Panther
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 0
It is the other way round dear. NATO has reluctant partner in this war.Parteners that are ready to abundon coalition on the first oppurtunity. Parteners that are always reluctant to contribute more from USA.
What one might call abandon, i would call fulfilling their treaty obligations and the need to look after their domestic commitments. Some of our partners are small and haven't the economy set up for a sustained deployment that a counter insurgency calls for. Then again, a few are perhaps weak in the knee when it comes to applying defensive force against an aggressive action, actually believing that they're actually contributing to a problem when removing themselves entirely from an equation isn't the solution they think it to be.
How many times did you hear Taliban fighters abndoning the fight for Afghanistan?
Unless one has their eyes closed, for the individual Taliban rank and file, then the number of deserters is quite significant. But it's when it gets to be a tribal desertion en masse (Like what happened in Iraq), is when the Taliban tends to screw it all up, because of a lack of diplomatic finesse, it is after all what brought the US to Afghanistan in the first place! My point is that they will turn all of their hatred, violence and anger inwards towards their former friends and allies. It all comes down to the power to control! Any tribal group that wants to leave the insurgency for their benefit and their communities, will have to brutally fight their way out.
Where as in Nato, it is either agreed before hand when they will leave or if they can be persuaded too stay a little longer. In such a case, the US and Nato has been far more successful in that regard. The average contributing country stayed a couple of years longer then they had anticipated. Re: THe Dutch and the Canadians.