# Afstan: US offering to take command of NATO ISAF in 2007



## MarkOttawa (7 Jun 2006)

I wonder how this will play out in certain Canadian political and media circles: "U.S. Offers to Command NATO in Afghanistan".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601124.html

Excerpts:

"The United States has offered to take command of the NATO force in Afghanistan next year following the current British stint in charge of the expanding peacekeeping mission, diplomats said Tuesday.

The handover to a U.S. general is expected to take place in February as part of an overhaul of the NATO mission. The changes will include introducing a more flexible, multinational headquarters to replace the system of rotating national commands which has been in place since the start of the operation in August 2003...

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said his country would like to take command in 2008.

NATO is scheduled to expand its peacekeeping mission from 9,000 to 16,000 by late July when it is scheduled to take on security in the dangerous southern region. Later this year, it hopes to complete its expansion by moving into the eastern sector, which will likely take its total numbers to 21,000.

The U.S. is hoping to reduce its troops numbers this year from 19,000 to 16,000. Many of the remaining U.S. troops will be incorporated into the NATO force, notably in the eastern region, where Americans will be the lead nation under the NATO command. Britain is taking command in the south [presumably around the end of this year when Canada's command of the Multi-National Brigade Headquarters ends], Germany commands the north, and Italy the west.

However, the U.S. will also maintain a smaller combat force independent of NATO with the aim of hunting down Taliban and al-Qaida remnants..."

Mark C.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jun 2006)

It will go something like this:  "Even though NATO is in charge they are still the puppets of the US and therefore we need a multi rainbow force of big hearted people to help the poor fill in the blank that aren't lead by the US or its heathen allies".


----------



## couchcommander (7 Jun 2006)

IMO having the US and then a Canadian command the ISAF would provide two solid years of good operations - prevent the Eurocops from taking over for at least a while.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2006)

+1


The only effective commands (IMHO) are the Brit, US and Cdn (given Hillier) - I hope we get a GOOD [read agressive] commander next at bat.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jun 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The changes will include introducing a more flexible, multinational headquarters to replace the system of rotating national commands which has been in place since the start of the operation in August 2003...


Again, misinformed media. There is already a "multinational headquarters." 
"Rotating national commands" merely brings in a new commander, and whichever his country, a group of staff officers from that country that he is familiar with, to ensure the staff duties are accomplished how he likes them. It's not new. If anything, it will just mean a greater mix of junior staff officers.

Now, whether US, Canadian, or Italian Generals make for better coalition commanders.......


----------



## GAP (8 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> 
> The only effective commands (IMHO) are the Brit, US and Cdn (given Hillier) - I hope we get a GOOD [read agressive] commander next at bat.



Even though they will say it, it should stop the nay sayers spouting off about how the US is offloading everything onto NATO


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jun 2006)

For some reason major Canadian newspapers did not cover this story. As far as I can see only the Globe gave any coverage: a one paragraph news brief, that did not mention Canada, in the Ottawa print edition. No wonder so many of our politicians and pundits are ignorant of what is going on, and buy the drivel about our being part of "George Bush's "War on Terror'. The story: "NATO confident Afghan mission can deal with renewed violence".
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060608/w0608142.html

Excerpts:

"NATO is expanding its force from 9,700 to 16,000 by late July, doubling international troop numbers in the southern region, which was the Taliban's heartland...

The alliance hopes to complete its expansion across the whole of Afghanistan by November by taking on the eastern sector, bringing its total numbers in the country to up to 25,000, although Rumsfeld said the exact timing was not yet certain...

The Pentagon said the United States has at least 21,000 troops in Afghanistan but there has been talk of a cut of as much as 20 per cent. Many of those who remain will be incorporated into the NATO force as it moves south and east. However, the United States will also maintain a combat force independent of NATO to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaida militants..."

Lots of coverage in the international press though.

Mark
Ottawa


----------

