NATO signals Afghan reinforcements

[vonGarvin]

Source:  http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/29/nato.wrap/index.html
0758 29 Nov 2006:

RIGA, Latvia (CNN) -- NATO leaders meeting in the Latvian capital of Riga have agreed to "step up" operations in Afghanistan with a lifting of rules of engagement meaning more troops on the ground, said Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

The caveats -- restrictions which had been imposed where, when and how allied troops operate in Afghanistan - have been the focus of a NATO summit, where leaders of 26 member nations have been meeting for two days.

A NATO spokesman said an extra 26,000 allied troops are now "more usable" for combat in Afghanistan with the lifting of national caveats.

He added that there was also an Allied commitment for more helicopters and more fighter aircrafts, and that some nations had agreed that their troops could be used in more "emergency" situations.

The secretary general also said told a news conference after a NATO summit in Riga that an international Contact Group of countries to assist with Afghanistan's reconstruction -- proposed by French President Jacques Chirac -- would also be formed.

"Heads and state and government have tasked me to forward proposals on the possibility of a Contact Group," said de Hoop Scheffer.

He also urged countries to donate more money to reconstruction efforts in the war-torn country. (NATO allies disagree)

"The bottom line I think is that ....five years after the fall of the taliban, Afghanistan is making real progress to build a society that is democratic under Afghan ownership, the Afghan people and the Afghan government have the responsibility and that is no longer a threat to the world," he said.

The secretary-general also said a new rapid response force, which would allow NATO troops to be deployed more quickly.

He announced that Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro would be offered "Partnerships for Peace", the first step on the road to membership to the alliance.

CNN's European political editor Robin Oakley reports the countries are still trying to iron out differences on the Afghan mission, including a lifting on restrictions related to caveats.

"There seems to be an agreement -- although they will maintain restrictions -- they will agree that in extremis, in times of great peril for NATO forces, the forces may be able to assist the fighting in Helmand, in the south," he said.

Oakley also said there will be debate about expanding NATO's relations beyond Europe, to include partnerships with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. He said greater training initiatives are expected to be announced later Wednesday.

 

[Yrys]

another article on the same thing :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6191504.stm

Nato split on Afghan combat curbs

Nato leaders at a summit are continuing to limit troop deployment to south
Afghanistan, despite calls from the US to accept "difficult assignments".

France and Germany have agreed to small changes on how troops can be used,
but will not move large numbers to the area where Nato faces a resurgent Taleban.

But the Dutch and Romanians are among those agreeing to relax such curbs.

The US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands have borne the brunt of fierce fighting
with the militants in the south.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A few more variations on the same theme....

NATO agrees to few new troops for Afghanistan
Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, 29 Nov 06
Article Link

NATO put on a brave face of unity Wednesday but managed to scrape together only a few hundred more soldiers to send to Afghanistan.  “We came here expecting to make real progress and I think we have done that,” said NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the end of a two-day alliance summit in Latvia. But he admitted that new forces amounted to only “several infantry companies” – meaning perhaps 500 soldiers.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper claimed progress “had been made on Canadian objectives.'' But he said he didn't know if any of the additionally pledged NATO soldiers would be deployed to Kandahar.  Embattled Canadian troops there are taking disproportionate casualties and the Prime Minister said it was impossible to assess whether the summit would change that.  “It's difficult to project future casualties and future battles based on this summit,” he said.


NATO agrees to bolster troubled Afghan force
Agence France Presse, 29 Nov 06
Article Link

NATO has clinched agreement to bolster its troubled mission in Afghanistan by sending more troops and cutting restrictions on forces already there, while admitting that gaps remain.  Leaders of the 26-nation bloc including US President George W. Bush also notably backed a French proposal to set up a "contact group" to coordinate action to prevent Afghanistan slipping back towards chaos.  Closer to its traditional home ground, they also agreed to admit Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Hercegovina to its Partnership for Peace programme, a decade after the wars which ripped the Balkans apart.  The pledge on Afghanistan, announced at the end of a two-day summit, came after the United States and Britain in particular lobbied for more troops and fewer caveats on the forces in the violence-wracked country ....


NATO determined to succeed in Afghanistan
Reuters, 29 Nov 06
Article Link

....  A NATO spokesman said three countries had pledged more troops and that a majority had agreed to ease restrictions on where and how their forces could fight in Afghanistan.  He declined to name the countries, but said they were in addition to Canada, Denmark and the Czech Republic, which have already made public pledges to increase troop levels.  "A number of nations said they will look to increase, in some cases substantially, their financial commitments to the civilian efforts in Afghanistan -- development assistance, reconstruction," he added.  Still, several major nations made it clear they had not completely lifted restrictions.   France, Germany, Italy and Spain, who sparked a row by refusing calls in September to send troops to the Taliban's southern Afghan heartland, promised to send help to trouble zones outside their patches in emergencies, officials said ....

 

[Red 6]

I heard on NPR yesterday the Polish government is slated to send some combat units to Afghanistan early next year with no combat restrictions. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Edward Campbell]

NATO has agreed to take the tiniest possible baby steps towards trying to win the war against the Taliban.  As the Wall Street Journal noted, NATO leaders agreed to “stay the course” - the current course – in Afghanistan which means American, British, Canadian and Dutch troops fight in the Taliban infested South and East while the bulk of NATO's forces act as something akin to heavily armed tourists in the West, North and in Kabul, proper.

See this, by Jeffrey Simpson, in today's (29 Nov 06) Globe and Mail (reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061129.wsimpson29/BNStory/National/home

NATO's very survival hinges on the Afghan mission

JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

“If NATO fails in Afghanistan, NATO fails.” Such is the brutal and accurate assessment of an unidentified Western diplomat cited in the Brussels-based International Crisis Group's latest report on Afghanistan. And NATO, while not exactly failing, is also not set up for success in this first mission outside Europe.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will try at a NATO summit in Latvia to get more troops for the violent southern theatre in which Canadian, Dutch, British and American troops are fighting.

He is right to ask his NATO partners for more help, but the answer is likely to be discouraging. Only Poland has pledged a further 900 troops for Afghanistan, and Romania another 200. But the big European countries (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) are unwilling to commit more soldiers or move the ones they have in the country from relatively peaceful areas to the troubled southern theatre.

More troops in the south would help, but the real crisis for NATO will come in a year's time when countries will be asked to take on new two-year military assignments starting in 2008.

If countries operating in relatively safe areas of Afghanistan won't redeploy a few soldiers southward today, they'd be unlikely to volunteer their entire force structure to dangerous areas in a year's time. At which point, if the enemies of the Afghan regime can hold on, NATO's mission will completely fail.

Time, regrettably, is on side of the Taliban and their assorted allies of drug lords, corrupt officials and al-Qaeda fighters. They have safe havens in Pakistan. They can infiltrate villages and hide in the mountains. They have plenty of cash from supporters in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, plus money from the drug trade and extortion.

According to one study of 91 conflicts since the Second World War cited in the ICG report, it took an average of 14 years for governments to defeat an insurgency. Fourteen years.

Since the fall of 2005, the security situation in Afghanistan has worsened, especially in the south, despite the presence of Canadian and other forces. This year, there have been 106 suicide bombings — the latest killed two more Canadians this week — compared with 17 in 2005. The result has been an upsurge in fear, the withdrawal of NGOs from dangerous areas, and the slowing down of development work.

In any counterinsurgency, success can only come if the local population turns on the insurgents. The core of the Afghan dilemma is less the need for more troops in the south than the corruption of Afghan officials. As the ICG report notes: “Today, people are pulling back from a government that is failing them, if not preying on them.”

The Afghan police are poorly equipped and trained, and often corrupt. Germany is supposed to be taking the lead NATO role in improving the police force, but this effort appears to be failing. As for the Afghan army, it, too, remains a work in progress.

What's to be done?

Roland Paris, a former Foreign Affairs official-turned-University of Ottawa professor, just won a major international award for a book on conflict resolution. In a recent article, Mr. Paris outlined six steps for NATO, including more troops for the south. The other steps: build up the Afghan army, reduce corruption, stop destroying opium crops, contain fighters moving across the Pakistani border, and provide more reconstruction aid. If NATO can't accomplish these objectives, he said, the alliance should withdraw.

His is a sensible but difficult wish list.

Rising production levels illustrate that eradicating poppy crops is doomed to failure. NATO has to design a system of buying the crops, at higher prices than the warlords will offer, and storing them for medicinal purposes. It's doubtful the ideologues in Washington would agree to such a policy.

How about the other steps? More NATO troops for the south? Unlikely. Better training for the Afghan army? Sure, but slow going. Rooting out corruption? Alas, Afghanistan lives on corruption. More reconstruction aid? Yes, of course, but only if the security situation can be stabilized. (See more troops.) Constraining fighters from crossing the Pakistani border? No chance, given the tribal affinities, Pakistan's desire to see an unstable Afghanistan, and Pakistan's own internal tensions.

So, good luck to Mr. Harper. What he seeks is only a small part of what NATO needs to succeed.

jsimpson@globeandmail.com

I think NATO has failed, already.  It is demonstrating to the Taliban and all others of a like mind, today, at Riga, that NATO, per se lacks the political stomach for a long, hard, bloody fight in defence of NATO's oft stated and restated principles.  In 2008 I expect that several NATO nations will decline to re-sign for the NATO mission – that list might well include Canada if a Liberal government is in power.

I doubt that NATO, including the US, has either the brains or guts to examine Prof. Paris' little list:

1. Provide more troops for the south;

2. Build up the Afghan army;

3. Reduce corruption;

4. Stop destroying opium crops;

5. Contain fighters moving across the Pakistani border; and

6. Provide more reconstruction aid.

Personally, I think it is a pretty good outline plan.

In any event, it seems to me that NATO has demonstrated that it has a good capacity to plan and mount complex military operations outside its home, the European area of operations.  This can and should serve the UN well in the future because the UN has demonstrated that it is singularly inept at planning and mounting anything above a small Truce Supervisory Organization.  What NATO has also demonstrated is that, being a Hydra, of sorts, it cannot conduct combat operations of any intensity above uniformed tourism.

Someone else needs to do the fighting and that someone else is, most emphatically, not the UN.

NATO has been the cornerstone of Canada's foreign and defence policies for over a half century.  It has now become a stumbling block.  Maybe it's time to kick over the stone and see if there is anything we can salvage.

 

[GAP]

More of the same as far as I can see from the MSM.

Tighter security for Spanish troops in Afghanistan
29 November 2006
Article Link

RIGA — Madrid will allow the 700 troops it has deployed in Afghanistan to venture outside their designated zone only in cases of emergency.

Spanish defence minister Jose Antonio Alonso made the announcement at a press conference at a NATO conference in  Riga which he is attending with Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Alonso said that Spain will not increase its troop strength in the western Afghan province of Badghis, and it will continue to carry out civil reconstruction efforts there and to help the local population in other ways.

He said that the mission of the U.N.-authorized, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan was the reconstruction of the country.
More on link

Sweden may send more soldiers to Afghanistan
November 29, 2006         
Article Link

Sweden is considering sending more forces to the ISAF (International Security Force for Afghanistan) mission in Afghanistan, Radio Sweden reported on Tuesday.

The Swedish military wants to immediately increase the current force in northern Afghanistan from 250 to 275, and in the longer term it hopes to send a further 100 soldiers, the radio said.

Swedish Defense Minister Mikael Odenberg said he is considering the proposal, weighing the needs for an overall strategy for Swedish peacekeeping missions abroad, according to the public broadcaster.

The Swedes are serving in the NATO-led force of 31,000, as part of the Partner for Peace program.

Source: Xinhua
End

 

[Journeyman]

a lifting of rules of engagement meaning more troops on the ground, said Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Changing ROEs isn't going to provide more troops. In fact, increasing the likelihood of actually having to discharge their weapons may reduce the number of troops contributed.

an extra 26,000 allied troops are now "more usable" for combat

The word "potentially" needs to be inserted in there somehwere, as in "26,000 additional troops are potentially available, although NATO spokesmen have acknowledged that it may be difficult to get a large number of these military tourists to leave their Messes."

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/11/24/story286489.html
“In case of emergency, every single ally will come to the assistance and help of every other ally,” Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.
“I’m confident that is the case, because I am confident that all 26 allies have exactly the same interpretation of what solidarity means.”

versus...

"some nations had agreed that their troops could be used in more "emergency" situations."

Gee, that's quite a change in the span of a week.

...oh no, my mistake....that's a LOT of waffle-words for one sentence. I guess not all 26 nations have the same definition of "solidarity."

"There seems to be an agreement -- although they will maintain restrictions -- they will agree that in extremis, in times of great peril for NATO forces, the forces may be able to assist the fighting in Helmand, in the south."

:

He announced that Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro would be offered "Partnerships for Peace", the first step on the road to membership to the alliance.

Yep, time to sell off all that stock in NATO. It's dead.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

As Edward and Journeyman have pointed out, this is riddled with spin and half-truths.

Thus far, nothing has changed.  The caveats remain in place, and we have a lukewarm "commitment" to redeploy forces in the event of an "emergency".  Unfortunately, each nation will define what constitutes an "emergency" and experience has shown that the vast majority will take an extremely conservative position as it decides to deploy troops to a hot spot.  I can hear the conversation now:

• ABCA Force Commander:  "We need soldiers down south, now!  The Brits are taking a pounding in Helmand and need to be reinforced with another battle group."
  
• Generic Euro Commander:  "Does this constitute an emergency?  I don't think it does."
  
• ABCA Force Commander:  "It does.  The British are in danger of losing several key villages and have sustained significant losses over the past week.  Tell you what, if you're worried, your troops can stay on camp for security, allowing the British to move out into the countryside."
  
• Generic Euro Commander:  "That is not an emergency."
  
• ABCA Force Commander:  "I believe it is and I'm directing you to deploy to Helmand."
  
• Generic Euro Commander:  "Then we must disagree and I must refer this to my CHOD and capital for decision."

*a week later*

• Generic Euro Commander: "I am sorry, but my government has no confidence in your assessment of the situation.  We will not redeploy our forces.  You should have listened to me last week.  Besides, our forces are otherwise engaged and are unavailable."
  
• ABCA Force Commander:  "That's OK, it's sorted out.  The Canadians moved a mech company up north to help out five days ago."

The Spanish comments quoted in GAP's last post are more indicative of the prevailing attitude.  The Polish deployment has already been announced and is to a relatively safe part of Afghanistan; the French have indicated a grudging willingness to help out, but will only do so when their national interests are at stake; the Germans - not a chance; the smaller countries may waive caveats, but bring virtually nothing to the table.

There is no change to force postures or caveats here.  The Eurotrash want to have their cake and eat it too.  They're more than willing to hoist a flag over HQ ISAF to announce their solidarity with the Alliance and the UN, but are completely unwilling to do any of the actual work to make progress in theatre. 

Some examples of how this game is played (from a German source):  http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,451014,00.html

At one point, for example, NATO's local military command requested the deployment of a German "Transall" cargo plane with an on-board medical team (MedEvac). The flying transport was to redeploy from its German base in the Uzbek city of Termiz and be stationed in Kandahar. While the Germans did fly one mission, they refused to leave the aircraft permanently in the south. Their argument: The response time would not be improved by flying out of Kandahar.

and

The reconnaissance drone "Luna" was also supposed to redeploy to Kandahar, but officials in Berlin said the small unmanned aircraft was already on a transport from Kabul to Mazar-e-Sharif. Similarly, NATO allies asked Germany to provide units that could "steer fire from the air," referring to the ability to coordinate fighter jets and attack helicopters in supporting missions for ground troops -- an ability which German Special Forces possess. Berlin, however, informed its NATO allies that although its elite combat units (KSK) and naval special forces were on active duty in Afghanistan, they were preoccupied with preparations for another ISAF mission and were therefore undeployable.

Also from Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,451359,00.html):

Berlin is also deliberately not spelling out the conditions for German troops providing emergency support. The details of Tuesday's pledge to provide such support remain entirely unclear. German officials artfully sidestepped queries as to whether it entails regularly sending German troops to the south for single missions conducted jointly with the USA or Canada.

...

"We'll evaluate every request to see if we can meet it with the troops available in the region," government sources said. Under no circumstances would the mission in northern Afghanistan be "jeopardized" by the emergency support, the sources added.

And, again from Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449479,00.html:

"On this matter we will remain steadfast," Defense Minister Jung said. "We do not believe that our mandate should change," said Merkel. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier added: "I see no point in our frantically pulling personnel and troops from the north and redeploying them to someplace in the south."

...

They serve as everything from medics to social workers, but what they are not, at least in the public conscience, are fighters trained to kill other human beings -- and who could possibly be killed in the process. They are content to let others do the killing and dying while they travel the world as social workers dressed in military fatigues.

...

"The pressure keeps mounting," says a German officer at NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium. Remarks that were elegantly packaged only a few weeks ago are now being "worded clearly and unmistakably." Only recently, says the German officer, one of his British counterparts told him angrily: "We're sending two coffins home every week, while you Germans hand out crayons and wool blankets."

...

The Canadians have been especially clear. Of a total of 33,000 soldiers in the Canadian military, more than 2,000 are stationed in Afghanistan -- "with their backs to the wall," say the Canadians. It is high time, they added, for the Germans to abandon their bunks and learn "to kill Taliban."

The Germans were also criticized at a meeting of NATO parliamentarians in Quebec, Canada last Thursday. In a debate over national caveats -- limits imposed by some countries on what their soldiers in Afghanistan can be asked to do -- Bruce George, the chairman of the defense committee in Britain's House of Commons, and Labour MP Frank Cook vented their anger against the German allies. Some drink tea and beer, while others risk their lives, George fumed.

Cook told the group about of an incident in which, during "Operation Medusa," the ISAF commander-in-chief requested assistance for the beleaguered Canadians. "Five nations refused," he said indignantly, while at first declining to name the five. But then he described the specifics of the incident. According to Cook, a German commander said that although there were soldiers available under his command, Berlin had refused to authorize their deployment. Twelve Canadian soldiers, Cook said, were then killed in the operation in Afghanistan's Panjwai District.

Frankly, IMHO we're better off without European "support".  Attitudes are so ingrained in some armies (which I could name, but won't) that they're all but useless on operations and are a joke militarily.

 

[probum non poenitet]

I think we're motivating the Germans the wrong way.

Why don't we just tell them that Afghanistan is a neutral country, protected by treaty, and the Germans aren't welcome there?

You'd have panzers in Kandahar before Christmas. 

 

[GAP]

Actually, I think we are better off without them, if they don't want to be there with enthusasism. Why? Ever ask some for help and they reluctantly give it....makes you wonder why you even bothered to ask.

Fine, those that want to help, come and help (Polish), but the others had better hope their areas stay calm... Just get the job done the way we have been doing it, train up the ANA and ANP, and move on.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Just get the job done the way we have been doing it, train up the ANA and ANP, and move on.

They can't do that either.  Germany has had the responsibility for training the ANP for years and have bungled it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449479-3,00.html

The Germans sent only 41 advisors to bring this force up to speed. They opened a police academy in Kabul where 3,500 police officers were to be trained within three years. German officials continue to justify this minimalist approach to this day, insisting that it was more important to train a core group of effective people who could then pass on their freshly acquired skills. But no one ever bothered to consider the possibility that time could also be a factor.

 

[vonGarvin]

Should I nominate myself for ambassador to Germany?  I speak German, I have military experience, and I love bratwurst.  And best of all, I know how to say "jackass" in German

 

[Journeyman]

Should I nominate myself for ambassador to Germany? 

Well, there is a vacancy of sorts. I was speaking yesterday with an Infantry officer who's just back from ISAF HQ. He was offerred a posting to Germany to work "the other end of the problem." Through clenched teeth, he replied that he'd be quite happy to never see another German again.

 

[HItorMiss]

Know one who speaks German can be evil


Seriously though they weren't doing much in Kabul in 03-04 and it seem's that haven't picked up the pace.

 

[vonGarvin]

From http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/29/nato-afghanistan.html



Canadian troops fighting the Taliban in volatile southern Afghanistan will be getting extra help from NATO countries, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday from an alliance summit in Latvia.
Harper addressed a news conference in the Latvian capital of Riga, where alliance members have agreed to make it easier to deploy troops throughout Afghanistan, as well as contribute additional troops to the NATO-led effort.

"We do have important additional contributions from our partners in the south, from the Netherlands, Denmark, United Kingdom, Estonia, Romania," said Harper. "These are our key partners in the south. They also happen to be for the most part the countries that have agreed to contribute even more forces."
It's not clear exactly which countries are involved or how many troops would be sent to bolster the 32,000-strong NATO contingent.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told CBC Newsworld that Poland was one of the countries and would provide 1,000 soldiers.
MacKay said he didn't know how many additional troops would be sent in total, but believed it was "more than halfway" to NATO's target goal of 2,500 extra soldiers.

NATO commanders will decide where the new soldiers will be deployed, said MacKay.
Countries loosen rules
The meeting of the 26-nation alliance opened Tuesday, one day after two Canadian soldiers were killed by a suicide car bomb in southern Afghanistan on the outskirts of the city of Kandahar.
In what is being considered another victory for Ottawa at the summit, European members of NATO have agreed to loosen restrictions and make their troops available across the country in extreme circumstances.
Soldiers from key European NATO members such as France, Germany and Italy are already in Afghanistan, but are deployed in the less dangerous northern and central regions. They were under self-imposed restrictions that made it difficult to move out of their assigned areas.
It's not yet clear what would constitute emergency circumstances. MacKay said it would be up to military commanders to decide when to send extra troops.
European countries refused to send support to the south during a major Canadian-led anti-Taliban offensive in September called Operation Medusa.
The breakthrough reportedly happened during a working dinner late Tuesday, the first day of the two-day summit in Riga.
"It's agreed by all … that the lifting of caveats and the commitment of troops from another group of countries has to be seen as positive," said MacKay.
Canadian, American, British and Dutch troops make up the bulk of the force in the southern regions, where violence has spiralled in recent months. Canada has more than 2,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly in volatile Kandahar province.
For months, Harper, MacKay and NATO leaders have called on alliance members to send more troops to the area.
Moment of silence for the fallen
Since the start of the year, 36 Canadians have been killed in the Kandahar area. Forty-four Canadian soldiers have died since the mission started in 2002.
NATO delegates on Wednesday held a moment of silence to honour the fallen soldiers.
"We honour those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our values," said NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
NATO also announced its new rapid-reaction force is ready for action. With land, sea and air capability, the 25,000-strong force will allow the alliance to respond to terror threats, failed states or regional conflicts, said de Hoop Scheffer.

 

[The Bread Guy]

NATO's milquetoast 28 Nov 06 statement, for the record....

NATO boosts efforts in Afghanistan

Meeting in Riga at the highest political level, NATO Heads of State and Government strengthened their commitment to NATO’s Afghanistan mission, but also called for broader international engagement.

Leaders of the 26 countries agreed to remove some caveats – national restrictions on how, when and where forces can be used – to further strengthen the effectiveness of the NATO-led forces in the country.

“About 26,000 of the total 32,000 NATO ISAF force are now more useable than they were for combat and non-combat missions,” NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters.

They also confirmed that, regardless of the remaining caveats, in an emergency situation every Ally will come to the aid of the forces that require assistance.

Additional assets

A number of countries also pledged additional assets, including fighters, helicopters, infantry companies as well as training teams for mentoring the Afghan National Army.

The Secretary General said this meant 90% of the formal mission requirements were now filled.

Afghanistan, as well as NATO’s other operations, was the focus of a working dinner on the first day of the Summit meeting in the capital of Latvia, 28 November.

NATO’s is currently leading some 32,000 troops from 37 countries in Afghanistan.

Military not enough

Recognizing the importance of reconstruction and development to Afghanistan’s long-term stability, Heads of State and Government called for broader international assistance for Afghanistan.

“It is winnable, it is being won, but not yet won,” Mr. De Hoop Scheffer said.

Heads of State and General welcomed proposals for a ‘Contact Group’ that would bring key stakeholders together to discuss and agree on important strategic issues.

The Secretary General was tasked to develop this proposal further.

Taking transformation forward

The Summit meeting also resulted in important decisions on deepening NATO’s political engagement in Europe and beyond, and further modernizing the Alliance’s capability to project stability wherever necessary.



Can you say lowest common denominator language?

 

[ambex]

"Cook told the group about of an incident in which, during "Operation Medusa," the ISAF commander-in-chief requested assistance for the beleaguered Canadians. "Five nations refused," he said indignantly, while at first declining to name the five. But then he described the specifics of the incident. According to Cook, a German commander said that although there were soldiers available under his command, Berlin had refused to authorize their deployment. Twelve Canadian soldiers, Cook said, were then killed in the operation in Afghanistan's Panjwai District."

So why exactly are countries like Germany and France there, must be a good photo-op, build schools march around looking like heros while your "allies" are dieing down south. Makes you wonder if they would be there in the case of a real emergency, like ww3. Kudos to that British MP for telling his counterpart in Germany like it is. Makes me sick that we were dieing and asking for help and no one came to help, and why did no media journalist report on this? And what exactly does emergency mean? For some reason, I dont know why, every week my respect for certain countries just keeps going down while my respect for others just keeps going up.
Sorry bout the rant, I seem to be doing that alot this week.

 

[vonGarvin]

So why exactly are countries like Germany and France there, must be a good photo-op, build schools march around looking like heros while your "allies" are dieing down south.

They are doing what the NDP want us to do.  Nothing.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

North America, Tommy & Orange; NATO the alliance of two world powers, and two small armies who haven't forgotten allies are required to do more than just talk.  Canada, the US, UK, and Netherlands are the only nations that are allowing their troops to fight.  Had Brezhnev or Andropov had a clue that our European allies were so completely useless, the tank divisions would have been rolling through the Fulda gap, and half way to the Marne before the French could finish their surrender, the Belgians declare neutrality, and Spain's entire leadership show up at Gibraltar demanding sanctuary.
Perhaps the alliance needs to be re-examined based on the failure of the member nations to honour the commitment with combat troops.  It were better for all to have a small alliance, with decisive leadership whose membership is restricted to those who will ACTUALLY FIGHT WHEN WE NEED YOU (end rant).

 

[George Wallace]

Strong words there Mainer, but you overlook the fact that the will to defend your homeland on your own soil is a lot stronger than defending your freedoms in some far off land.