KashifAsrar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
Posted at wrong place.
Afghanistan Updates
- Thread starter KashifAsrar
- Start date
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
'Shared Intelligence'? Hmmm .. Good for these battered NATO troops. They are desprate to reverse the trends in Afghanistan.
They will fail again misrebaly, Insha-a-allah.
Kashif
Main problem is that these people are the 'Talibans'. It is difficult to separate the combatant from non combatant. Additionally, Sandy Gaul of BBC made a movie roving around clad in a burqa during the Taliban times. If a 6 foot tall Englishman can pass as a women when covered from head to toe in burqa, what stops from taliban fighters doing the same. No one dare molest a burqa wearing women, because if she actually turned out to be a women, the guy involved would probably be killed on the spot.
No matter what they try, unless NATO start talking to the local taliban, the problem would continue ad infinitim, unless of course you kill the lot of them. Hope better sense will prevail and there would dialogue to find a solution. After all Americans did talk to the North Veitnamese in Paris during the Vietnam war.
KashifAsrar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
But all of the Talibans are not roaming in Burqa's Niaz sahab. It look that you do not want to attribute thier success to thier skills. these are hardened guerilla fighters and one of the best in the world at the moment along with Hizbullah.
Kashif
Kashif
Yup excellent time indeed to stop these hostile Afghan's from entering our "Pak sarzameen".Pentagon wants $127b more for Iraq and Afghanistan
WASHINGTON: The Pentagon plans to ask Congress for an additional $127 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, said a top Senate Democratââ¬â¢s office on Friday. The funding request would be in addition to the 70 billion dollars already written into the 2007 budget for US military operations there. Senator Kent Conrad, the incoming head of the Senate budget committee, ââ¬Åheard from very reliable Republican sources that the next supplemental (budget request) would be $127 billion and rising,ââ¬Â said his spokesman Chris Thorne.
Thorne confirmed the information originally reported by USA Today on Friday. The daily also cited another member of Congress, Democratic Representative Jim Cooper, who said the Pentagon would seek as much as $160 billion. In late September, the US Congress approved the Defence Department budget for the 2007 fiscal year, which began in October, raising it to 447.6 billion dollars, with 70 billion earmarked for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 70 billion dollars brought to more than 500 billion dollars the cost of foreign operations in the US ââ¬Åwar on terrorââ¬Â. According to USA Today, if Congress granted the additional funding of between $127 billion and $160 billion, it would make the war on terror more expensive than the entire Vietnam War, which cost 536 billion dollars, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, some 57,000 US troops have been ordered to deploy to Iraq early next year to begin the next rotation of the 144,000-strong US force there, said a Pentagon spokesman. Another 8,300 troops would deploy to Afghanistan early next year as well, said spokesman Bryan Whitman.
The units scheduled to deploy to Iraq include an army division headquarters, five combat brigades and numerous smaller combat support and combat services units, he said. They will replace troops coming out of Iraq ââ¬â not add to those already there ââ¬â but the rotation of forces could be adjusted over time to fit changing conditions on the ground, he added. . The first units were expected to deploy to Iraq as early as January.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\11\18\story_18-11-2006_pg7_40
WASHINGTON: The Pentagon plans to ask Congress for an additional $127 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, said a top Senate Democratââ¬â¢s office on Friday. The funding request would be in addition to the 70 billion dollars already written into the 2007 budget for US military operations there. Senator Kent Conrad, the incoming head of the Senate budget committee, ââ¬Åheard from very reliable Republican sources that the next supplemental (budget request) would be $127 billion and rising,ââ¬Â said his spokesman Chris Thorne.
Thorne confirmed the information originally reported by USA Today on Friday. The daily also cited another member of Congress, Democratic Representative Jim Cooper, who said the Pentagon would seek as much as $160 billion. In late September, the US Congress approved the Defence Department budget for the 2007 fiscal year, which began in October, raising it to 447.6 billion dollars, with 70 billion earmarked for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 70 billion dollars brought to more than 500 billion dollars the cost of foreign operations in the US ââ¬Åwar on terrorââ¬Â. According to USA Today, if Congress granted the additional funding of between $127 billion and $160 billion, it would make the war on terror more expensive than the entire Vietnam War, which cost 536 billion dollars, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, some 57,000 US troops have been ordered to deploy to Iraq early next year to begin the next rotation of the 144,000-strong US force there, said a Pentagon spokesman. Another 8,300 troops would deploy to Afghanistan early next year as well, said spokesman Bryan Whitman.
The units scheduled to deploy to Iraq include an army division headquarters, five combat brigades and numerous smaller combat support and combat services units, he said. They will replace troops coming out of Iraq ââ¬â not add to those already there ââ¬â but the rotation of forces could be adjusted over time to fit changing conditions on the ground, he added. . The first units were expected to deploy to Iraq as early as January.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\11\18\story_18-11-2006_pg7_40
Janbaz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
Iraq and Afghanistan missions are going to suck American economic resources up and may lead to its demise like the Soviet Union in 1991 after its involovement in Afghanistan. That is going to open way for China to emerge as the dominant global power.
KashifAsrar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
This is precisely what many journalists predict Janbaz. American economy is already heavily debt-ridden. These PUSHES would make the spiral of undoing faster.
Kashif
Kashif
KashifAsrar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
UN chief: Nato cannot defeat Taliban by force
Official says alliance failing in Afghanistan as Blair admits Iraq is a 'disaster'
Declan Walsh in Kabul and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday November 18, 2006
The Guardian
Nato "cannot win" the fight against the Taliban alone and will have to train Afghan forces to do the job,
the UN's top official in the country warned yesterday.
"At the moment Nato has a very optimistic assessment. They think they can win the war," warned Tom Koenigs, the diplomat heading the UN mission in Afghanistan. "But there is no quick fix."
In forthright comments which highlight divisions between international partners as Nato battles to quell insurgency, Mr Koenigs said that training the fledgling Afghan national army to defeat the Taliban was crucial. "They [the ANA] can win. But against an insurgency like that, international troops cannot win."
He spoke to the Guardian as Tony Blair came the closest so far to admitting the invasion of Iraq had been disastrous.
When Sir David Frost, interviewing the prime minister for al-Jazeera TV, suggested that western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster", Mr Blair responded: "It has. But, you see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al Qaida with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
Downing Street tried to play down the apparent slip last night. A spokesman said: "I think that's just the way in which he answers questions. His views on Iraq are documented in hundreds of places, and that [the belief that it is a disaster] is not one of them." However, Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Lib Dems, commented: "At long last, the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister. Surely parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology?"
British commanders have argued that UK troops should be withdrawn from Iraq to allow the military to focus on Afghanistan. But Nato commanders on the ground have pleaded for 2,000 more troops, helicopters and armoured vehicles, to little effect. Last night Nato secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said countries should lift restrictions on what their troops could do."My plea to governments would be: 'Please help us in lifting those caveats as much as possible ... because in Afghanistan it is a problem."
Des Browne, the defence secretary, made clear yesterday that the future of the alliance was now bound up with the future of Afghanistan. "The Afghan people, our own people and the Taliban are watching us. If we are indecisive or divided, the Taliban will be strengthened, just as all of the others despair," he said.
Attacks have increased fourfold this year and 3,700 people have died, mostly in the south. The US has made 2,000 air strikes since June, against 88 in Iraq.
Last week Acbar, an umbrella group of Afghan and international aid agencies, said the crisis highlighted the "urgent need" for a rethink of military, poverty-reduction and state-building policies.
Nato commanders maintain the Taliban have been on the "back foot" since Operation Medusa, a battle which killed more than 1,000 insurgents in Kandahar in September, and talk of gaining "psycho logical ascendancy". However, Mr Koenigs said any claim of victory was premature. "You can't resolve it by killing the Taliban. You have to win people over. That is done with good governance, decent police, diplomacy with Pakistan, and development," he said. Otherwise the Taliban would regroup in Pakistani refugee camps and madrasas and return in greater numbers next spring.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1951222,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
Official says alliance failing in Afghanistan as Blair admits Iraq is a 'disaster'
Declan Walsh in Kabul and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday November 18, 2006
The Guardian
Nato "cannot win" the fight against the Taliban alone and will have to train Afghan forces to do the job,
the UN's top official in the country warned yesterday."At the moment Nato has a very optimistic assessment. They think they can win the war," warned Tom Koenigs, the diplomat heading the UN mission in Afghanistan. "But there is no quick fix."
In forthright comments which highlight divisions between international partners as Nato battles to quell insurgency, Mr Koenigs said that training the fledgling Afghan national army to defeat the Taliban was crucial. "They [the ANA] can win. But against an insurgency like that, international troops cannot win."
He spoke to the Guardian as Tony Blair came the closest so far to admitting the invasion of Iraq had been disastrous.
When Sir David Frost, interviewing the prime minister for al-Jazeera TV, suggested that western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster", Mr Blair responded: "It has. But, you see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al Qaida with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
Downing Street tried to play down the apparent slip last night. A spokesman said: "I think that's just the way in which he answers questions. His views on Iraq are documented in hundreds of places, and that [the belief that it is a disaster] is not one of them." However, Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Lib Dems, commented: "At long last, the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister. Surely parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology?"
British commanders have argued that UK troops should be withdrawn from Iraq to allow the military to focus on Afghanistan. But Nato commanders on the ground have pleaded for 2,000 more troops, helicopters and armoured vehicles, to little effect. Last night Nato secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said countries should lift restrictions on what their troops could do."My plea to governments would be: 'Please help us in lifting those caveats as much as possible ... because in Afghanistan it is a problem."
Des Browne, the defence secretary, made clear yesterday that the future of the alliance was now bound up with the future of Afghanistan. "The Afghan people, our own people and the Taliban are watching us. If we are indecisive or divided, the Taliban will be strengthened, just as all of the others despair," he said.
Attacks have increased fourfold this year and 3,700 people have died, mostly in the south. The US has made 2,000 air strikes since June, against 88 in Iraq.
Last week Acbar, an umbrella group of Afghan and international aid agencies, said the crisis highlighted the "urgent need" for a rethink of military, poverty-reduction and state-building policies.
Nato commanders maintain the Taliban have been on the "back foot" since Operation Medusa, a battle which killed more than 1,000 insurgents in Kandahar in September, and talk of gaining "psycho logical ascendancy". However, Mr Koenigs said any claim of victory was premature. "You can't resolve it by killing the Taliban. You have to win people over. That is done with good governance, decent police, diplomacy with Pakistan, and development," he said. Otherwise the Taliban would regroup in Pakistani refugee camps and madrasas and return in greater numbers next spring.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1951222,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
KashifAsrar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
Bearing the burden in Afghanistan
U.S., British and Canadian forces are locked in a deadly struggle with the Taliban in Afghanistan. But while the three countries are left to the heavy soldiering, their NATO allies elsewhere in Afghanistan have seen little, if any, action. PAUL KORING reports on the questions being asked where the boots hit the dirt
PAUL KORING
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Troops from most major European nations are kept far from the fighting in Afghanistan, crippling NATO's effort to defeat the Taliban and secure the embattled south, according to NATO officers and independent analysts.
That leaves U.S., British and Canadian soldiers doing most of the fighting and dying in the battle with the fierce Taliban insurgency, a review of casualties shows.
Germany, France, Italy, and Spain -- all major military powers with significant troop contributions -- have stayed far from the Taliban fighters, deploying thousands of combat-capable troops, but keeping them hunkered down in the mostly peaceful northern and western parts of the country.
The starkest indicator of the imbalance is the body count, with three countries -- the United States, Canada and Britain -- accounting for 90 per cent of NATO's combat casualties.
Americans killed in action account for half of the total, followed by Canada with 25 per cent and Britain with 15 per cent.
But the unwillingness of many European nations to allow their troops to be sent into combat is only part of the problem.
Most of the 37 "troop-contributing" nations to the International Security and Assistance Force have sent too few soldiers to make any meaningful military impact.
Some are just token contributions. Austria has five soldiers, fewer than the number of Austrian flags at ISAF headquarters. Canada has more troops in Afghanistan than the combined total from 23 nations. Many of those contributions, ranging from a few dozen soldiers to a couple of hundred, are too small to be effective in combat even if they were deployed in the south.
The shortfall and the unwillingness of most NATO nations to allow their soldiers into combat, is expected to dominate next month's alliance summit in Riga.
NATO's Dutch Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has taken aim at the big countries whose troops are kept from combat by political restrictions.
"We need to better configure our forces in Afghanistan," he wrote in a German newspaper last week. "That also means removing the limitations individual nations have placed on their troops."
Pleas from top NATO commanders for more troops or the loosening of tight leashes that keeps most European soldiers from the fighting have fallen largely on deaf ears.
"Only a handful of NATO members are prepared to go to the south and east and to go robustly -- mainly the U.S., U.K., Canada, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia and Denmark," the International Crisis Group concludes in a blunt report published this month.
"Hard questions need to be asked of those such as Germany, Spain, France, Turkey and Italy who are not, and who sometimes appear to put force protection, not mission needs, at the fore."
A senior Canadian officer is more blunt. "How many battalions does it take to protect Kabul airport?" said Colonel Fred Lewis, the deputy contingent commander.
It's not just Kabul. In relatively peaceful northeastern Afghanistan, Germany has 2,700 troops, the third largest contingent in Afghanistan. Yet not a single German soldier has been in a firefight this year and there have been no German combat casualties.
Italy has 1,800 troops -- a contingent almost as big as Canada's -- in Herat in the northwest, a region more restive than the Germans.
In 2003, the Canadian government considered -- and eventually rejected -- deploying troops to Herat. Instead, the government opted for the far more dangerous Kandahar province, heartland of the Taliban.
Spain, another big, continental military power, has sent its soldiers to Badghis, adjacent to Herat, and also far from the insurgency.
French troops are mostly in Kabul, although it has about 200 special forces fighting in the south.
Not only are many European troops in relatively safe zones, their presence in Afghanistan is predicated on deals with NATO that they not be sent into combat.
"Indeed, troop presence in Afghanistan often appears to be about demonstrating an alliance with the U.S. rather than meeting the country's needs," the Crisis Group report says.
Of the roughly 31,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, the United States provides more than 11,000. Another 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan remain under direct U.S. command.
Only the United States, Britain and the Netherlands have deployed a full array of combat capability, with warplanes and helicopter gunships to back up ground troops.
Although NATO won't reveal those secret national caveats, they effectively tie the hands of top commanders.
Some prevent troops from being sent south to where the fighting takes place. Others are so specific that they preclude certain national contingents from venturing beyond their heavily fortified bases after dark, according to NATO officers who spoke on condition that they not be named.
Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser, who until earlier this month commanded all U.S., Canadian, British and Dutch troops in NATO's southern region, said he wanted more troops moved south. "The fewer national caveats, the more flexibility we would have to deal with the Taliban," he said.
ISAF's overall commander, British Lieutenant-General David Richards, has said he needs an additional rapid-reaction force of 2,000 soldiers in southern Afghanistan. No country stepped forward. Poland offered about 900 troops, but they won't arrive until spring.
Coalition of the unwilling?
There are 37 countries contributing troops to NATO's mission to stabilize Afghanistan, but most of the fighting falls to a handful of nations, while the others have too few troops to take part in battles or are keeping their soldiers out of the most dangerous areas.
Country Troops
U.S. 11,250
Britain 5,200
Germany 2,750
Canada 2,300
Netherlands 2,100
Italy 1,800
France 1,000
Romania 750
Spain 625
Turkey 475
Norway 350
Sweden 350
Denmark 320
Belgium 300
Australia 200
Hungary 200
Greece 180
Portugal 180
Bulgaria 150
Lithuania 135
Croatia 120
Macedonia 120
Czech Republic 100
Finland 100
New Zealand 100
Estonia 90
Slovakia 60
Slovenia 50
Latvia 35
Albania 30
Azerbaijan 20
Iceland 15
Ireland 10
Luxembourg 10
Poland 10
Austria 5
Switzerland 5
SOURCE: ISAF, ICASUALTIES.ORG
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061117.AFGHAN17/TPStory/TPInternational/America/
U.S., British and Canadian forces are locked in a deadly struggle with the Taliban in Afghanistan. But while the three countries are left to the heavy soldiering, their NATO allies elsewhere in Afghanistan have seen little, if any, action. PAUL KORING reports on the questions being asked where the boots hit the dirt
PAUL KORING
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Troops from most major European nations are kept far from the fighting in Afghanistan, crippling NATO's effort to defeat the Taliban and secure the embattled south, according to NATO officers and independent analysts.
That leaves U.S., British and Canadian soldiers doing most of the fighting and dying in the battle with the fierce Taliban insurgency, a review of casualties shows.
Germany, France, Italy, and Spain -- all major military powers with significant troop contributions -- have stayed far from the Taliban fighters, deploying thousands of combat-capable troops, but keeping them hunkered down in the mostly peaceful northern and western parts of the country.
The starkest indicator of the imbalance is the body count, with three countries -- the United States, Canada and Britain -- accounting for 90 per cent of NATO's combat casualties.
Americans killed in action account for half of the total, followed by Canada with 25 per cent and Britain with 15 per cent.
But the unwillingness of many European nations to allow their troops to be sent into combat is only part of the problem.
Most of the 37 "troop-contributing" nations to the International Security and Assistance Force have sent too few soldiers to make any meaningful military impact.
Some are just token contributions. Austria has five soldiers, fewer than the number of Austrian flags at ISAF headquarters. Canada has more troops in Afghanistan than the combined total from 23 nations. Many of those contributions, ranging from a few dozen soldiers to a couple of hundred, are too small to be effective in combat even if they were deployed in the south.
The shortfall and the unwillingness of most NATO nations to allow their soldiers into combat, is expected to dominate next month's alliance summit in Riga.
NATO's Dutch Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has taken aim at the big countries whose troops are kept from combat by political restrictions.
"We need to better configure our forces in Afghanistan," he wrote in a German newspaper last week. "That also means removing the limitations individual nations have placed on their troops."
Pleas from top NATO commanders for more troops or the loosening of tight leashes that keeps most European soldiers from the fighting have fallen largely on deaf ears.
"Only a handful of NATO members are prepared to go to the south and east and to go robustly -- mainly the U.S., U.K., Canada, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia and Denmark," the International Crisis Group concludes in a blunt report published this month.
"Hard questions need to be asked of those such as Germany, Spain, France, Turkey and Italy who are not, and who sometimes appear to put force protection, not mission needs, at the fore."
A senior Canadian officer is more blunt. "How many battalions does it take to protect Kabul airport?" said Colonel Fred Lewis, the deputy contingent commander.
It's not just Kabul. In relatively peaceful northeastern Afghanistan, Germany has 2,700 troops, the third largest contingent in Afghanistan. Yet not a single German soldier has been in a firefight this year and there have been no German combat casualties.
Italy has 1,800 troops -- a contingent almost as big as Canada's -- in Herat in the northwest, a region more restive than the Germans.
In 2003, the Canadian government considered -- and eventually rejected -- deploying troops to Herat. Instead, the government opted for the far more dangerous Kandahar province, heartland of the Taliban.
Spain, another big, continental military power, has sent its soldiers to Badghis, adjacent to Herat, and also far from the insurgency.
French troops are mostly in Kabul, although it has about 200 special forces fighting in the south.
Not only are many European troops in relatively safe zones, their presence in Afghanistan is predicated on deals with NATO that they not be sent into combat.
"Indeed, troop presence in Afghanistan often appears to be about demonstrating an alliance with the U.S. rather than meeting the country's needs," the Crisis Group report says.
Of the roughly 31,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, the United States provides more than 11,000. Another 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan remain under direct U.S. command.
Only the United States, Britain and the Netherlands have deployed a full array of combat capability, with warplanes and helicopter gunships to back up ground troops.
Although NATO won't reveal those secret national caveats, they effectively tie the hands of top commanders.
Some prevent troops from being sent south to where the fighting takes place. Others are so specific that they preclude certain national contingents from venturing beyond their heavily fortified bases after dark, according to NATO officers who spoke on condition that they not be named.
Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser, who until earlier this month commanded all U.S., Canadian, British and Dutch troops in NATO's southern region, said he wanted more troops moved south. "The fewer national caveats, the more flexibility we would have to deal with the Taliban," he said.
ISAF's overall commander, British Lieutenant-General David Richards, has said he needs an additional rapid-reaction force of 2,000 soldiers in southern Afghanistan. No country stepped forward. Poland offered about 900 troops, but they won't arrive until spring.
Coalition of the unwilling?
There are 37 countries contributing troops to NATO's mission to stabilize Afghanistan, but most of the fighting falls to a handful of nations, while the others have too few troops to take part in battles or are keeping their soldiers out of the most dangerous areas.
Country Troops
U.S. 11,250
Britain 5,200
Germany 2,750
Canada 2,300
Netherlands 2,100
Italy 1,800
France 1,000
Romania 750
Spain 625
Turkey 475
Norway 350
Sweden 350
Denmark 320
Belgium 300
Australia 200
Hungary 200
Greece 180
Portugal 180
Bulgaria 150
Lithuania 135
Croatia 120
Macedonia 120
Czech Republic 100
Finland 100
New Zealand 100
Estonia 90
Slovakia 60
Slovenia 50
Latvia 35
Albania 30
Azerbaijan 20
Iceland 15
Ireland 10
Luxembourg 10
Poland 10
Austria 5
Switzerland 5
SOURCE: ISAF, ICASUALTIES.ORG
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061117.AFGHAN17/TPStory/TPInternational/America/
Billions have been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan on war without any positive results.
Imagine what US could have reached today if the same money was spent on development of the country and humanresource.
Just a thought...
Janbaz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
KashifAsrar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
This troop representation is for token presence only. After all these countries are part of NATO and so called Coalition Force !
Kashif
Kashif
Thursday, November 23, 2006
NATO head lauds Pakistan for Afghan cooperation
MONS: NATOââ¬â¢s military commander, US General James Jones, on Wednesday praised Pakistanââ¬â¢s cooperation in trying to prevent fighters illegally crossing its border into Afghanistan.
Jones said meetings between NATO and Pakistani officials had been promising and that he hoped they could help stem the flow of Taliban-allied fighters and drug runners into southern Afghanistan, where NATO is battling a major insurgency. ââ¬ÅI was very impressed by Pakistani military willingness to engage with ISAF and NATO to open up a series of bilateral meetings,ââ¬Â Jones said at his headquarters in Mons, Belgium. He said he hoped the cooperation could lead to a ââ¬Åless uncontrolled flow of people through the borderââ¬Â.
NATO head lauds Pakistan for Afghan cooperation
MONS: NATOââ¬â¢s military commander, US General James Jones, on Wednesday praised Pakistanââ¬â¢s cooperation in trying to prevent fighters illegally crossing its border into Afghanistan.
Jones said meetings between NATO and Pakistani officials had been promising and that he hoped they could help stem the flow of Taliban-allied fighters and drug runners into southern Afghanistan, where NATO is battling a major insurgency. ââ¬ÅI was very impressed by Pakistani military willingness to engage with ISAF and NATO to open up a series of bilateral meetings,ââ¬Â Jones said at his headquarters in Mons, Belgium. He said he hoped the cooperation could lead to a ââ¬Åless uncontrolled flow of people through the borderââ¬Â.
KashifAsrar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
It seems that more troops from NATO are going to bite the dust in Afghanistan, Insha-a-allah.
Kashif
France may join Afghan front line
Nicola Smith
FRENCH and German troops who have been kept away from the fiercest fighting in Afghanistan could be used as emergency reinforcements for British, American and Canadian soldiers bearing the brunt of the war against the Taliban.
A Nato summit this week in Riga, the capital of Latvia, is expected to agree greater flexibility for commanders to call on coalition allies for frontline support.
British officers have described how military police and engineers have had to fend off Taliban attacks while well trained coalition troops remain far away in Kabul and the relatively peaceful north.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato’s secretary-general, is urging all nations to lift the restrictions imposed on where their troops can be stationed. There has been a sharp disparity within Nato between European allies that have sought to minimise their casualties and concentrate on reconstruction, and Britain, Canada and the United States, which are committed to defeating the Taliban.
The Americans said: “We want all forces to be available to commanders on the ground. We can’t have forces who don’t go to certain places and do certain things.”
Germany, in particular, has come under criticism over Chancellor Angela Merkel’s insistence that German troops should remain in the north, although her government will now permit units to be sent for emergency short-term missions elsewhere in the country.
French troops are also likely to show more flexibility. An official pledged that if there were real danger they would help Nato allies in the south.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2472055,00.html
Kashif
France may join Afghan front line
Nicola Smith
FRENCH and German troops who have been kept away from the fiercest fighting in Afghanistan could be used as emergency reinforcements for British, American and Canadian soldiers bearing the brunt of the war against the Taliban.
A Nato summit this week in Riga, the capital of Latvia, is expected to agree greater flexibility for commanders to call on coalition allies for frontline support.
British officers have described how military police and engineers have had to fend off Taliban attacks while well trained coalition troops remain far away in Kabul and the relatively peaceful north.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato’s secretary-general, is urging all nations to lift the restrictions imposed on where their troops can be stationed. There has been a sharp disparity within Nato between European allies that have sought to minimise their casualties and concentrate on reconstruction, and Britain, Canada and the United States, which are committed to defeating the Taliban.
The Americans said: “We want all forces to be available to commanders on the ground. We can’t have forces who don’t go to certain places and do certain things.”
Germany, in particular, has come under criticism over Chancellor Angela Merkel’s insistence that German troops should remain in the north, although her government will now permit units to be sent for emergency short-term missions elsewhere in the country.
French troops are also likely to show more flexibility. An official pledged that if there were real danger they would help Nato allies in the south.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2472055,00.html
Similar threads
