# NATO urges Canada to keep troops in Afghanistan



## Mike Baker (30 Jan 2008)

LINK




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




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 (30 Jan 2008)

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


----------



## OkotoksRookie (30 Jan 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> 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 (30 Jan 2008)

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

I hope it helps


----------



## OkotoksRookie (30 Jan 2008)

Thank you!
That's amazing!


----------



## slowmode (30 Jan 2008)

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 (31 Jan 2008)

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 (31 Jan 2008)

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 (31 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Feb 2008)

> 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 (2 Feb 2008)

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 (2 Feb 2008)

> 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 (2 Feb 2008)

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.
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (2 Feb 2008)

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 (2 Feb 2008)

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 (2 Feb 2008)

+1 Vern!!!


----------

