- Reaction score
- 7,783
- Points
- 1,360
Just came across a British think tank study on Afghanistan]a British think tank study on Afghanistan. While generally negative about the prospects, this bit on how caveats haven't helped intrigued:
I've read a fair bit during and after, but this is the first reference to a specific number of countries Canada approached for help to no avail.
Anybody see any open source info on who these may have been?
(....) The case of Germany illustrates a more general and serious difficulty with coalition operations in Afghanistan: not all ISAF members are prepared to share the increased risk of casualties that is inherent in ISAF’s geographical expansion. The unwillingness to share risks emanates from national domestic political contexts but inevitably has larger repercussions for NATO’s future. (....) A prime example of the effects of these constraints on operations was seen in Operation Medusa in southern Afghanistan, conducted in September 2006 and led by Canadian ISAF forces and Afghan National Army troops. Its purpose was to take control of an area in Kandahar province. In the course of the operation ISAF forces were confronted with entrenched Taliban units capable of defending and holding ground against them. Canadian commanders asked at least four allied partners for relief, but were turned down on the basis that legal restrictions would not permit their forces to come to the Canadian forces’ assistance. As a result of such operational experiences, national caveats have become increasingly contentious matters among coalition members. The willingness to share risks has become a key political aspect of the operation. The principle of alliance solidarity has been put on the line.....
I've read a fair bit during and after, but this is the first reference to a specific number of countries Canada approached for help to no avail.
Anybody see any open source info on who these may have been?

