Keep in mind that Afghanistan is still considered by foreign policy elites to be the “good war,” with a democratically elected government supported by a UN mandate and the NATO charter’s committment to success. With that in mind, within this BBC article about the upcoming NATO summit was a picture worth a thousand words:
Down in the south, the Brits and Canadians cover their flashpoint areas, while just to their north in Tarin Kowt the Dutch do the same – these are ranged against the “resurgent” Taliban from last summer’s campaign. All along the mountainous, eastern border with Pakistan are US combat units, like bird dogs on point combatting al Qaeda infiltrators.
Note the conspicuous absence of flashpoints around the French, Spanish and German flags. This is no accident, no luck of the draw:
GEOGRAPHICAL CAVEATS – Germany, Italy, Spain and others declined calls in September by NATO to move troops based in calm areas to the violent south to help with fighting. Berlin has insisted the parliamentary mandate covering its 2,900 troops stipulates they remain in the north, apart from one-off forays.
Another example concerns troops based in districts around the capital Kabul. Alliance sources complain that some refuse to go outside their assigned patches, reducing ISAF’s ability to respond to incidents on the ground.
CONSULTATIONS – Most national forces can only do certain tasks after consultation with their capitals — a process that slows down reaction times. At least one government insists on being consulted before its troops are despatched to within one km (half a mile) of the restive border with Pakistan.
OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS – National contingents may refuse to carry out operations above a specified altitude because they are not properly equipped: some helicopters, for example, cannot be used above a certain height; another’s troops have limits on what tasks they can perform at night; one NATO source said some south European nations unused to tough Afghan winter conditions have a caveat against fighting in snow, while others ban theirs from riot control operations.
After the Cold War ended, many NATO enthusiasts crowed that their alliance had won the war without firing a shot. Looks like some member states took that as doctrine.
I have been following this issue for a while with amusement…or is that bemusement? Must say my favourite to date has to be “a caveat against fighting in snow”… HUH?!
Seriously though…..well seriously, I don’t know what to say. Easier to take the high road I guess when your country appears to be actually DOING something. I don’t know – what’s the point of even being there if you forbid your troops from even getting out of bed, let alone walking out the front door every day?
Anybody think that the expected pleas for more troops and the lifing of these caveats are going to have any effect at the upcoming summit? Or are the other countries simply going to slowly go down the road that the majority of Americans appear to have concering Iraq – enough is enough, we want out? Its rather bizarre to read about how the troops seem to believe so strongly in their mission when so many of the people of the very countries that sent them there don’t. I see this with the American and Canadian troops but kind of asumme it must be the same in other countries as well.
Good point Lex, there is definately a political motivation there.
As the old joke goes, it’s not a war until France surrenders, Italy changes sides twice, and Germany gets rebuilt.
They are doing this to try and appease their “minorities,” in the hope that they can buy time. I believe in the law of unintended consequences, and I don’t believe that their postures will help them any when the hard choices will have to be made.
“You can draw your saber and join the charge, you can stand here and hold the bridles for the re-mounts, you can even go fill up everyone’s canteens back at the creek… But whatever you do, don’t cheer for the Hostiles!”
in this case, they appear to be on canteen detail.
This brings me back to a previous blog about the state of naval shipbuilding, age of naval aircraft, etc.
The CNO plans to build a 1,000 ship Navy comprised to a great degree by vessels flying the flags of our “allies”. Transpose this map on to an ocean setting, and one must question the wisdom of that plan.
I can envision the ships of a few nations coming hard about and retiring bravely, after declining to be put in harm’s way.
It appears that Americans can sustain a war with casualties for about five years give or take, and the continental Europeans a span of maybe months. Thus, keeping them out of the fight may be the only way to keep them in the fight, if you know what I mean.
Michelle-
The snow thing maybe for good reason depending on how well they’re equipped. Large chunks of the Australian Army for example would have to have a fair bit of kit fall from the heavens to fight in that environment.
gain weight and build muscle…
Discover effective tips on how to gain muscle mass and weight quickly. Check them out….