NATO: This is an Alliance?

[onedomino]

So far, regarding NATO, only the Americans, British, Canadians, and Dutch, have had the courage to send troops into southern Afghanistan to kill Taliban terrorists (Australians have also been there but, of course, they are not part of NATO).

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-28-afghanistan-nato-caveats_x.htm

PORTOROZ, Slovenia

Countries sending their troops to Afghanistan have placed a web of restrictions on how they can be used, creating headaches for combat commanders and hurting the coalition's ability to fight a resurgent Taliban.

The restrictions, also called caveats, vary and are imposed by governments who fear casualties or don't agree with all parts of the mission. Other caveats are due to a lack of training or equipment.

The result is some forces can't fight at night or in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan. And these were the guys that were going to save Western Europe from the Soviets?

At a NATO meeting here Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it's understandable that nations don't want their troops to perform specific missions, but when numerous countries impose restrictions it creates a "situation that really is not acceptable." Rumsfeld and NATO authorities are working to get countries to lift the restrictions.

"It is very difficult for a commander ... when he is not able to move forces around and to have them go where they're needed, when they're needed, to do the things that needed to be done," Rumsfeld said.

"If you sign on to the mission, you should sign on to the whole package," said Canadian Lt. Col. Rejean Duchesneau, a spokesman for NATO's military arm.

Caveats have long been part of multinational military operations. Concerns about them have become more acute, however, as NATO expands its command over coalition forces. Ousted in 2001, the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban militia has regained strength, particularly in the south.

On Thursday, ministers agreed to soon expand NATO command over the remaining eastern part of the country, bringing about 30,000 troops under the alliance, including 12,500 Americans, spread over Afghanistan. There are about 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and some will remain independent of the NATO mission.

Of NATO's 26 countries, only six, including the United States, place no restrictions on the forces they contribute to NATO operations, the Pentagon says.

NATO does not release details about the restrictions for fear they could be exploited by enemy forces. A recent Congressional Research Service study said caveats on German troops mean they "do not go on extended patrols and do not respond to local security events." So what use are they? There are 3000 German troops in Afghanistan. As Dennis Miller once said, “maybe this war is not on a grand enough scale for them.”

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Germany has not dropped its restrictions.

Removing restrictions might reduce the number of troops needed in Afghanistan, since commanders could shift available forces wherever they are needed.

However, eliminating the caveats will be hard, said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This is the price for having them all there."

 

[CSM]

"It is very difficult for a commander ... when he is not able to move forces around and to have them go where they're needed, when they're needed, to do the things that needed to be done," Rumsfeld said.


I got news for ya...when the above is the case, then the individual in question is NOT in command! No wonder it seems difficult!

 

[Annie]

So far, regarding NATO, only the Americans, British, Canadians, and Dutch, have had the courage to send troops into southern Afghanistan to kill Taliban terrorists (Australians have also been there but, of course, they are not part of NATO).

I know that Poland and Albania have sent troops and are sending more. I'm not sure though that they have the training for southern Afghanistan, but if they are deployed elsewhere, it frees up those that have the stronger troops, no?

 

[trobinett]

I know that Poland and Albania have sent troops and are sending more. I'm not sure though that they have the training for southern Afghanistan, but if they are deployed elsewhere, it frees up those that have the stronger troops, no?

I suppose.

My feelings though, based on my time in NATO. Combat troops are COMBAT troops, no?

I'm sure all the pencil pusher positions are filled.

NATO hasn't been an effective deterrent for years, except of course for the above mentioned members.

Ain't it great being the worlds only Superpower?

 

[onedomino]

"It is very difficult for a commander ... when he is not able to move forces around and to have them go where they're needed, when they're needed, to do the things that needed to be done," Rumsfeld said.


I got news for ya...when the above is the case, then the individual in question is NOT in command! No wonder it seems difficult!

I agree. It would be like playing offense in football and as you come to the line of scrimmage, 8 or 9 of your players run to the sidelines to wait until the play is over. How many billions does the US spend on NATO? What a bargain. NATO is supposed to be a military alliance! Instead it is a political sham. With the Japanese deployment of troops to Iraq and the ascent of new Prime Minister Abe, it looks like Japan has recovered psychologically from WW2 before the Germans. Say what you want about the evil in Germany during the 20th century, but the Vermacht never ran from a fight (until now).

 

[Adam's Apple]

Ain't it great being the worlds only Superpower?

Europe is quite willing to let the U.S. wage the battle against radical Islam--as long as we don't expect anything from them in return and as long as they have the right to rip us up the back. You interfere with either of those two things and their yellow spines get a little riled, but not enough to get themselves hurt. :tng: