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

I think that it would be interesting if China sent large numbers of troops in a reconstruction role. This would allow China to expand its influence in the region and it would free up other troops to take a part in a combat role.

I doubt that Russian troops would be welcomed by anyone over the age of 12.
As for Israeli beyond a token contribution I cant see Israeli sending troops to Afghanistan.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
I think that it would be interesting if China sent large numbers of troops in a reconstruction role. This would allow China to expand its influence in the region and it would free up other troops to take a part in a combat role.

I doubt that Russian troops would be welcomed by anyone over the age of 12.

As for Israeli beyond a token contribution I cant see Israeli sending troops to Afghanistan.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by xpert11]

As I said Russia was just an example (as were Nigeria and South Africa)

The point being they're also non-NATO countries.

Strangerous your argument concerning Non NATO forces dosnt stack up. Both Aust and NZ dont belong to NATO and yet there forces have or are integrated with US forces quite well with the expection of the odd hicup which is to be expected. Im sure that other Non NATO nations could be integrated with the current forces providing they undergo the right training before deploying.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by xpert11]

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?

DE

_________________________

My Son's in Afghanistan now. Doing his duty under NATO commitment. Our US Neighbors were attacked in 2001. I hope forces will soon be enriched there soon. As with any parent I'm concerned about the amount of casualties happening there lately.

Dallas

This thread has two subjects - one being NATO and the unwillingness of other NATO countries to match the contribution of UK/Canada to the NATO war-fighting mission.

The other subject is Oz removing their minor contribution.

So we had a confused / muddled / (dare I say it) simplistic title for the thread and then people introduced the idea that Israel would be a welcome contribution - it wouldn't be.


The NATO (non-US) deployment was agreed to on the basis there would be a back-up battalion available in-theatre to support the op - there isn't and that's why NATO is currently in crisis, just like the Italian air support contribution that was supposed to be there but didn't show up - hence the RAF half-squadron having their deployment extended. NATO is being polite and not mentioning the countries that originally said they would provide the back-up battalion but I'm sure the gloves will come off soon.

The NATO forces currently there want a NATO element to fulfill the original planned force scale ie a full infantry battalion in either light / infantry / air mobile role.

There isn't time for 'the right training', they're needed now - the plan was/is based on them being available and they aren't.







[edit on 19/9/2006 by Strangerous]

[edit on 20/9/2006 by Strangerous]

Strangerous Im sorry if I upset you I was refering to 12 year old Afgans who may not remember the soviet occupation. The role of Non NATO forces has some relevance because they may take the place of NATO forces if NATO dosnt come to the party. As much as I would like to see Aust and NZ send more troops to Afghanistan its important that both countries dont neglect there local region.

If our SAS are saying they don't want to leave without other Mates replacing them then you had better start worrying about the reason why the Government is doing this. SAS don't throw there lives away or there mates so they must believe that they are winning there role's.
Another point about kill numbers is that when you discuss these figures and they involve the OZ SAS you had better increase them beceause these men only accept confirmed kills and I bet a lot of the enemy died later as a result of wounds recieved.Add also the fearsome reputation these extrordinary men have and the effect it must have on the animals they are fighting.Having said all that wait for confirmation from the head of the SAS before you worry too much.

Thanks for that, I've removed the spiky bit from my post. My mistake - see what you mean, I doubt Israel's forces in Afghanistan would be welcomed by any residents: even under 12's.

I see what you're getting at - yes if the foot-draggers of NATO don't honour their contribution (I suspect many of us can guess who those countries are!: F___e?, I____y?, etc) then Oz / NZ would be a good substitute. Both countries have strong links to UK forces and therefore are 'almost-NATO'. I'm sure if they were to support the mission they'd be very welcome (and possibly more-welcome than forces from the NATO 'no-shows' )

Originally posted by Strangerous

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

Elaborate. Why would for instance 10, much needed, C130s including personnel be a recipe for disaster. Denmark has also a number of C130s in Afghanistan for exactly the same purposes: troop transport and logistical transport.

Originally posted by Strangerous
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?

Currently the coalition forces cope with an enormous shortage of modern aircrafts and helicopters. People die over there because of a lack of proper gear. Western civilians and military personnel do often have no other possibility than using old Soviet helicopters to travel with throughout the country. What country has a modern army? I can tell you it's not Nigeria. Pretty weak to use the ‘’you guys blame Israel again’’ excuse.


[edit on 20-9-2006 by Mdv2]

NATO's major issue at the moment is that they are an Inf Btn light.

10 C130's do not provide an adequate substitute.

Contrary to what some on here think it's not a question of firepower or hopping around the country - it's a boots operation and that's where the shortage is.

There are non-NATO forces that would fit / conduct the mission in an appropiate manner but the IDF isn't one of them.

Originally posted by Strangerous
NATO's major issue at the moment is that they are an Inf Btn light.

This is just my opinion but I think that the problem that smaller nations may face is this say (enter name nation ) send infantry is that logistical support , artillery support e.t.c is needed to support the infantry and all of a sudden the number of troops needed increases.

Just my 10 cents.

Originally posted by Strangerous
NATO's major issue at the moment is that they are an Inf Btn light.

10 C130's do not provide an adequate substitute.

Well, those Canadian Leopard tanks aren't gonna grow wings and fly themselves there, are they? Ten C130s would be a gorgeous contribution from the IDF, if nothing else.

Part of the reason the infantry shortage is felt so badly is the lack of armor support. During the recent Operation MEDUSA, Canadians used Coyotes and LAV IIIs to great effect, along with concentrated artillery fire. As much fun as 25mm cannons are, there is something to be said for tanks.

DE

Wait, didn't America already win the war in Afghanistan...?

The Post reported that more than a week after NATO's top leaders publicly demanded reinforcements for their embattled mission in southern Afghanistan, only one member of the 26-nation alliance has offered more troops, raising questions about NATO's largest military operation ever outside of Europe and the goal of expanding its global reach.

The newspaper said the plea for more soldiers and equipment to fight resurgent Taliban insurgents comes as NATO's forces are suffering the highest casualty rates of the nearly five-year-long conflict in Afghanistan, and as European governments are feeling stretched by the demands for troops there and in Iraq, Lebanon, the Balkans and in several African countries.

"It's our most important mission, it's our first priority," said Scheffer told The Post, describing the ongoing combat with the Taliban in southern Afghanistan as "the most intense battle NATO has fought in its history."
NATO commanders are seeking about 2,500 additional troops, a squadron of about 18 attack helicopters and three C-130 transport planes, The Post said.

Source

Although Jones said he expects the current battle to end favorably, he still plans to ask NATO defense ministers at a two-day meeting in Warsaw beginning September 8 to provide commanders in Afghanistan with additional military resources, including a squadron of armored helicopters and a few C-130 transport aircraft, needed to hasten the completion of the job. These aircraft will round out NATO’s ground force in southern Afghanistan, he said, and ensure the mission is achieved more quickly and with fewer casualties.

Source

Again, there's not only a shortage of troops as the above stated sources show. I just heard on television that Denmark, Romania and Poland will surely send more troops, he didn't mention others, though there will probably more countries, as he said they will first have to get a confirmation from their governments.


[edit on 22-9-2006 by Mdv2]

Heres an update.

The Australian troops are set to join NATO forces in the volatile southern region of Afghanistan where there has been an upsurge of Taliban-related violence.

The ongoing deployment will double Australia's contribution to the 20,000 strong NATO force.

But the decision to replace about 200 elite combat troops engaged in the fight against the Taliban with a force mostly made up of military engineers to support reconstruction efforts has drawn some criticism.

link

Gee its pretty hypercritical to expect the likes of NATO to send more combat troops when the Australian government is withdrawing the likes of the SAS.

i wish canadas foreign relationship policy would stop being so gutless and get smart and pull out troops out too....ration wise, more canadians are being killed than the rest, under proper circumstances, fine, its war, a soldiers life is part of the risk, but this fake war has nothing to do with us....we were probably threatened like Pakistan was by the states.

Originally posted by Or_Die_Trying
i wish canadas foreign relationship policy would stop being so gutless and get smart and pull out troops out too....ration wise, more canadians are being killed than the rest, under proper circumstances, fine, its war, a soldiers life is part of the risk, but this fake war has nothing to do with us....we were probably threatened like Pakistan was by the states.

A fake war ?
What exactly is fake about the war in Afghanistan ?
Canada pulling its troops out would be the worst thing it could do imagn the poor example it would set for other NATO and Non NATO nations alike.


[edit on 25-9-2006 by xpert11]

A war is when 2 sides mutually decide there is sufficient reason and want for armed conflict. This was the US deciding BASED on 9/11 which is at the very least suspect considering the bin laden/CIA connections etc.....furthermore, taliban leaders were escorted out of afghanistan. Therefore the main people that were used as the justification for war on afghanistan arent even there anymore. What reason is there for NATO Allied forces to be there. The afghani's are fighting back because we INVADED their country. They didnt start this war or announce they wanted one with us. WE decided we needed a launching point for another war based on bs in Iraq so we started with afghanistan and "liberated" it. You realize that much of the current government we have helped install there consists of warlords and drug dealers? the poppy production is up like 40% since we "helped" these people. This is why i call it a FAKE WAR.

Originally posted by Strangerous
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

Nice comment about shooting 'anyone brown', if though some Israelis may fit that description. Not all Palestinians are 'brown' either.

As for the Israel suggestion, may cause uproar. But they have had experience dealing with tough situations, plus their Merkava tanks are meant to be better on more mountainous terrain i think? One danger of brining in Israel is expanding the conflict and drawing even more fighters to the country.

Besides more troops, would a strengthened close air support force be any help? Considering some areas that may be inaccessible to the heavier ground vehicles.

[edit on 25/9/06 by Flyboy211]