- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
UN envoy demands Afghan shake-up
Financial Times, 4 Sept 06
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/976e13fa-3c32-11db-9c97-0000779e2340.html
The senior United Nations envoy to Afghanistan has warned that some Nato troops in the country are operating under excessive restrictions that are hampering the alliance’s mission there.
The alliance, whose credibility is widely seen as hanging on its success in the country, is facing unexpectedly fierce opposition from resurgent Taliban fighters that has alarmed some Nato governments.
The warning from Tom Koenigs, the UN’s special representative for Afghanistan, came as Nato’s entire civilian and military leadership flew out to the country. Nato said the visit had been long planned to demonstrate a joint commitment to the mission – but officials said it should help fight the perception that the alliance was losing its way there.
Mr Koenigs said Nato needed more troops and fewer restrictions on their freedom of manoeuvre. In particular, he said that there were “around 71 caveats” or restrictions on the Nato mission, which he argued were “too many and must be removed”.
Key caveats limit the combat role of Germany’s 2,800 troops and restrict them to Kabul and the relatively peaceful north of the country. Nato can deploy them elsewhere only “under exceptional circumstances and on a temporary basis”.
Mr Koenigs, a German national, added that the country’s soldiers in Afghanistan had been “lucky to be deployed in the relatively peaceful north [of the country] but they must now accept having to go to the south.”
Both the local police and military were currently “hopelessly overstretched,” he said.
On Monday, the Netherlands, another country that has recently debated a possible troop redeployment, confirmed that about 100 Dutch soldiers had been temporarily reassigned to the southern province of Kandahar to assist Canadian forces.
Mr Koenigs was scheduled to meet the Nato delegation, headed by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, secretary general, and James Jones, the alliance’s top military commander, during its three day trip to Afghanistan. The ambassadors of all 26 Nato nations are also participating in the visit . . . .
This was mentioned in this report, too, on 22 Aug 06:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33627.pdf
''An attack on the Norwegian-Finnish PRT in normally tranquil Meymaneh, in western Afghanistan, in February 2006 had given an indication of an emerging problem: the need for a rapid military response capability for rescue operations. When the PRT was attacked, no NATO combat forces were in the region
to protect the ISAF personnel. Other NATO forces that were nearby had caveats prohibiting their use in combat operations. Eventually a British plane and forces were found to end the attack on the PRT. Before and after the attack on the PRT, NATO SACEUR General James Jones called upon the NATO governments to pledge forces to ISAF that would be capable of combat operations. He has waged a constant campaign to cajole allied governments not to place caveats on their forces that ruled out combat operations.''
''....Berlin was adamant that German forces would not engage in combat operations; according to NATO officials, the German caveat against combat has limited the alliance in integrating German forces
with those of other allied governments. Former Defense Minister Struck had opposed merging ISAF and OEF commands because it “would make the situation for our soldiers doubly dangerous and worsen the current climate in Afghanistan.” These restrictions on German forces in ISAF continue. However, when the mandate for German forces in Afghanistan expires and is renewed in fall 2006, there is a possibility that the Merkel government may allow a more forceful response from its soldiers when they confront warlords, drug traffickers, and other armed groups in the vicinity of their PRTs."
''The Dutch government . . . . does not want its ground forces involved in combat operations. Dutch forces are wearing olive, and not camouflage, uniforms. In the Dutch view, ISAF’s purpose is “to provide a secure and stable environment for reconstruction.” However, the Netherlands endorsed the “synergy” of ISAF and OEF commands and has made available four F-16s for missions in both ISAF and OEF. The aircraft may be used for missions from intelligence gathering to close air support. As mentioned earlier, the Netherlands is in the process of sending 1,400 troops to Afghanistan for Stage Three operations. The political effects of the domestic Dutch debate have found their way into the field. Dutch commanders on the ground in Afghanistan reportedly insisted to NATO counterparts that no Dutch troops must be killed in combat, a view they were told was unrealistic, given that Uruzgan is one of the most restive provinces in Afghanistan.''
UN envoy demands Afghan shake-up
Financial Times, 4 Sept 06
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/976e13fa-3c32-11db-9c97-0000779e2340.html
The senior United Nations envoy to Afghanistan has warned that some Nato troops in the country are operating under excessive restrictions that are hampering the alliance’s mission there.
The alliance, whose credibility is widely seen as hanging on its success in the country, is facing unexpectedly fierce opposition from resurgent Taliban fighters that has alarmed some Nato governments.
The warning from Tom Koenigs, the UN’s special representative for Afghanistan, came as Nato’s entire civilian and military leadership flew out to the country. Nato said the visit had been long planned to demonstrate a joint commitment to the mission – but officials said it should help fight the perception that the alliance was losing its way there.
Mr Koenigs said Nato needed more troops and fewer restrictions on their freedom of manoeuvre. In particular, he said that there were “around 71 caveats” or restrictions on the Nato mission, which he argued were “too many and must be removed”.
Key caveats limit the combat role of Germany’s 2,800 troops and restrict them to Kabul and the relatively peaceful north of the country. Nato can deploy them elsewhere only “under exceptional circumstances and on a temporary basis”.
Mr Koenigs, a German national, added that the country’s soldiers in Afghanistan had been “lucky to be deployed in the relatively peaceful north [of the country] but they must now accept having to go to the south.”
Both the local police and military were currently “hopelessly overstretched,” he said.
On Monday, the Netherlands, another country that has recently debated a possible troop redeployment, confirmed that about 100 Dutch soldiers had been temporarily reassigned to the southern province of Kandahar to assist Canadian forces.
Mr Koenigs was scheduled to meet the Nato delegation, headed by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, secretary general, and James Jones, the alliance’s top military commander, during its three day trip to Afghanistan. The ambassadors of all 26 Nato nations are also participating in the visit . . . .
This was mentioned in this report, too, on 22 Aug 06:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33627.pdf
''An attack on the Norwegian-Finnish PRT in normally tranquil Meymaneh, in western Afghanistan, in February 2006 had given an indication of an emerging problem: the need for a rapid military response capability for rescue operations. When the PRT was attacked, no NATO combat forces were in the region
to protect the ISAF personnel. Other NATO forces that were nearby had caveats prohibiting their use in combat operations. Eventually a British plane and forces were found to end the attack on the PRT. Before and after the attack on the PRT, NATO SACEUR General James Jones called upon the NATO governments to pledge forces to ISAF that would be capable of combat operations. He has waged a constant campaign to cajole allied governments not to place caveats on their forces that ruled out combat operations.''
''....Berlin was adamant that German forces would not engage in combat operations; according to NATO officials, the German caveat against combat has limited the alliance in integrating German forces
with those of other allied governments. Former Defense Minister Struck had opposed merging ISAF and OEF commands because it “would make the situation for our soldiers doubly dangerous and worsen the current climate in Afghanistan.” These restrictions on German forces in ISAF continue. However, when the mandate for German forces in Afghanistan expires and is renewed in fall 2006, there is a possibility that the Merkel government may allow a more forceful response from its soldiers when they confront warlords, drug traffickers, and other armed groups in the vicinity of their PRTs."
''The Dutch government . . . . does not want its ground forces involved in combat operations. Dutch forces are wearing olive, and not camouflage, uniforms. In the Dutch view, ISAF’s purpose is “to provide a secure and stable environment for reconstruction.” However, the Netherlands endorsed the “synergy” of ISAF and OEF commands and has made available four F-16s for missions in both ISAF and OEF. The aircraft may be used for missions from intelligence gathering to close air support. As mentioned earlier, the Netherlands is in the process of sending 1,400 troops to Afghanistan for Stage Three operations. The political effects of the domestic Dutch debate have found their way into the field. Dutch commanders on the ground in Afghanistan reportedly insisted to NATO counterparts that no Dutch troops must be killed in combat, a view they were told was unrealistic, given that Uruzgan is one of the most restive provinces in Afghanistan.''
.
!"
