NATO nations being asked to send troops back to Afghanistan.

[Altair]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN18613B-OCATP?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

LONDON (Reuters) - NATO is assessing a request from the alliance's military authorities to send more troops to Afghanistan and will make a decision on the scale and scope of the mission within weeks, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Wednesday.
 
The request for what Stoltenberg said was "about a few thousand" more troops reflects the West's alarm about the worsening security situation in Afghanistan, territorial gains by Taliban militants and military and civilian casualties.
 
"We are now assessing that request. We will make decisions on the scale and scope of the mission within weeks but this is not about returning back to a combat operation in Afghanistan," he said after meeting British Prime Minister Theresa May.
 
Reuters reported in late April that U.S. President Donald Trump's administration was weighing sending between 3,000 and 5,000 U.S. and coalition troops to Afghanistan.
 
NATO already has some 13,450 troops in Afghanistan, including about 6,900 U.S. military personnel, who are training the Afghan armed forces to eventually take over the country's defense and security.
 
In addition, the United States has about 1,500 more troops in a parallel mission, part of a counter-terrorism unit that mostly targets pockets of al Qaeda and Islamic State fighters.
 
Stoltenberg stressed that any new NATO arrivals would not be in a combat role. "It will continue to be a train, assist and advise operation," he said of the so-called Resolute Support mission that was launched in January 2015 and signaled the end of an official combat role for NATO troops in Afghanistan.
 
A decision could be taken by NATO defense ministers in June, according to an alliance official. The NATO leaders summit in Brussels on May 25 was probably too soon, the official said.

Almost 16 years since the United States tried to topple Afghanistan's Taliban, who had harbored al Qaeda militants behind attacks on New York and Washington, the West remains entangled in an effort to stabilize a country facing resurgent rebels.
 
Facing public fatigue at the long-running conflict, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has sought to progressively reduce its presence in the country by building up the country's armed forces, notably creating an Afghan air force.
 
However, loss of territory to Taliban and Islamic militants, a rise in civilian casualties and a fall in the number of Afghan security forces have led the U.S. administration under Trump to review Afghanistan policy.
 
Over the past 18 months, Taliban insurgents have twice succeeded in seizing the northern town center of Kunduz for brief periods and the latest fighting underscores the challenge Afghan forces face to quell the insurgency.
 
According to the United Nations, 583,000 people fled their homes due to conflict in 2016, the highest number of displacements since records began in 2008.
 
U.S. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster visited Kabul in April to assess the situation, days after the U.S. military dropped one of the largest conventional weapons ever used in combat during an operation against Islamic State militants in eastern Afghanistan.
 
"I strongly believe that the best answer we have to terrorism, the best weapon against terrorism, is to train local forces to fight terrorism, to stabilize their own country," Stoltenberg said.

Any increase of several thousand troops would leave U.S. forces in Afghanistan well below their peak of more than 100,000 troops in 2011, when Washington was under huge domestic political pressure to draw down the costly operation.
 
Some U.S. officials told Reuters they questioned the benefit of sending more troops to Afghanistan because any politically palatable number would not be enough to turn the tide, much less create stability and security. To date, more than 2,300 Americans have been killed and over 17,000 wounded.
 
For now, deliberations include giving more authorities to forces on the ground. This could allow U.S. advisers to work with Afghan troops below the corps level, potentially putting them closer to fighting, a U.S. official said.
 
Stoltenberg said NATO trainers could also do more.
 
"We are now looking into requests regarding some areas like more education, for the military academies, but also training special operation forces and air forces," he said.

Anyone interested?

 

[GAP]

There you go Justin.....you peacekeeping mission defined.....go for it boy!!

 

[Loachman]

It's close enough to Africa, and we know it better.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sorry -- too busy building up to 2% of GDP spending on defence, but thanks for asking ...

 

[dimsum]

Sorry -- too busy building up to 2% of GDP spending on defence, but thanks for asking ...

In a roundabout way, this could be a justification to get 2%.  I can't see the public or the gov't will for it though.

 

[PuckChaser]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN18613B-OCATP?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Anyone interested?

Been there, done that, no thanks. The training plan was a joke because we had to check off boxes that the Afghans clearly couldn't achieve to meet a political promise of pulling out of Afghanistan by Obama (US led the training system). Dudes told me HF radios worked on magic, and we signed them off as 3A capable (good to go, needs only minimal support/guidance).

 

[The Bread Guy]

In a roundabout way, this could be a justification to get 2% ...

First, the senior partner says, "hey, you freeloaders - you owe NATO a ton of money, and need to get your sh*t together - or else," then they ask for a hand?  Always happy to help an ally, but this sounds like the kid who killed his parents and asked for the mercy of the court because he's an orphan ...

... I can't see the public or the gov't will for it though.

:nod:

 

[Gunner98]

I think I have heard this before:  "Stoltenberg stressed that any new NATO arrivals would not be in a combat role." [lol:

2016 - The Pentagon said Thursday that U.S. troops were in a combat "situation" — but not a combat role — in Afghanistan, despite a team of Green Berets getting pinned down in a firefight this week that resulted in one being killed and two injured.

2015:  In the UK, prime minster David Cameron pledged to end British combat operations in Afghanistan by 2015. "I believe the country needs to know there is an end point to all of this," he said, "so from 2015 there will not be troops in anything like the numbers now and crucially, they will not be in a combat role."

2014:  Q: Mr. Secretary General, Kai Niklasch from German Television. Will there be NATO troops, combat troops, after 2014?

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: I don't foresee a combat role after 2014, but we will continue a training mission. We'll continue to train, assist, advise the Afghan Security Forces. In that respect, of course we will have to figure out how exactly we will shape that mission. Do we need supplementary capabilities to make sure that our trainers can actually operate in support of the Afghan Security Forces. That decision has not been made yet, but it's clear that we will be there beyond 2014 and the core function will be a training mission.

2002 - The rest of the NATO alliance also has participated in the war against terrorism in smaller though still important ways. Although they were not included directly in combat operations in Afghanistan, as Colin Powell noted, “Not every ally is fighting, but every ally is in the fight.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

And if we're doing blasts from the past:  which current CPC candidate had this to say about AFG in 2009?

... This is not a war. We are providing a secure environment in a country in which there was a complete loss of security. Let us get it very clear so the NDP can understand what a secure environment is and what a war is.  A war is between two nations; a war is between two parties. There are not two parties there. This is a different kind of war. We are facing a terrorist organization that does not respect any rules of engagement. As a matter of fact, it has the most hideous way of running a government on record. It will provide no rights to its own citizens. That is why the citizens of Afghanistan want us to bring peace and security. Peace and security can only be provided by NATO forces ...

Check here for the answer.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well shit, I don't get a prize for guessing wrong. 

 

[Journeyman]

I can't see the public nor the gov't will for it though.

Apparently neither the public or government has a say; "Trump's administration was weighing sending between 3,000 and 5,000 U.S. and coalition troops to Afghanistan." 

He'll  decide.  With the Op O coming as a Tweet.  And Spicer announcing that the troops are going to Iran. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

And if we're doing blasts from the past:  which current CPC candidate had this to say about AFG in 2009?Check here for the answer.

Good one, and this from Mr Rae:

Snip < "People talk about Vietnam or other conflicts and say, “Wait a minute, let me understand. If there is a full scale retreat, there is a Taliban government in Kabul, there is greater destabilization in Pakistan and the possibility of a more radical fundamentalist government in Pakistan which has access to nuclear weapons and is an ally of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, what is the effect of that on the security of the world?”
    No thoughtful person can look upon that result and say that we have peace. If we have peace, then why do we worry? Our troops are not there so no one is getting killed, so we will be at peace. However, what kind of peace will it be? If it is a peace in which the security of the rest of the world is deeply threatened, then we are simply putting our heads in the sand and pretending as if we found a solution.
    I have never been one who felt that going to war or taking military action was something that could be taken on lightly. I have certainly never thought of myself as somebody who believed that democracy comes at the end of the barrel of a gun.

    Nonetheless, I am certain that Canada has a vital interest in the security of the world. We must first find a way to ensure the security of the area around Afghanistan, so the people of that region and the people of the world, including Canada, are no longer subject to terrorist attacks. That is why I believe it is important for us to continue to provide the necessary focus and support to a mission that can work and that will have the chance to succeed.

    In conclusion, I simply want to say that the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus will continue to be, as much as we can be, a constructive and, I hope, effective voice in the House with respect to this mission. I do not see it as an ideological mission. I do not see it as exclusively a military mission, and we do not see it as one that is carrying on a crusade for anything. We see it as something that we hope will provide greater security for Afghanistan, greater security for the region, and yes, greater"--> End snip (he appears to have been cut off by the Speaker of the House)

We have a much different Liberal party today than we did less a decade ago. Where have all the good men gone? Long time passing...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Gone to marry young girls everyone ... but we can't say that because of GBA+  [