It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian SAS to leave Afghanistan ? Elements of NATO dont want to face the security situation.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   


The commandos and SAS troopers are angry that the task group will not be replaced when it leaves later this month.

"It's not right to pull out. We shouldn't just go there for a shoot 'em up and then come home," one soldier said.
DURING nine days of fierce fighting in southern Afghanistan, Australian special forces killed more than 150 Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, and suffered just six men wounded.


Link

I would take the combat reports in terms of the number of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters killed with a grain of salt. However the propspect of the Australian SAS not returning to Afghanistan seem neglected at best and at worst it would aid the enemys of the Afgan government.


I sure hope that this story is proven wrong.

Even elemens of NATO dont want to tackle the security situation head on. When is the likes of Germany going to wake up to the fact that removing the focus from Afghanistan has been costly.
At the moment it just seems like one big cop out.




The Canadians, British and Dutch are bearing much of the burden in the south, and the US forces, also about 20,000-strong, are providing much-needed air support and back-up, despite their operations in the east of the country, which are also pretty intense.

So Isaf has to look elsewhere.

'Hearts and minds'

Germany has a few thousand troops in the north of Afghanistan, but their rules of engagement prevent them from being moved into combat in the south - and the indication is that that is unlikely to change.

US troops in Bermel, Afghanistan
US troops face their own intense operations in the east

Other nations are also holding back, concerned by the possible human and political ramifications of moving into a war zone.


link



[edit on 12-9-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-9-2006 by xpert11]



[edit on 12-9-2006 by xpert11]




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Update.
Well at least one member of NATO has a spine.


In addition, Canada is sending about 15 tanks.

Canada already has 2,200 soldiers in Afghanistan.

Like Australian forces, most of them are in the southern region and are engaged in tough front-line fighting with Taliban and other militants.

Canada is one of only five countries actually engaged in front-line fighting in Afghanistan.


Link

Who are the five countries ?
I count the USA , Aust , Britain , Canada .
NZ could be number five but due to the NZ government blanket secrecy concening the countries SAS ops in Afghanistan I cant say for certain either way.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Oh come on expert the only reason why were in afganistan is because the Taliban changed their minds on the pipeline deal. Do you realy belive that we went to that country to save the people?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Canada already has 2,200 soldiers in Afghanistan.

Who are the five countries ?
I count the USA , Aust , Britain , Canada .
NZ could be number five but due to the NZ government blanket secrecy concening the countries SAS ops in Afghanistan I cant say for certain either way.


I am pretty sure the fifth is the Netherlands. They have or had about 200 commandos stationed in Kandahar province, executing offensive duties. 1500 in the Southern province of Uruzgan and another 300 in Northern Afghanistan.

Whatever possessed their government to send so many troops, especially when you compare the number of inhabitants and troops to other countries such as France and Canada.



[edit on 16-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Oh come on expert the only reason why were in afganistan is because the Taliban changed their minds on the pipeline deal. Do you realy belive that we went to that country to save the people?


Assuming that was the case the current security situation wouldnt make any pipeline viable so its probably a combo of both. Creating a democracy in Afganistan is one of the keys to the current strategy in the so called War on Terror.
MDV thanks for the info.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
So much for the NATO Alliance, if they cannot agree on sending more troops and support to help the troops already there, then why is NATO even here!!!

Makes me angry when Soldiers are sent out under resourced and undermaned.

Other European countries need to get their fingers outof their backsdies and help.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Canada is the best bet for replacing these troops, I'm guessing. They'll prolly carry the weight, just because no one else wants to.

As for population, Netherlands has one of sixteen million. Canada, thirty-two or so. Pretty small, huh?

DE



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Canada is the best bet for replacing these troops, I'm guessing. They'll prolly carry the weight, just because no one else wants to.

As for population, Netherlands has one of sixteen million. Canada, thirty-two or so. Pretty small, huh?


Netherlands

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$9.408 billion (2004)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
1.6% (2004)



The Netherlands: Six F-16 ground-attack fighters, six AH-64 Apache gunships and one KDC-10 tanker were deployed to Manas airport in Kirgyzstan as part of the European Participating Air Force (EPAF) with Denmark and Norway. Dutch naval frigates. Since August 1, 2006 over 1,400 Dutch troops are active in the province of Uruzgan together with an untold number of special forces. The total number of Dutch troops, including Army, Air Force and Special Forces, is believed to be over 2,000.

Wikipedia



Canada
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$9,801.7 million (2003)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
1.1% (2003)



Canada: about 2,500 troops, six ships and six aircraft. Since 9/11, more than 15,000 Canadian personnel have served in Afghanistan and the Gulf. Twenty ships have been deployed to date. Sources say that only 40 JTF2 Commandos were deployed in the initial stages of the war. However, a far larger number of Canadian soldiers is currently present in Afghanistan. Further and as of February 27, 2006, the Canadian Forces have taken over the overall command of all Allied Forces in Southern Afghanistan.

Wikipedia


Germany
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$35.063 billion (2003)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
1.5% (2003)


Germany: approximately 2,250 troops including special forces, naval vessels, NBC cleanup teams.

Wikipedia


France
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$45 billion FY06 (2005)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.6% FY06 (2005 est.)



France (Opération Héraclès): 4,500 troops including 3,500 for the Marine Nationale (one CVBG, comprising the FS Charles de Gaulle, frigates La Motte-Picquet, Jean de Vienne and Jean Bart, the nuclear attack submarine Rubis, the tanker Meuse and the aviso Commandant Ducuing), 600 for the Armée de l'Air (12 Mirage 2000, Mirage F1 and Mirage IV ground-attack and reconnaissance aircraft), 600 to International Security Assistance Force; 200 special forces for 2003

Wikipedia



Australia

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$17.84 billion (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.7% (2005 est.)


about 300 SAS troops, air-to-air refueling tankers, Navy frigates, two Orion electronic intelligence gathering aircraft, and F/A-18 fighter aircraft for Diego Garcia. Wikipedia


Israel
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$9.45 billion (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
7.7% (2005 est.)

Deus, I never though there would be living only such a small number of people in Canada, relatively, their contribution is not that small. Better options for sending additional troops to Afghanistan would be Germany (though, they are not allowed to operate in the South), France, and Australia. According to Wikipedia France has only a thousand ground troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Could someone clarify why Israel always get away with shirking their responsibility to partcipate in global military issues? I do understand that sending Israeli ground forces into Iraq would only increase tensions and result in a non workable situation, but there's a desperate need for aircrafts, C-130s, Chinooks, air combat helicopter, and aircrafts/helicopters for logistical purposes. They would definitely be able to execute such tasks.








[edit on 17-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Australia's Army is overstretched as it is, with deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Timor and the Solomon Islands. The problem is a lack of Infantry, but will create 2 new infantry battalians by 2010.

I dont know what the case is with other countries, maybe they are having the same problems.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Mr_albest raises a good point . countries like Australia and New Zealand can only contribute small numbers defence force personal due to there smaller populations. This is another reason why its so important for the likes of NATO to pull there weight.


For the record this is New Zealands contribution.


The town of Bamyan, in Bamian Province, Afghanistan is where the NZ PRT is located. Kiwi Base and the airfield are to the south of the valley and the main township and bazaar (shopping centre) is located to the north of Kiwi Base.

In winter (Dec-Mar), the surrounding mountains and valleys are cover in snow. The township of Bamyan is at an altitude close to 2,550m above sea level (Mt Ruepehu is 2,997m and some of the mountain passes are as high as Mt Cook/Aorangi).


link

There has been no word about the NZ SAS since 2005 ignoring the politics the article below is an example of the governments blanket secrecy.


The Government seems to be embarrassed by George Bush’s award to the New Zealand SAS, says Green MP Keith Locke.

The Defence Ministry last night confirmed that President George Bush presented a US unit citation to the New Zealand SAS in a ceremony in San Diego ten days ago.

“It is bad enough that the Government has put a blanket of secrecy over everything the SAS did in Afghanistan,” said Mr Locke, the Green Party’s Defence Spokesperson.

“But it is laughable when they hide the fact that George Bush has given our special forces an award; what are they embarrassed about?

link

Since we havnt heard that the NZ SAS has been withdrawn from Afghanistan again my best guess is that they are operating in the countrie and the NZ government has asked the coaltion to stay quite for political reasons which I wont go into on ATS.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2


Deus, I never though there would be living only such a small number of people in Canada, relatively, their contribution is not that small. Better options for sending additional troops to Afghanistan would be Germany (though, they are not allowed to operate in the South), France, and Australia. According to Wikipedia France has only a thousand ground troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Could someone clarify why Israel always get away with shirking their responsibility to partcipate in global military issues? I do understand that sending Israeli ground forces into Iraq would only increase tensions and result in a non workable situation, but there's a desperate need for aircrafts, C-130s, Chinooks, air combat helicopter, and aircrafts/helicopters for logistical purposes. They would definitely be able to execute such tasks.


Better options aren't happening, looks like. The troops are mostly needed in the south, where the Canucks are. Part of the issue why there aren't more is the fact that in the early 90's, the Somalia Affair slandered the military pretty good. A whole regiment was disbanded, and military spending slashed. We're not even back up to the standard we had in 1985. The Germans? Out. The French are overstretched as usual- they're in Africa, too. Australia, as noted above, is in similar straights to Canada. I suppose France remains an option. Perhaps they and Canada will split the balance.

I can understand why Israel isn't called upon for peacekeeping. Firstly, they need each and every man, woman and child to defend their land. Remember '73? Yeah. No one wants a repeat, because that was awful close. In addition, look at the virulent 'Israel-hate' (it's detractors don't call themselves anti-semites no more) even on ATS, which is largely based in the friendlier western countries. Imagine how bad it would be in other parts of the world. Any attempt for them to help would rapidly be labeled 'Zionist expansion' or some similar bull.

DE



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

The Germans? Out.


Thought that as well, though I just found the following:




Friday, September 8, 2006

German Defense Ministry officials played down suggestions that German troops stationed in the country's north would redeploy to the south, the Reuters news agency reported.

Washington Post


A British/Canadian/Dutch/German coalition deployed in the south would be a very robust force, though there's one problem:


In an interview published yesterday, a senior Dutch officer estimated that 40% of Taliban fighters come "straight from Pakistan". The steady flow meant that Nato operations, despite their successes, were "like trying to mop with the tap still open", said Colonel Arie Vermeij.

The Guardian



I don't hope the situation is going to evolve into another -somewhat less bloodier - Iraq.



Originally posted by DeusEx
I can understand why Israel isn't called upon for peacekeeping. Firstly, they need each and every man, woman and child to defend their land. Remember '73? Yeah. No one wants a repeat, because that was awful close. In addition, look at the virulent 'Israel-hate' (it's detractors don't call themselves anti-semites no more) even on ATS, which is largely based in the friendlier western countries. Imagine how bad it would be in other parts of the world. Any attempt for them to help would rapidly be labeled 'Zionist expansion' or some similar bull.

DE


I don't agree with you, if Israel would decide to send, say 10 C-130s to Afghanistan, I personally think it would be generally and internationally seen as a gesture of willingness, nor would it make a difference to the defense of Israel, they are not everyday fighting wars with Lebanon. In addition, such a small number of logistic aircrafts would not be seen as Zionist expansion, though it would make a big difference, as there's a huge lack of them.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Okay, maybe I'm just a pessimist.

I doubt that the germans would redeploy south, firstly, and secondly that doesn't solve the numbers problem.

The comment about Pakistan is true. It's supplying something like 50%+ of war materiel and as much of the manpower to the Taliban. More, in all odds.

My comments about Israel were more sarcastic than anything. Most people will go out of their way to find something wrong with whatever Israel does, from defending itself to aiding the war on terror. Yeah, we *need* those planes. The shipment of Leopards isn't gonna grow wings. But someone, somewhere, will start screaming bloody murder if Israel gets involved, and the entirety of the left will take it up.

DE



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

At a key meeting of the 37 NATO member nations in Mons, Belgium, on Sept. 13, calls for reinforcements were met with an array of excuses and no new promise of troops. News of the 1,000 Polish troops, a move that was apparently already in the mix, only filtered out later. Chief among the excuses were self-imposed rules of engagement. The Germans have 2,500 soldiers in the north engaged exclusively in reconstruction work. But their rules of engagement preclude them from being moved into the combat zones. Others are plainly concerned about the political repercussions of soldiers coming home in body bags. All of which leaves the British, Canadian and Dutch forces, together with a handful of Australian and Estonian troops, in an extremely precarious military position.


Just watched CNN International, the Polish contribution has been confirmed


Edit: Source

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Polish contribution will only be in-theatre in February '07 so doesn't really impact on the current issue.

Currently the major contributions are UK and Canada with minor contingents from other countries. Germany only on peacekeeping duties, Dutch marginal war-fighting abilities, Oz/NZ minor contribution.

This whole deployemnt was based on the presumption there would be a back-up batallion in place in case it got sticky.

Other NATO countries need to step up and contribute. Israel is non-NATO and therfore couldn't be integrated and probably wouldn't be welcomed by the troops currently fighting.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I doubt Israeli help wouldn't be welcome- anything that helps is welcome.

Congradulations to the Poles, their contribution is much appreciated. I have no clue why some states don't send more troops. C'mon, Belgium. What are your men doing right now? Where you at, Spain?

The newest members- the ones fresh from the Pact- have understandable reluctance to join. If founding members and members there longer aren't commiting troops, why should they? What a poor example they're setting.

DE



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
There's a fundmantal difference between an NATO op and a NATO op with IDF support. The latter is unsustainable in political terms.

What is this obsession with Israel on here - why not South Africa, Nigeria, Russia etc etc?



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Do I even have to tell you why bringing Russia into Afghanistan is a bad idea?

A lot of other countries have their own problems, severe ones, at home. Why not ask the Congo? Oh wait, now it's New Zanzibar. Oh, whoops, they had antoher coup, now it's Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Africa has its own rather severe stability issues. Egypt probably wouldn't be bad. The NATO countries under 800 men should bring their numbers up to 800, that would solve a lot of problems.

The reason why I would want Israel? Because they have a reputation (well deserved) for being experienced, competent fighters with a long history of combatting both conventional and guerrilla assaults. Basically, because they're a lot better at this than we are.

DE



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Russia was just an example - if Russia is a bad idea what on earth would Israel be??

Israel may be better at this than you are (and that's questionable) but they're certainly not better at it than we are. Given their fondness for shooting at anyone brown I doubt they'd help with the Hearts & minds aspect of the op.

Israel's involvement is a pipe-dream and a recipe for disaster



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Afghanistan is unwinnable. No one wants to touch it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join