It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Afghanistan "mission" failing?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:42 PM

US fights to rescue Afghanistan mission

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States intensified Friday its diplomatic drive to recruit more coalition troops for Afghanistan amid fears its allies could abandon a cornerstone of the US-led "war on terror."

Afghan mission failing?

This article kind of irks me. Isn't this a sign to the gov't. that their "war on terror" isn't really working and maybe other countries are starting to realize this? How long are these other countries supposed to wait for convincing results? Why should they aid in this so called war if they do not believe it is working? I think we as Americans have kind of fallen off the band wagon of the war on terror and its attempted efforts. I think terror will always be around in some way, shape, or form. So, stating that, the "war on terror" will never end. I just do not get how who can think fellow allied countries would want to submit their troops to a never ending battle. It is time for a change Mr. Bush. Not everyone believes this US led war is working and you can't convince us otherwise.

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:20 AM
Well the sideshow in Iraq has diverted US troops that could have been used to win the war in Afghanistan . NATO is extremely in danger of becoming irrelevant. The military alliance that was designed to fight a Superpower has been shown up badly which makes me wonder how they would have ever fought the Soviets.

The article says that Belgium has four hundred eighteen troops in Afghanistan . This really is pittance when you consider that the NZDF has one hundred odd troops most of which make up a provincial reconstruction team. New Zealand isnt a bigger enough player to have coped flak for not having troops in a combat role.

Here is a thread that deals the possibility of the NZDF increasing its presence in the country and touches on the limited role of provincial reconstruction teams.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by xpert11

the biggest problem is that the NATO countries thought that they would be taking part in a Peace Support Operation as part of a reconstruction effort, not counter insurgency. As you point out Iraq meant that the ball was dropped and now the Taliban are making a resurgence. The current Afghan administration is highly corrupt, the local population is turning back to the Taliban as they were not and maintained the rule of law. (NOT that im advocating their regime)

Most of the NATO armies have down sized since the end of the Cold War and reconfigured to take part in humanitarian missions rather than inter-sate war fare.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:56 PM
I can understand how NATO army's will have been geared up for peace keeping the NZ military has gone the same way. Surely elements of NATO should be looking at gearing there militarys(SP?) towards counter insurgency warfare and at the same time send at least token contribution to Southern Afghanistan.

Even thou members of NATO have downsized there militarys(SP?) I still have a hard swallowing that the likes of Germany don't have enough manpower to send combat troops along with those in a reconstruction role. The central and Northern parts of the country are relatively stable . The fact that the NZ SAS isnt used to provide security for the NZ task force supports this idea.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:15 AM
Alot of European NATO countries are spread out across various humanitarian missions. France has just started a deployment in the Chad/Darfur boarder region, Germany for along time has been a key contributor to KFOR in Kosovo. I would imagine that they do not have troops available, or are unwilling to send them in to a role that they did not agree to Hence why they have a very different mandate to American troops.

NZ, have no idea at all, maybe they have to be kept on constant standby in case someone tries to take a sheep farm hostage.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 08:38 PM
Well the NZDF is involved with peace keeping operations in places like East Timor and the Solomon Islands as well as operations in the Antarctic and so on . So the NZDF does it fair share of the load in our backyard . So even when you factor in peace keeping I am feeling better about NZ per head of population contribution .

Due to the small population of NZ the NZDF isnt big enough to sustain the war in Afghanistan by itself which leaves two options . The first is to work in with out allies . The Australians have done this with Dutch forces. The other option is to have our troops operate in a more secure province where they can carry out there reconstruction role. The 2nd option is what the NZDF has taken.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 08:56 PM
NATO's new blog says the media is full of BS, and that things are looking up in Afghanistan.

So once again the adage holds true: don’t believe everything you see and hear in the media.

the insurgency is not spreading across the country as has been written in some reports and reported by some media.

the situation in Afghanistan is calmer overall.

the situation in Afghanistan is not as grim as some would have us all believe.

Declassified Map

As a side note I see that Mullah Omar has kindly asked his crew to stop beheading people and start shooting or hanging them instead. Isn't that sweet of him?

[edit on 2/4/08 by makeitso]

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:30 AM
We hear a lot more about Afghanistan than Iraq here. It's hard to tell really how the mission is going from listening to media and talking to soldiers who have returned. The media gives a rosy picture as the norm but you do hear from others, this fellow being one of them, Eric Margolis. He has been on the ground in Afghanistan but not in a imbedded capacity. he claims that we are losing to the Taliban. Then we get people like this, Lee Windsor, who has been on "media tours" of Afghanistan and claims that we are winning.

Hard to tell from all the conflicting reports. I personally think that despite our best efforts, we are losing ground and I expect a real measure will be able to be had if the spring offensive that NATO claim the Taliban are planning, comes about.

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:44 PM
I dont think we can ever win there,unless the goverment installed shares a lot of the gas wealth to the people.Or buy all of the opium there and sell it all on the medical market.If the standard of living rises then perhaps the extreme tallibans hold will wither and die.

Ross Kemp recently spent a few months there with a film crew in the thick of it with the British army.Sure we can bomb the hell out of any talliban we engage but the trouble is we dont realy know who our friends are out there!

Have to feel sorry for our boys and girls out there,it must be a nghtmare to operate in the harsh conditions against an enemy that can vanish and blend into the local population

I can understand many NATO forces not wanting to touch this issue with a barge pole

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 04:55 PM
this link has a nice little graphic showing the lead nation regional commands and how many troops they are contributing. Does america expect other EU Nato states to be matching the UK?

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 06:49 PM
Then we get people like this, Lee Windsor, who has been on "media tours" of Afghanistan and claims that we are winning.

You are right it is hard to tell with all the conflicting reports. However you assessment of Dr Windsor’s understanding of the Afghanistan mission impact in inaccurate. Dr Windsor is a highly critical thinker who has not been on some media tour. He has spent more than 18 months in his research including spending time with the troops from 2RCR in their training. He has a strong cultural understanding of the issues involved. He has been personally following the Afghanistan mission since 2001.I am looking forward to the book that is currently in the works by the Gregg centre on War and Society UNB.

top topics


log in