NATO could handle all Afghan peacekeeping by August: General

[The Gues-|-]

Last Updated Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:38:06 EST
CBC News
NATO's top operational commander said Friday that the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force should be ready to take over peacekeeping duties throughout Afghanistan by the end of August, provided alliance members agree.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/31/afghanistan-060331.html

Afghanistan

 
U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones has been Supreme Allied Commander Europe since 2003. (Yves Logghe/ Associated Press)  
While no formal timetable had been set for the deployment of NATO forces in the mountainous Pakistani border region in eastern Afghanistan, the most ambitious target spoken of by alliance officials had been October.

Up to now, NATO's mission has been limited to Kabul and the relatively peaceful northern and western regions.

However, U.S. Gen. James Jones, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said the planned expansion into the more dangerous southern sector is planned for July and the move eastward could be completed by August because it mainly involves bringing U.S. troops already there under NATO command.

"It's better to do it sooner than later," Jones told reporters at NATO headquarters in Belgium.

He added that the U.S. would first have to agree to the transfer.

The addition of American troops would raise the strength of the NATO force to between 23,000 and 25,000, up from 8,400.

The expansion in the south involves 9,000 troops mainly from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands. Canada's 2,300 soldiers are mostly stationed in volatile Kandahar province.

The Canadians are currently part of the U.S.-led coalition, but will come under the command of the NATO force when it expands into the southern sector this summer.

The U.S. has about 16,000 troops in Afghanistan. NATO officials said they expect 6,000 to 10,000 of them to transfer to the NATO force, with the remainder continuing to focus on hunting for Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

Jones expressed confidence that the NATO force was well-equipped to handle matters in more violent regions of the country, adding that the nations involved had not placed any restrictions on the use of their troops.

"They are going in without caveats," he said. "They will make their presence felt and I am quite confident that the capacity they will bring ... will send a strong message to those committing the acts of violence."


What does this mean for the troops exactly? different ROE's?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

International Security Assistance Force should be ready to take over peacekeeping duties

See my separate post on the use of the grating term "peacekeeping" with reference to ISAF and Afghanistan.

Jones expressed confidence that the NATO force was well-equipped to handle matters in more violent regions of the country, adding that the nations involved had not placed any restrictions on the use of their troops.

The statement should probably read "the nations currently involved" - Canada, the UK, the US and (soon) the Netherlands.  That these countries have no caveat is vastly different than the remainder of the nations that make up ISAF.  Germany and France, in particular, have proven reluctant to deploy to the south and to become involved in more focused combat operations.

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.  The current structure may well transition to ISAF command sometime this summer but, after witnessing the tapdancing over Herat a year or so ago, NATO would really have to get its act together to meet an August deadline.  My best guess?  We could well see a nominal transfer of command for the Kandahar mission from CFC-A to ISAF sooner rather than later (thus putting a NATO face on the operation), but IMHO it is highly unlikely that things will actually change on the ground (in terms of tactics and operational tasks) for at least a year - if ever.  If the Eurotourists decide to deploy in 2008, the mission may change, but who knows?

What does this mean for the troops exactly? different ROE's?

ROEs are entirely a national matter - any change in the command structure would have no impact.

Cheers,

TR

 

[couchcommander]

That use of peacekeeping is really strange.

It was my impression that "peacekeeping" involved enforcing an agreed upon and pre-existant truce between sides, ie "keeping" the "peace". I believe most formal definitions make a point of this as well.

Last I checked the Afghan insurgency hadn't agreed to any truce.

"Peacemaking" - possibly, but IMO it would be better if they just kept to "Security Assistance".

 

[Gunner]

"Peacekeeping", "Peacemaking" or my favorite "Peacebuilding".

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So what your saying is that for the ground troop its situation no change?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

My guess - and it is only a guess - is that not much should change.  No matter who is in command, the mission - OEF or ISAF - is to assist with the security of Afghanistan.  That's a task that is likely to involve combat or near-combat operations for the foreseeable future.  As long as the South is "hot" and we're there, I can't see the basics of the operation changing.