RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161186,00.html It is time for more NATO contingents to step in and provide some relief for the units that have borne the brunt of the battle in A'Stan. If they remain unwilling to accept a more challenging role, then they should at least be considering supplying aircraft assets to the mission.
Let Gates send as many letters to the German ministry of defense as he likes - it's the German people that have to be convinced, not the politicians. A government is supposed to follow the will of the people, and if the people say "no" - however reasonable or short-sighted that might be - it has to be accepted.
Originally posted by 42317: Let Gates send as many letters to the German ministry of defense as he likes - it's the German people that have to be convinced, not the politicians. A government is supposed to follow the will of the people, and if the people say "no" - however reasonable or short-sighted that might be - it has to be accepted.
yea ha ha ha that wasnt the case for germany in the 1930s and 40s huh.... or was it???
One of the problems with Afghanistan has been the on-going struggle to find some effective armor that can handle all the challenges of the terrain.
The Germans have some promising developments on line that they might like to field-test. Getting German personnel and equipment in combat in meaningful numbers might be problematic. Angela doesn't have the war-waging 'powers' that other leaders have been 'given'.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: popsiq,
Apart from the natural desire of every professional soldier to personally experience combat, there is no legitimate reason for NATO soldiers and airmen to be in Afghanistan. One of the basic purposes of NATO is to commit every member to come to the defense of every other. The United States was the target of sabotage by stateless terrorists, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia. To argue that the United States was "attacked by Afghanistan" was a very big stretch.
Secondly, NATO was told that this would be a "peacekeeping" mission in support of "nationbuilding". I'd say that NATO members were misled -perhaps unintentionally- by the USA. By staying in the relatively quiet northern part of Afghanistan, NATO is sticking with the original intent of its mission.
This is not NATO's war. Never was! What should have been a sharp, aggressive and violent Military expedition by the U.S. military to destroy Al Qaida bases and credibility -followed by an equally swift withdrawal- has become an imperialist venture of conquest, subjugation, and occupation. This should not have been "our war" either.
AGBrina, a return to Taliban rule would be unacceptable. We could not in good conscience allow that to happen. They harbored Al Qaeda, but they also stoned adulterers to death, beat people for immodesty, etc.
Yes, and the mostly arab terrorists that were legitimate targets were then protected by the ruling gov't of A-stan, the Taliban. ever since A-stan has been about ongoing anti-terror ops/nation building. So you're right. Technically it is a matter for the Useless Nations, not the Need American Troops Over here.
Many are super intelligent when it comes to following their versions of the Geneva convention, but yet somewhat troubled when it comes to reading the treaty of NATO. If one nation is attacked, all alliance members are attacked. After 911, NATO secretary was one of the first callers on the President of the United States. Much of our resources are scatter all over the world and NATO lend a helping hand by allowing us to use equipment assigned to them. At first PM Harper told his European friends that Canada would pull their troops if Europe doesn't fulfil their promises in troops and equipment. President Bush assured him of addition American Marines (3200) but wasn't sure that would satisfied his dismay with the allies. Results is Mr. Gates pressure on the Germans. But, yet 15,000 UNIFIL troops are fully equipped serving in Lebanon with six Navies off shore.
Most nations have cut their military so fine they are strapped to guard their own borders and are looking inwardly for trouble instead of foreign invasions. Might bne one reason the repprt of our Guard and Reserves are making headlines after decades of failing to receive notice.
The war in Afghanistan is a NATO battle just as much as the war in Bosnia-Herzegovenia.
Originally posted by AGBrina: Apart from the natural desire of every professional soldier to personally experience combat, there is no legitimate reason for NATO soldiers and airmen to be in Afghanistan. One of the basic purposes of NATO is to commit every member to come to the defense of every other. The United States was the target of sabotage by stateless terrorists, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia. To argue that the United States was "attacked by Afghanistan" was a very big stretch.
Secondly, NATO was told that this would be a "peacekeeping" mission in support of "nationbuilding". I'd say that NATO members were misled -perhaps unintentionally- by the USA. By staying in the relatively quiet northern part of Afghanistan, NATO is sticking with the original intent of its mission.
This is not NATO's war. Never was! What should have been a sharp, aggressive and violent Military expedition by the U.S. military to destroy Al Qaida bases and credibility -followed by an equally swift withdrawal- has become an imperialist venture of conquest, subjugation, and occupation. This should not have been "our war" either.
What planet are you from,where the he!! do you think al-quida did all of thier training from.As far as it being an "imperialist venture" I think you need to improve and update your reading selection,I think KARL MARX is out of vogue.
I totally agree, on 9/11 we were attacked but the towers were the "World Trade Towers". The tragic loss of life in that attack, although a large percentage American, there was also citizens of many countries including those of NATO.
Too many of the EO countries are not carrying their fair share in this. German does not want us to pull our troops out, economically or defensively.
-Economically they lose all those dollars or people spend.
-Defensively they would have to increase their own military and spend more of their funds instead of americans paying for.
I say pull the majority of our troops out of Gernmany and let them foot the bill for a change.
We've been out of France since the late 60's and it has not cost us anything contrary to our defense.
RETIREDANDPROUD I AGREE WITH YOU 99%.YOU SAID WE SHOULD BRING MOST OF OUR TROOPS HOME FROM GERMANY,THAT IS WERE I DISAGREE.FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WE SHOULD BRING EVERY MAN,WOMAN,TRUCK,TANK,PLANE,BOAT,GUN,APC,ECT.ECT.ECT.. WHEN WE NEED AN ALLIES HELP AND THEY DO NOT STEP UP TO THE PLATE,THEN I GUESS THEY JUST ARE NOT AN ALLY.FOR FORTY-FIVE YEARS WE PROTECTED THEM FROM THE RUSSIANS ,SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO KEEP THEM SAFE,AND THIS IS HOW THEY THANK US.NATO IS A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE AND THEY INTEND TO USE US FOR ALL WE ARE WORTH THEN DISCARD US.ITS TIME WE STOP PLAYING THIS CHARADE WITH EUROPE AND PULL OUT.
What planet are you from,where the he!! do you think al-quida did all of thier training from.As far as it being an "imperialist venture" I think you need to improve and update your reading selection,I think KARL MARX is out of vogue.
The works of Marx and Engels are not relevant to these "wars of choice"; but Lenin's masterpiece "The History of Financial Imperialism" (1907) is. I read my Lenin while serving with the Special Forces. It was "recommended reading" for counter-insurgency officers, so that we could better understand both the "why" and "how" communist-inspired insurgencie work. Since you are now retired, perhaps you should try to read it yourself, although I don't believe that you could find it in any civilian library; and I don't believe that it is currently in print.
The idea of "Stateless Terrorists" (Saboteurs) triggering a NATO-wide response was never envisioned when the U.S. created NATO in the 1950s. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo were very much European affairs, in which the United States was also reluctant to commit troops (and only until Christmas, according to our President at the time!).
The response to 9/11 certainly had to be more than a few cruise missiles. And much more than we used initially. We tried to get by with 150 Special Forces and 2000 Marines. Just as in Kosovo, we found our Army to be inept and incompetent at the beginning: unable to deploy Rangers or Airborne in sufficient strength and skill in order to do the job ourselves.
Something on the order of Panama would have been the right kind of response.
All these European Countries that have aspirations to lead the world need to realize one thing: those who would lead must first serve. So far since the Cold War ended, only the US and the UK have sacrificed the blood, sweat, and tears to make things happen. If France, Germany, and others would get down from their Ivory Towers and put boots on the ground then we wouldn't consider them "Arm-chair quarterbacks."
Originally posted by AGBrina: Apart from the natural desire of every professional soldier to personally experience combat, there is no legitimate reason for NATO soldiers and airmen to be in Afghanistan. One of the basic purposes of NATO is to commit every member to come to the defense of every other. The United States was the target of sabotage by stateless terrorists, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia. To argue that the United States was "attacked by Afghanistan" was a very big stretch.
Secondly, NATO was told that this would be a "peacekeeping" mission in support of "nationbuilding". I'd say that NATO members were misled -perhaps unintentionally- by the USA. By staying in the relatively quiet northern part of Afghanistan, NATO is sticking with the original intent of its mission.
This is not NATO's war. Never was! What should have been a sharp, aggressive and violent Military expedition by the U.S. military to destroy Al Qaida bases and credibility -followed by an equally swift withdrawal- has become an imperialist venture of conquest, subjugation, and occupation. This should not have been "our war" either.
I disagree, the whole point in liberating Afghanistan was to show that 1st World Free Nations can band together and help free a nation-state from the grips of terrorism and help rebuild it. It is a Humanitarian Gesture similar to what President Bush Sr. tried with Somalia after the First Gulf War: end famine and chaos. Unfortunately, we have failed to come to terms with the people that we have to deal with.
"Something on the order of Panama would have been the right kind of response" For this theory to apply would be depend if there was already an effective government that was already in place in Afghanistan which could resume control. As you may well know, there was no effective government other than the Taliban and its continued existance would not be tolerated by the US. We need help in Afghanistan because some people decided that taking on the Taliban wasn't enough and had to pursue another perceived threat without realizing that there were insufficient forces to take on two jobs while maintaining security commitments elsewhere.
Originally posted by Lazaro72: If I was Minister Jung. I'd tell Gates to go to hell. It's not their War PERIOD .
Then Gates would reply back to Jung saying Germany has no relevance in today's worldly affairs and to stay home, munch on some bratwurst, and wait for the tide of Islamism to sweep over their lovely Bavarian countryside. Enjoy the pork while you can!
has become an imperialist venture of conquest, subjugation, and occupation. This should not have been "our war" either.
With moronic statements like this, it appears you took your special forces training on Lenin too seriously, kind of like mob infiltrating law enforcement officers who go bad. I can almost understand left wing liberal politicians spouting such idiotic crap but for someone who honorably served in our military to even think such drivel is disheartening at best. We went to Afghanistan for one reason; elimination of the terrorist organization that viciously attacked us on 9/11/01 and the government that protected them. We only did so after giving the Taliban sufficient warning of what would happen if they did not cooperate.
To stay in order to maintain some semblance of control until a completely new government is formed and strengthened enough to take over that responsibility is not "Imperialism" it is common sense. The problems in Afghanistan go back to the vacuum formed by the Soviet destruction of order and our subsequent failure to give such assistance after their departure. You can argue all day that the situation has been mishandled, mismanaged and completely mucked up, and I would agree with you. Saying that it was “an imperialist venture of conquest, subjugation, and occupation” is total nonsense and I would expect better than political vitriol from someone of your experience.
One last thing, for any American or European to think "this is not our war", keep dreaming. The intolorance of the Islamic extremists makes it every non Muslim's war because the fanatics will not rest until ALL infidels are eliminated from the face of the Earth.
The germans are right about one thing: There's plenty of non combat stuff to be done, and much of it is in the south. They can up their contribution w/ cash, non combatant personel, or in kind benefits, such as supplies, materials, or equipment. You know, kind've like the copious financial contributions they made.. oops...pledged during GWI
I'm afraid the feeling in both Paris and Berlin is that we (the US and UK) brought the trouble in Afghanistan on ourselves when we went to play in Iraq before we'd properly secured the first target. Worse than that the Washington hawks resorted to insults when France and Germany declined to get involved in Iraq with the consequence that those two countries seem to feel disinclined to provide further "surrender monkeys" to Afghanistan. Quite apart from the diversion of men and materiel to Iraq both Washington and London rapidly lost interest in the 'Stan, indeed in hindsight the haste to impose some form of Gov't there no matter what has had distinctly negative consequences if you consider the bunch of thugs that make up much of the Afghan hierarchy.
