MSgt

We didn't go into Iraq as heavy as we should have to occupy correctly and this is why we have had to correct the chaos for years the hard way. What do you think is happening in Afghanistan? Just one more example where even our "allies" refuse to do the job correctly. Mass deployments is what sees an effort quickly to bed. Not feeble attempts to prove support and a never ending bare minimum deployment schedule year after year.



No they have not. This is horribly innacurate. It's a lovely sentoiment that goes to imply that "we are all in it together" but we are not. When things begin to fall apart, it is American or British troops that come to the rescue. It is American gunships that provide most of the air support (you would think that a decade since Bosnia/Kosovo is long enough for NATO to figure out that it isn't sharing the burden.) It is American helicopters that lift NATO troops about. Aside from the British, the rest of NATO have done very little that didn't involve an accompanyment of U.S. troops or our air support. They purposefully design plays that will keep their troops out of danger. Europeans have done as little as possible AND some have complained the whole way....


It is clear to even an outsider what has been going on. In the most dangerous south we see the anglo America/Britian/Canadian alliance accompanied by the Dutch. Do you actually think the Dutch or Canadians are spearheading many things? Canada has threated to pull completely out and abandoning their "support" for America if NATO doesn't offer more help. Norwegians reserve themselves to safer terrain and focus on handing out food rations. Germany consistently seeks cover and an excuse to stray far from a fight, but gets offended when it is called out for it. Australia, which only has 970 troops deployed, even finds NATO's support lacking. We even have the probable next American President (the world's Jesus Christ) demanding more support from NATO. France has given many troops to the effort, but this is largely about a show of good will after the fall out and far less to do with supporting America. With France And you state that Europeans have done a fine job in Afghanistan as if they haven't had big brother over head and taking most of the risks?

The truth is that Afghanistan will continue to be a needless mess as long as America doesn't direct almost complete focus on it or at least start sending more Marines to Afghanistan instead of needless deployments to Iraq. For some reason, it has become an accepted thing in this world for our allies to apply the minimum of pressure and expect America to cover the overwhelming mission....because we always have. This is the result of Europe licking its wounds for fifty years under an American blanket of security and emerging as false pacifists.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

PeteEU

NATO's original mission was peacekeeping, training and reconstruction. European countries have committed troops and done this job. There was no "full out combat" in the original plan as the Taliban were defeated and the war was "over".

You keep whining about Germany not pulling its weight when you full know (or at least should know) that Germany is a very special case. Thanks to the US (and other allies) writing their constitution and laws after WW2, Germany is not allowed to do combat outside Germany. So you can whine all you like, but its your own doing. The same goes for Japan and frankly I can accept that the Germans and Japanese are "slacking", since their history aint exactly a positive one.

As for the rest of the countries in Afghanistan. Again your are forgetting the original role of NATO in the country. Later on NATO, with lots of pushing from the Bush administration took over security in the southern part of the country, under the assumption that the Taliban were a non entity because the US had done the job they claimed. Sadly reality hit NATO fast and they realised that they had been played by the US yet again.

Now we have a fight on our hands, and countries are of course very vary in putting more troops in as its hardly popular getting your young men and women killed. The French have committed more and more troops, and other countries are thinking of the same. Like it or not someone has to be in the non violent areas of the country so that they don't disintegrate into anarchy and someone has to train the Afghan army and police. Norway, Germany and the French have a great track record doing such things in many conflict zones, so why should they not do that? As for the rest of the European countries not pulling their weight. Most countries, including my own, are at the maximum tolerance of their armed forces with various domestic and international obligations. Sure it helped that most countries finally got out of Iraq, but don't forget unlike the US, most European nations have peacekeeping obligations in many many conflict zones around the world and we only send professional soldiers on such missions.

But its not only the Europeans that are not pulling their weight, but also the US. Their own incompetence and one sided focus on Iraq has lead to the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Q in many areas, but you would not hear that from the whining US politicians and military folk and people on these boards. The complaints on lack of equipment and men have been self censored or ignored in the US for too long, and its finally hitting home.

Now how about agreeing that all our countries are a bunch of morons for not admitting their own faults on this issue and lets move forward and defeat the Taliban once and for all. Sadly as it stands now, the US is only interested in the blame game, and in killing innocent civilians .. 48+ the last week or 2 last I heard. Way to go on winning the hearts and minds of a people!

__________________
PeteEU

MSgt

This is an excuse. Even their peacekeeping efforts have come from behind American and British fronts. NATO has had since the end of the Cold War to pull its head out of its ass. It has had Kosovo and Bosnia as an example of what it needs to do. Years later, it still proves to be reluctant to be more than a national guard element.

Last I checked Germany is, indeed, allowed to conduct combat outside of Germany as of the early to mid 90's. In fact, Gemany deployed troops to Bosnia and Kosovo. They are currently in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa and stand the chance to conduct combat if they ever deemed themselves our equals in a fight against what is supposed to be a common enemy. Another fact is that the American Pentagon's request to the German government to send its German "combat" troops to the south of Afghanistan to help us just earlier this year was refused. German parliament may send its troops abroad into combat if it wanted to.

Actually, reality set in and NATO realized that is unprepared to do anything outside of what American troops have prepared for it like in Bosnoia and Kosovo still. NATO's original role does not exist anymore. Either it finds a new job or it dissolves. Your own words describe NATO as a force fully capable of doing the job once American troops have sweated and bled to make it safe for them.

Oh...but I thought the tag line was that Europe "supports" America in Afghanistan? So the "support" always described, relies heavily on what America can do on its own? Now that NATO has to actually earn its own way and step up.... the "support" isn't as there as Europeans want Americans to believe? This is exactly what I have stated for years and people like you defend against. You are writing my sentiments (reality and truth) right here in this post. I'm telling you Pete. Obama or no Obama, the American love affair for Europe will never be the same. The average ignorant American will never see Europe for what they thought it was merely years ago. I know what has been going on in Afghanistan. I knew what went on in Bosnia and Somalia. I know what went on in Kuwait. And I am very aware of what occurred throughout the Cold War. What people are seeing now has always been there.

Unlike the US? Are you speaking of the former colonial situations your nations are still letting go of like in Africa? The most widely deployed military on the face of the planet is from the U.S. It is in every continent. It is in every ocean. The U.S. diplomatically prepares many locations to receive your troops as peacekeepers. Do you realize how much diplomatic power the regional CINCs have in regards to your troop involvement from place to place? Are you aware of the collaberation between your military commanders and the American CENTCOM, EUCOM, PACOM, etc? The overwhelming mission around the globe wears an American uniform. We are in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and even Europe. Don't pretend that you have an excuse for sending the bare minimum because you have efforts in other places. The American military defines mulit-tasking. When we say we are spread too thin, we are talking about multiple fronts, humanitarian missions, peacekeeping missions, and diplomatic training exercises with other allies that you are excused from but continue to feed from our table. "Spread too thin" is an exaggerated term when you use it.


Yes, you have already cleared this up above. Without American focus, NATO is largely worthless. The Commandant of the Marine Corps petitioned President Bush to start sending Marines to Afghanistan instead of Iraq earlier this year because the environment in Iraq had finally gone over the hump we have been needing and working towards. Afghanistan will be fixed as soon as we get over there to fix it. In the mean time, it would be nice to know that our European partnership could at least hold the fort without threatening to abandon the mission or bitch whenever it loses a soldier to the enemy it only fights when it has to.

Because this effort is a about a region..not just about one organization in one country that hosted the sympoms of the disease. America may have been too bold in its words, but European countries need to pull their heads out of their asses. In the end, Europeans are the ones really threatened by this. The true threat is the immigration over load coming to Europe from these oppressed and brutalized populations. The Tali-Ban is only a threat because it is a symptom among many. Do you actually think we are going to come to an end where the Tali-Ban is going to sit at a table and surrender like Germany or Japan did? Or draw a line across nations as Korea did? This is an ongoing social war that will involve politicians (none worthy of the task as emerged), the military (more the bare minimum is needed), non-governmental organizations and agencies (NGOs), and international support.

Focusing on the Tali-Ban merely gives people the illusion that all of our growing problems can be fixed by destroying a small nothing of an element within a single country they used to rule.

We won all the hearts and minds we could in the situation we were dropped into. My government's problem was believing that Iraqis would all keep thinking themselves as Iraqis. We went in to free all Iraqis as Iraqis. But it turned out quickly they didn't think of themselves as Iraqis. They wanted to be free Shiites and Kurds. And it turned out the minority Sunni was reluctant to give up the priveledges, powers, and ascendancy they had long held over all other Iraqis. It's quite impossible to win the hearts and minds of all in a situation where not slaughtering one tribe for favor of the other will earn hatred. This was a matter of ignorance. History has shown us that in Central Asia, after the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tucomans, Kirghis, and Tajiks threw off the Soviet yoke, their first priority was to return to their own languages and traditions. Another historical example is to acknowledge what occurred in the former Yugoslavia after the Soviet power failed. Tribalism, which was suppressed since Europeans drew lines on a map, have merely been suppressed by force throughout the third world and beyond. Freedom can be a very dangerous thing if the proper care is not applied to the situation. But if you think you can get away with painting American troops as murderers and unproffessional criminals in uniform because civilians are killed in the process of combat operations (because no civilians were killed throughout WWII were there?) think again....

What was that about hearts and minds? In fact, the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan by American and NATO forces this years rivals the civilians killed in Iraq by American forces this year. Maybe some intellectual honesty into what is going on in the world will aid you beyond your feeble attempts to bash America.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Volker

This is the reason, why many German politicians did not want John Kerry to win in 2004. Dubya is used to hear "no" from Germany, a President from the Democratic Party had just to learn the lesson. It's like the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. One can only speculate about how German American relations are going with a President who has more problems with it, it partially depends on how other European governments deal with this issue.

Orion

GySgt, I have one coveat to add to your statements about NATO. Canada is currently the leader of the NATO mission in Afghanistan and has not been timidly moving forward. Canadian casualties are reported weekly and there is intense fighting going on now. What you're saying implies that NATO only has the ability, if it would quit its whining, to hold the fort until America arrives. What a sad twist of reality.

How long will America, Britain, Canada and other NATO countries remain in Afghanistan? It really doesn't matter because after they have gone the Taliban or someone like them will still be there. They win by simply out waiting the West. This is the lesson of history. America can arrive tomorrow or in 10 years, it won't make a difference. You're dealing with a fractured country made up of tribal sections that are multi-generational in nature.

Of all of Alexander the Great's conquests, Afghanistan was among the hardest and most time consuming. And of all the troops that Alexander left behind to garrison his new domains, an astonishing 95% were left in what is now modern Afghanistan. The British failed to conquer the country in the 1880's just as the Soviets failed 100 years later. Those who ignore the past are condemned to relive it. This is exactly what our leaders are doing today.

MSgt

Canada is a part of that anglo English speaking alliance that always bears the burden of our efforts. The most dangerous region is in the south where Canada, the U.S., and Britian are located. NATO hasn't the ability to be anything more than national guard abroad because Europe has refused to act in accordance to what it discovered during the Bosnia/Kosovo campaign.




Which is why enough people have stated that dealing with this region will be a multi-generational effort. Nobody, except for idiots and pundits are arguing that this is or was supposed to be a quick fix. The problem was and is never the malicious overlords who are easily stripped of power. It was always the tribes underneath once that Overlord was released from duty who have to cope with freedom. Alexander had to dedicate a lengthy campaign to defeating Afghanistan. We dropped the Tali-Ban from power in weeks. We are not repeating history, because we do not seek to conquer or to colonize. We have offered and given Afghanistan to the people and when they are able to defend their government by themselves, we will be released from the pressure. Much like what occurred in Iraq. The tribal themes within are the same but far much persuasive in Afghanistan.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Orion

I don't think a multi-generational effort is sustainable. I can't speak for the other nations but Canada won't be in there for that long. There is already talk of withdrawl by 2012.

Iriemon

We had 550,000 in Vietnam, certainly a mass deployment by any standard.

Mass deployment may stifle the symptoms of an insurgency, but not the cause of it.

MSgt

We did not deploy 550,000 men to Vietnam. We gradually worked towards that number out of reaction and throughout the event our government treated it as a "conflict" and never gave it the attention it demanded.


I don't know what you mean here. A proper deployment to begin with reduces the abilities of an enemy to organize. If you wish to reduce crime in the streets, you place a "beat cop" at every corner. In a thoroughly broken society, such as Iraq, only large numbers of occupation troops provide a sound foundation for the rebirth of civil order. Whereever we cannot be, latent enemies emerge. We saw this in Iraq. Our enemies did not organize on the streets where our military was patrolling. They chose cities (Fallujah, Najaf) where our presence was limited or absent and attacked out.

Regardless, without the proper number of troops, in the beginning of an event like this, we are prevented from following the basic rules of occupation in the first place. And we've spent five years recovering from this blunder.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

MSgt

Not us. Them. They will be left with something they have never been left with before. History lessons in regards to former conquerers do not apply. With a basic foundation and strength to protect their democracy, they only need generations of people to thrive. This entire "war on terror" is going to take decades and much of it will rely upon the Muslim people and their future generation. People born into freedom and democracy do not simply dismiss it away. They may take it for granted (U.S.A.), or they may give up some election power to government (Russia) or threaten to drown in tribal feuding (Pakistan), but most seek ways to protect it and to move forward (Turkey). The multi-generational effort, for not only Afghanistan but the region, is on their shoulders. This was always the case. We were never going to leave "Vermont" in the desert at the end of our military efforts.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC