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.

 

Where have all the soldiers gone?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
With the US military operating at maximum peace time capacity battling insurgents in Iraq and hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the task of battling the Taliban in Afghanistan has fallen largely on NATO.

The Canadian's seem to be doing an admirable job of this, but they are underpowered and European nations seem unwilling or unable to commit larger numbers. They do have fair reasons, the Italians and French have just commited to a Lebanon force, Germany's military is not an effective fighting force due to constitutional issues, and the UK has large numbers in Iraq.

But would the story be different if the EU had a military of its own, their economy and population compare to the US, but yet the US can have over a hundred thousand soldiers operating on the other side of the world while NATO struggles to bring together over ten thousand in Afghanistan.

And now the UN is trying to put together a force for Darfur, who will be able commit to this?

I live in Australia and we have plans to create two new infantry brigades in order to cope with the demands in our region and the middle east, and Japan seems on its way to revising it constitution to allow it to better assist in peace-keeping/nation-building efforts. But these are long term programs. Is it perhaps time for China to use its massive military to take some slack off Western nations?

How could the world respond if another crisis where to occur that demanded a significant military force, we seem to be in a precarious position.

What are your thoughts on this?




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr_albest
With the US military operating at maximum peace time capacity battling insurgents in Iraq and hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the task of battling the Taliban in Afghanistan has fallen largely on NATO.

The Canadian's seem to be doing an admirable job of this, but they are underpowered and European nations seem unwilling or unable to commit larger numbers. They do have fair reasons, the Italians and French have just commited to a Lebanon force, Germany's military is not an effective fighting force due to constitutional issues, and the UK has large numbers in Iraq.

But would the story be different if the EU had a military of its own, their economy and population compare to the US, but yet the US can have over a hundred thousand soldiers operating on the other side of the world while NATO struggles to bring together over ten thousand in Afghanistan.

And now the UN is trying to put together a force for Darfur, who will be able commit to this?

I live in Australia and we have plans to create two new infantry brigades in order to cope with the demands in our region and the middle east, and Japan seems on its way to revising it constitution to allow it to better assist in peace-keeping/nation-building efforts. But these are long term programs. Is it perhaps time for China to use its massive military to take some slack off Western nations?

How could the world respond if another crisis where to occur that demanded a significant military force, we seem to be in a precarious position.

What are your thoughts on this?



From my American persepctive I think this is why the US has become the "world police". We feel compelled to keep a large fighting force in case there is a need to protect our borders ... but we have two neighbors that have no intentions of invading our country. So we get called to help on all kinds of local matters that sometimes might be better if other countries could step in and assist with. The US doesn't have a popular political following due to our historical meddling in other societies but we're still asked to send tens of thousands of troops when some violence breaks out.

I don't know what the easy answer is to this. Maybe increasing the UN's peace-keeping forces and have more countries allow the UN to have oversight with an adequate number of troops to intervene in situations.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I think China is best left out of the equation. It would be nice if China could be trusted, but alas, those days have not yet come.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
We do not have a shortage of troops, European nations do not give enough or are not willing enough to provide those troops.

Aside from the UK, which I thank them for being very well armed and willing allies, not just in Americas war but also in peace keeping, other countries like France, offering 200 men in Lebanon. Common... how pathetic is that? How dare you call your self a peace keeper if you do not feel compeled to actually offer men to fight for peace.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Rest assured that there are plenty of NCO's waiting for the right time if need be...that are well under 40 and staying in shape should the need arise that we lead as PLT Sargents or Squad leaders in a major conflict.

Gulf War I

Always out front 96R30!!!

[edit on 18-9-2006 by linuxfueled]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I think it's more likely that our administration would pass the buck if another crisis like Darfur came up. The UN has done a shoddy job thus far, it wouldn't exactly be unfair to blame them.

I suppose if something did come up, our response would be an indicator of future plans; if we commit some manpower, it's a good chance that we're not gearing up for another war. But it the administration won't commit anything, expanding the GWOT into another country would probably remain a likely alternative. I think we can watch the Darfur situation and perhaps get some idea of plans for the future.

This is all speculation though...depending on where a future crisis came up, we might send "aid" in the form of troops if the endangered nation is near a military target.

Shifty stuff, neo-politics.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr_albest
With the US military operating at maximum peace time capacity battling insurgents in Iraq and hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the task of battling the Taliban in Afghanistan has fallen largely on NATO.

The Canadian's seem to be doing an admirable job of this, but...

Hunting down enemies of the US isn't NOT the Canadian mission statement.
Our troops are there to ensure that Af can be safely brought back onto it's feet as a nation. Our boys are there to stop the Taliban from inflicting harm on the people of Afganistan. To do this, we gotta get a little agressive and push fronts out. Stong hold have to be overturned. Arms cashes have to be destroyed. If we happened to bad Bin Laddin along the way, that's gravy, but it's still not the mission.

We aren't under any misconceptions that our (or any) military forces can solve long-term problems. All we can do is stand by the people of the region long enough to let them sort themselves out.

I do NOT support The War on Terrorism, but I do support our presence in Afganistan on behalf of the Afgani people.

Slight sidenote: The standard of living has improved since troops moved into the area. Iraq's standard of living has become hell. There's a fundamental difference here that most people are missing.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join