NATO's political will "wavering" in Afghanistan

[fatman17]

NATO's political will "wavering" in Afghanistan

Mon Oct 20, 2008

By Luke Baker

LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - NATO members are wavering in their political commitment to Afghanistan, one of the alliance's top commanders said on Monday, describing the nearly seven-year-old campaign against the Taliban as disjointed.

Pointing to more than 70 "caveats" that gave individual countries a veto over certain operations, and the fact that troop commitments remained unfulfilled, General John Craddock said he was fearful the operation was being short-changed.

"We are demonstrating a political will that is in my judgment sometimes wavering," Craddock, a U.S. general and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said in a speech to policymakers and defence analysts in London.

"It's this wavering political will that impedes operational progress and brings into question the relevance of the alliance here in the 21st century," he said.

NATO troops serve in Afghanistan under a United Nations mandate. That mandate initially limited their operations to Kabul but in 2003 was expanded to give NATO a wider role to support the Afghan government throughout the country.

As insecurity has increased in Afghanistan, NATO troops have steadily been drawn into more deadly operations, a factor that has dissuaded some countries from deeper involvement.

Craddock told Britain's Sky News television more British troops would be needed in Afghanistan's Helmand province but the precise number had yet to be decided.

"That will be up to the commander on the ground but the situation in Helmand province I think is critical," he said. "That's the key area for the production of poppy, it is a key area for the insurgency."

Insecurity has led farmers to switch from producing food to opium, a crop that also funds the Taliban insurgency. Helmand produced about half the world's opium last year.

SECURITY AT STALEMATE

Craddock told Sky Afghan reconstruction and development was moving ahead slowly and needed to be more coherent.

"I do not think we are losing, we are not winning fast enough," Sky's website quoted him as saying. "Security is at a stalemate. Governance is stuck top dead centre."

In his earlier speech, Craddock defended the view expressed by Britain's outgoing commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, that the Taliban could not be defeated and insurgents needed to be drawn into dialogue.

"His comments are generally in line with what our military and political leaders have been saying all along... The conflict in Afghanistan cannot be won by military means alone," said Craddock, who serves as NATO's operational commander.

"We in the international community must come together as part of a truly comprehensive approach (in Afghanistan). The current effort remains disjointed in time and space."

The 26-member NATO alliance has about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan but commanders say they need at least 12,000 more. Most NATO countries are reluctant to commit.

Afghanistan is widely seen as more precarious than Iraq, with the Taliban becoming more sophisticated in its ability to carry out ambushes and bombings. Yet there are half as many foreign troops operating in Afghanistan as there are in Iraq, a country that is smaller than Afghanistan. (Additional reporting by Jon Boyle; editing by Andrew Dobbie)

© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

 

[waraich66]

BRAVO!

In other words ! NATO cammand is admitting defeat in Afghanistan.I think they even could not control Afghanistan with help of 1 million army.

Only AFGHAN people with their political will could maintain peace in afghanistan.Their living style is simple they dont need AC, CARS and high tech buildings for living.They eat dry bread which even american can not break with their soft hands.

I think no other nation in the world compete with them in sacrifice and hardship.



Talaban will again control Afghanistan but this time they should be more carful from their enemies Israel and Iran.

I think saudi arabia is enogh for their help.It is my humble request to US and allies please go back to your home ,your economy based on capitalism is disintegrating very fast.

Islam have only solution for eternal sucess of humanity.


May God give us hadayat ameen

 

[JK!]

Theres less then 60000 NATO troops in Afghanistan not 1 million.

Military Commanders are being overstretched and not given the tools to do their job so its natural that they will try to pursue other solutions.

 

[waraich66]

Sir,

They have used all their means and resourses ,due to their financial crunch and increased ratio of casulties ,now thay looking for last optoin of talks.

 

[JK!]

Soldiers in all fields are called upon by politicians to do their dirty work whilst they sit and discuss it over coffee and donuts.

The situation in Afghanistan with increased casualties is due to increased usage of IEDs which are difficult to defend against.

 

[waraich66]

Good general alway keep all dangers in mind before making any war stretegy.

Russia has already included book of Gen Akhtar abdul Rahman in their miltery academy as text book.

USA need this book for their soilders training also


"THE MAN BEHIND THE GUN IS MORE IMPORTANT"

 

[dr.umer]

NATO Commander for close co-operation with Pakistan ​

LONDON, Oct 21 (APP): A top NATO commander has emphasised the need for close cooperation with Pakistan security forces, reports British media. Speaking at the London-based Royal United Services Institute General John Craddock, a US general and NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, described the seven-year campaign against rising Taliban, as disjointed.

He upbraided alliance members for showing a lack of political will in Afghanistan, and warned that a lack of progress would undermine the organisation’s relevance.

Complaining that NATO is being hamstrung by national considerations, Craddock pointed to more than 70 “caveats” that give individual countries a veto over certain operations and the reluctance of countries to meet troop commitments.

“We are demonstrating a political will that is, in my judgment, sometimes wavering,” Craddock said adding “It’s this wavering political will that impedes operational progress and brings into question the relevance of the alliance here in the 21st century.”

The 26-member NATO alliance has about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan but commanders say they need at least 12,000 more. Most member countries are reluctant to send more troops.

Afghanistan is now widely seen as more precarious than Iraq, with the Taliban becoming more sophisticated in its ability to carry out ambushes and bombings. Militants have expanded their traditional bases in the country’s south and east and have gained territory in the provinces surrounding Kabul, in a worrying development for the Western alliance and Afghan troops.

Craddock defended the view expressed by Britain’s outgoing commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, that the Taliban could not be defeated militarily and that at some level they needed to be drawn into a dialogue.

“His comments are generally in line with what our military and political leaders have been saying all along... The conflict in Afghanistan cannot be won by military means alone,” he pointed out.

“We in the international community must come together as part of a truly comprehensive approach in Afghanistan. The current effort remains disjointed in time and space.”

Craddock was critical of the lack of coordination in aid efforts, whether with non-government or government-backed groups, saying the overall military strategy of “clear, hold and build” was often lacking the third component.

Military gains, he said, were also being undermined by the failure of the Afghan government of President Karzai to establish effective, corruption-free local governance.

 

[Imran Khan]

first they have to stop cross border attacks and spy planes flights. who can they do this one day they come and talk with us secend day one drone kill our inocents.its two side of nato in afghanistan

 

[dr.umer]

Afghanistan: where now for the unwinnable war?​

21 Oct 2008

Simon Assaf assesses the growing crisis for the occupation

General David Petraeus, the US military’s supreme commander for the Middle East and Central Asia, has launched a review of the “war on terror” that could lead to a U-turn in military policy in Afghanistan.

His reassessment of US strategy is a recognition of the deep pessimism engulfing Nato – the military alliance that runs the occupation – over whether it can win the war in Afghanistan.

Petraeus recently told the Washington Post of his plans to make peace with “moderate” elements in the Taliban and transform them into “tribal militias”.

“I do think you have to talk to enemies,” he said. “Clearly you want to try to reconcile with as many as possible.”

This a climbdown from the overwhelming victory declared by the US after its October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Back then the US, Britain and its allies believed they could quickly secure the country.

This comes as the new British commander says Afghanistan needs 30,000 new troops.

For the first two years of the occupation, they were able to boast of their success. The Taliban were scattered and it seemed only a matter of time before they captured Al Qaida’s leader Osama bin Laden.

But it became clear early on that a crucial element of the Afghan occupation – “winning hearts and minds” through reconstructing the war-torn country – was going seriously adrift.

Billions of dollars earmarked for Afghan projects found their way into the pockets of Western contractors and corrupt officials.

Any roads that were built were for military purposes, while schools and clinics failed to materialise. Instead, the occupation concentrated on shoring up the government of US appointee Hamid Karzai based in Afghanistan’s capital Kabul.

Karzai found himself isolated in his Kabul palace with little influence beyond the city. The state he presided over was shot through by corruption and reliant on much-hated warlords.

Afghanistan became a laboratory for the failed economic policies of the neoliberals. Giant glass buildings sprang up in the capital, boasting glitzy malls and exclusive restaurants. Meanwhile the rest of the country teetered on the edge of starvation.

The rampant corruption and grinding poverty fuelled *sympathy for the Taliban’s insurgency. They were now being joined by a growing number of local *resistance groups, that began to hit back at the occupation.

Between 2001 and 2004 around 50 foreign troops were killed by insurgents. This figure began to spiral upwards in 2005.

In 2006 Nato, spearheaded by British troops, launched a major offensive to seize control of key Taliban heartlands in the south and the east of the country.

At first this strategy found some success. Battles were one-sided. Groups of resistance fighters were heavily outgunned or massacred in airstrikes.

But it soon became clear that a great proportion of the victims were civilians. As airstrikes pounded down on villages, popular anger exploded into mass demonstrations and rioting.

Nato’s offensive also led to the war spilling across the border into Pakistan. Insurgents began attacking foreign troops in Afghanistan before spiriting themselves back over the border into the regions of Pakistan controlled by local tribal leaders.

Pakistan soon found itself as the new frontline in the “war on terror”. Pervez Musharraf, until recently the country’s military ruler and a key US ally, poured in tens of thousands of troops to pacify the border regions.

But far from cutting off the insurgents’ escape route, Musharraf provoked an uprising among his own troops.

Earlier this year he lost power, forced out by popular anger. But Pakistan’s new civilian government has found itself in a similar bind, caught between its US overlords on one side and widespread opposition to the war on the other.

The border regions are crucial for the occupation of Afghanistan. Most of Nato’s supplies go through the Khyber Pass between the two countries.

These supplies are being attacked and looted by Pakistani insurgents. The US has responded by flying unmanned, heavily armed, drones to “take out” the insurgents. The drones are raining down death on the villages below.

With the war spreading, the question of troop numbers has became a priority for the US. This is creating all manner of political crises inside the US ruling class and beyond.

One possible response is to take troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. But despite claims of victory in Iraq, US military commanders stress that success there is “fragile and reversible”.

Attacks on US troops in Iraq have never entirely stopped. US control over Baghdad and other major cities remains in the balance. With Iraq so insecure, the US military fears that any significant shift of troops to Afghanistan will leave them dangerously exposed.

This leaves their Afghan mission short on the ground. There are currently 98,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan – well below the 400,000 needed to secure the occupation. Other Nato countries are unwilling to commit more soldiers to the occupation.

The insurgents now control many approach roads to Kabul. This has forced the US to rethink its ambitions for the occupation.

Petraeus wants to find a way out of the Afghan quagmire. This attempt to “manage the defeat” will mark a new stage in the occupation.

 

[waraich66]

Now all of you believe what is actual satuation on battle field.

Casualities of Allied Forces increasing day by day.

They have no choice left .They are begging for peace.

I think talaban should dictate their terms to allied forces.



I think pakistan will also participate in this peace talks.


Saudi Government already confirmed second round of talks will start soon.

 

[Imran Khan]

Saudi Government already confirmed second round of talks will start soon.

don't go outside saudi police looking for you

 

[waraich66]

They have not even invited pakistan in talks.it means pakistan role was just a servent of US and allied forces

Shame on Pakistan Government.

 

[dr.umer]

They have not even invited pakistan in talks.it means pakistan role was just a servent of US and allied forces

Shame on Pakistan Government.

Is it necessary for Pakistan to get involved in Afghanistan's affairs ?

 

[Imran Khan]

They have not even invited pakistan in talks.it means pakistan role was just a servent of US and allied forces

again i remember you nawaz shareef hold and arrange these talks are you never see my last post.go read some news plzzzzzzzzz

Shame on Pakistan Government.

its my personal advise to you if you never stop i will put you in ignore list

 

[waraich66]

Congratulations for new position

I hope you will understand now WOT better and stop personal critisim

Good luck