# What ISAF Really Stands For



## GAP (24 Feb 2011)

What ISAF Really Stands For
February 24, 2011
Article Link

 One of the many things that hurt morale among U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the half-hearted efforts of troops sent by other NATO nations hurts the worst. The multi-national force is called ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), but U.S. troops insist ISAF really stands for "I See Americans Fighting".

While British (9,500 troops), Canadian (2,900) and Australian (1,500) forces fight hard, most other nations avoid the enemy. Moreover, the British, Canadian and Australian contingents are all planning to leave in the next few years. Even the United States has pledged to "begin reducing" it's force (100,000 troops) in four years. But the sad truth is that Afghanistan is a mess, mainly because of the heroin (90 percent of the world's supply comes from Afghanistan), a curse that has created millions of addicts in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, as well as many more in Europe, North America, East Asia and the Middle East. Everyone expects that, in the end, the U.S. will stick around and take care of things. U.S. troops in Afghanistan see this in action, as other NATO troops are ordered to avoid fighting, and let the Americans take care of any emergencies.

The NATO troops themselves, for the most part, want to fight. But participation in ISAF has become a political issue inside most nations that are contributing, and the usual way to settle that domestic dispute is to put restrictions on the troops in Afghanistan. Militarily, it's a bad decision, but politically, it's a more tolerable one. So most NATO troops pretend to participate, secure in the knowledge of what ISAF really stands for.
More on link


----------



## chrisf (24 Feb 2011)

Dear America,

Thank you for saving the world.

I'm not sure if I was being sarcastic or not.

Please clarify.

Sincerely,

Me.


----------



## CombatDoc (24 Feb 2011)

This post makes me want to rewatch my copy of "Team America".  

Are there NATO countries that have deliberately avoided operations in the volatile south due to political pressures at home?  Sure, can you say Germany, Italy or Spain.  But, there are also those NATO forces - Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Danes, Dutch - that have held Kandahar and Helmand, the centre of gravity for the insurgents, while the US was distracted by their Iraq adventure.  Now that the US focus has shifted to where it should have been all along, suddenly the surge becomes America's fight alone?

Unfortunately, Canadian and European politicians have done an abysmal job of explaining to the electorate what are their national interests/goals (if any) in Afghanistan.  Given mounting casualties, it is no wonder that public support is not there for continuing the mission.  It is a moot point for Canada, since we are clearly shifting from a COIN mission in Kandahar to a training mission in near Kabul.  However, if our political leaders had better explained why we should be there instead of avoiding the issue for years...I believe we would not be shifting gears.


----------

