NATO urges Canada to keep troops in Afghanistan

[Mike Baker]

LINK

NATO urges Canada to keep troops in Afghanistan
Updated Wed. Jan. 30 2008 11:50 AM ET

The Associated Press

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- NATO is urging Canada not to pull its troops out of Afghanistan's dangerous Kandahar province.


Alliance spokesman James Appathurai says the defence organization will find the additional troops for southern Afghanistan that Ottawa is demanding.


Appathurai was responding to comments earlier this week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said Canada will only keep its 2,500 troops in Kandahar after their mandate expires in 2009 if it gets more support.


Among other things, Canada wants other allies to provide an additional 1,000 combat troops for Kandahar province, a hotbed of the Taliban insurgency.


It also wants them to supply helicopters and unmanned surveillance planes to help battle the insurgents.


Appathurai says NATO defence ministers will discuss Canada's demand for more support at a meeting next month in Vilnius, Lithuania.

I think that we really should stay. But, other NATO forces need to step it up more, i.e. more troop commitments, helicopters, etc in Kandahar Province, and the rest of Afghanistan as a whole. Since the Brits are reducing troop numbers in Iraq, the could potentially send some extra to Afghanistan. Just my opinion.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

OR the other NATO countries that haven't done much could up their commitment.

 

[OkotoksRookie]

OR the other NATO countries that haven't done much could up their commitment.

Would you happen to have any documentation as to what NATO countries have committed what forces Lone Wolf?
I'm woefully ignorant on the exact participation numbers...

 

[vonGarvin]

OkotoksRookie:
Go here for all ISAF related questions:
http://www.nato.int/isaf/index.html

I hope it helps

 

[OkotoksRookie]

Thank you!
That's amazing!

 

[slowmode]

I believe we should stay but the problem with this is that its obvious other NATO nations aren't putting there leg in enough.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Before we have a veritable orgy of NATO/Europe-bashing we might want to consider a few facts.

I gathered a bit of data, from ISAF’s own web site for force contribution data and from the OECD web site for population and GDP data. That gives me reasonably consistent data. I used that to compare the contributions to ISAF (number of troops, only) from 27 OECD members (several ISAF members (like Georgia and Jordan) are not in the OECD) based on contribution/population and contribution/GDP. I then levelled the data on the basis of Canada=1.

In both cases (contribution/population and contribution/GDP) Britain was the most “generous” member at 2.41 times Canada’s contribution in terms of population and 2.39 times Canada’s contribution on the basis of GDP. All of the following countries “out-performed” Canada:

• Britain, Denmark, Norway and Netherlands on a per population basis; and

• Poland, Britain, Turkey, Denmark, Netherlands, Hungary, Czech Republic and Norway when their contributions are measured against GDP.

In my little analysis we ranked 7th out of 27 – respectable, to be sure, but not too far ahead of the USA (92% of our “contribution” (averaged across both fields)) or Italy (85%).

There are, to be sure, some serious Euro-slackers, especially:

Switzerland, Austria and Ireland – all of which contribute less than 5% of what Canada does.

In addition we find several large contributors who are still well below Canada’s level and are hiding behind great, high walls of caveats, specifically:

Spain (39% of Canada’s contribution (averaged across both population and GDP), France (41%), Sweden (70%) and Germany (76%).

So, let's be a bit careful. Canada is doing a full and more than "fair" share, but so are others - including several NATO/European nations.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

It matters not how many countries contribute troops to KAF.  Until those troops go out the wire and patrol the AOR's I (can only speak for myself) don't see the contribution in the same weight/context as our own.

 

[McG]

In both cases (contribution/population and contribution/GDP) Britain was the most “generous” member at 2.41 times Canada’s contribution ...

How do the numbers look when you look at contribution:military size?

 

[DogCobra]

In my little analysis we ranked 7th out of 27 – respectable, to be sure, but not too far ahead of the USA (92% of our “contribution” (averaged across both fields))

I agree with the majority of the sentiment in your post but would like to point out one misconception.  The US has an additional 10,000 troops in Afghanistan not under NATO command.  The ISAF places US strength at 15000 but you need to add the 10000 to calculate true contribution (correct me if you included the 25000 figure). I also suspect there are additional troops from various countries not under NATO command. 

I would also be interested in the logistic strength not in Afghanistan. 

 

[CDNBlackhawk]

I can only speak for my tour, But i can count on one hand the amount of countries that were actually doing anything significant while i was their.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I can only speak for my tour, But i can count on one hand the amount of countries that were actually doing anything significant while i was their.

From one old RCR to a young RCR I  you CDN Blackhawk. Well done lad!!

As for NATO, since the end of the cold war it has been trying to find another way to reinvent itself, but with the European nations unwilling to commit to anything more than lip service, I think it has lost much of it's bite and it's glory days have come and gone. But that's not to say that "if" these other nations begin to step up and start taking their responsibility seriously, it can again be a viable organization, until then I don't know...

 

[sgf]

well Germany wont be sending any troops to Kandahar

Germany won’t move troops into southern Afghanistan
BERLIN (AP) — German troops are staying in the calmer northern regions of Afghanistan, the defence minister said Friday, despite pleas from Canada and the United States for more military muscle to help fight insurgents in the south.
  “I have a clear mandate from the Ger­man parliament," German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung told report­ers Friday. “It consists of 3,500 soldiers serving along the northern border and only helping out in the south for a limit­ed period of time, as needed."
  Jung made the remarks in response to a letter from U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates seeking more substantial help in volatile southern Afghanistan. Troops from Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and the United States have borne the brunt of fighting the Ta­liban in the south, with support from Denmark, Romania, Estonia and non­NATO nation Australia.
  Ottawa is looking to allies for 1,000 more troops and additional equipment for southern Afghanistan as Parlia­ment debates whether to extend the Canadian military mission beyond February 2009.
  Washington said it had no plans to send more U.S. troops beyond the deci­sion last month to deploy 3,200 addi­tional marines to Afghanistan, but promised to help Canada lobby other countries for reinforcements.
  Gates has been trying to persuade NATO allies to contribute more to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, without much success.
 
 
 

 

[observor 69]

Germany rejects US troops appeal 

Mr Jung has just visited German troops in Afghanistan
Germany has rejected a US appeal to send more troops to Afghanistan, amid signs of strain in the Nato mission.
The US defence secretary had used a strongly worded letter to urge larger German deployment to south Afghanistan.

But his German counterpart, Franz Josef Jung, bluntly ruled out deploying any German soldiers to the area, which is at the heart of the Taleban insurgency.

In his letter, Mr Gates warned that without reinforcements the Nato effort could lose credibility in Afghanistan


And more at links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7222989.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7219156.stm

 

[armyvern]

NATO is crumbling. Too many nations unwilling to fill the dirty roles required in that organization when required. Canada was once one of them. Now it's someone else.

I see ABCA in our future ... rising, but only if Canada (with our own history of political procrastination/appeasement/determination of troop committment & role by "poll") lives up to our committments at ALL times vice just the nice times.

We seem to have been doing a fine job at finally earning Canada's share of the peace dividend in the past decade or so. A revisitation to the our days as a "soft power" is exactly the opposite of what we need ... whether Canadians realize it or not.

International agreements aimed at collective security are only as good as the will of those nations to ante up as required to ensure that security. Canadians now sit back, holier than thou as per normal, while they watch and bitch about Germany et al doing exactly that which Canada itself chose to do in the past.

Although Canada is anteing up now thanks to the excellent job being performed by our soldiers on behalf of this nation and NATO -- the fight is already occuring to once again revert to soft power. Fucking awesome. Does no one realize that soft power will always fail if the strong power is not there to back it up? Having a strong, well equipped, and combat capable (and proven) force serves as the best possible deterrant to war and attacks from our enemy on our own soil on a large scale. Sometimes, one has to walk the talk instead of just talking the talk. Our enemies do not give two shits one way or the other about how well we speak -- only voters do.

How about we just throw the flowers into the ends of our weapons and allow our enemies to walk in and wipe their feet gently on the welcome mat here at home --- the extremists would be entirely happy with that. "Welcome Sir, please wipe your feet at the door; we infidels are quite pleased to have you aboard ..." How very politely fucking Canadian is that?

 

[Mike Baker]

+1 Vern!!!