I noticed more brick factories as well. This is a major industry as there is no lack of dirt and mud in this country.

More on the traffic - Once things become more settled in the region, traffic laws have to written and enforced. Driving the streets of Kabul is complete madness. The roads are clogged with vehicles, pedestrians and mule carts. Lanes are painted in some areas but not used, people make K - turns in the middle of traffic; it's essentially like an over crowed bumper car arena. There are police at each traffic circle and they do a halfway decent job of directing traffic but as stated, laws and enforcement will be necessary in the future.

NATO - The idea that came to mind regarding NATO's role in Afghanistan now is to spread out, and split and rotate authority. There is uneasiness in the air between different nations that I think comes about from being to close to each other all the time. ISAF control transitions between nations every six months; I think assigning nations to all of the provinces and changing this up every six months to a year (to keep things fair in regard to varying degrees in territorial severity) would be ideal. This would serve many purposes; it would get everyone off of each others backs, it would ensure that there is a military and humanitarian presence throughout the entire country at all times and it would eliminate the bickering about who is or is not doing their fair share.

The UN - The UN needs to step up its roll here. I do believe that they are doing great things in the capital but they could do so much more throughout the entire country. They are equipped for this and there is no excuse (other than perhaps safety in some) for not doing more in certain areas. * To tie this in with my economy comments, I have always witnessed the generosity of the UN in essentially handing out money. I think this has become a bit of a problem however. Cash has been handed out with little or no accountability for the recipients. I think a large part of Kabul's growth is due to contributions like this. It is almost as if some citizens have become like spoiled children, knowing they can always go back for a handout and not have to work for it. Charity DOES need to continue here but measures have to be put into place to ensure the money is being used for the right reasons and accountability needs to be marked and dealt with accordingly.

All I can think of for now guys, it's still the Wild West but much improved over the last decade.