Europeans put on alert to provide more troops for Afghan campaign

[CHIMO]

Source: guardian.co.uk

It will be up to Britain and other European states, and not the United States, to provide reinforcements for Afghanistan if it is decided more troops are needed, Nato sources said today.

Stanley McChrystal, the US general in charge of the overall Nato force of 100,000 has yet to make any formal request, and, according to a senior European official, he has been discouraged from doing so for the time being ‑ at least until there is a clear political settlement in the wake of Afghanistan's disputed election.

But if and when the call comes, the US will argue that it has already sent an extra 21,000 troops this year, and is still deeply committed in Iraq.

America already provides two-thirds of the Nato force. The pressure will instead fall on the European states.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/14/nato-army-afghanistan

[msongs]

1. europeans might just tell Obama to fight his own dirty little war nt

[dipsydoodle]

6. Yes but maybe

not quite that politely.

[treestar]

13. This sounds bigger than that. NATO committed itself.

[MetaTrope]

2. Europe is just America's Uzbekistan

Don't forget about Poland!

[tocqueville]

3. it depends on rotations, other commitments and not only on ground troops

the average number is 3/year in Europe whichs means that roughly 100 000 European soldiers are deployed a year. Which is a bigger strain on smaller conscription armies.

The author speculates that France/Italy could take from other missions. Kosovo maybe, but hardly Lebanon. Besides Chad is still a hot spot, and French presence at the border to Darfur is still necessary.

The author doesn't count with logistics placed in neighbouring countries like Tadjikistan etc...

And a lot of forces are engaged in Enduring Freedom but at sea.

But I agree that there is room for reinforcements

[Ghost Dog]

5. Would depend on the nature of the mission, also.

And on the nature of the Afghan government NATO is supposed to be helping to stabilise the country (which need not necessarily involve 'crushing' the apparently-devout Pashtun tribesmen labelled 'Taliban').

[frog92969]

4. "Aww Sammy...all you ever want to do is play soldier"

If Europe is smart, they'll back away from our criminal enterprise.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. If I were them, I'd demand that the United States refrain from demonizing socialism

and socialized medicine.

We can't wait to beg our European allies to fight our dirty, illegal wars. And yet, we turn around and bash them because of their way of life.

[JonQ]

8. They really ought to be providing more than half of the total forces there

It's a populous wealthy continent, they could do more.

[Nihil]

10. They really ought to get out of Afghanistan *and* Iraq ...

... tell the US government (and its corporate paymasters) to f*ck itself
and concentrate on their own problems rather than sucking up to the USA's
dumbass profiteering war industry.

Now as to what they will *actually* do ... :shrug:

[JonQ]

11. They agreed it was a war worth going in to

at the start. Can't bail halfway because you don't feel like it any more.

[Nihil]

12. Makes more sense than feeding money & cannon fodder to something that you know now is wrong.

That's a lesson that Obama would do well to learn too.
:shrug:

[JonQ]

14. And why is it wrong exactly?

[and-justice-for-all]

9. I do hope they tell'em "Uh, NO." nt