ChatterBank0 min ago
Are the rest of NATO doing their share?
29 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=552913&in_page_i d=1770
In view of how much our troops are overstretched in Iraq (4,100) and Afghanistan (7,800), why do we need 22,500 of them sitting on their backsides in Germany?
It has also been announced that some NATO countries are not prepared to send troops into Afghanistan, but are willing to increase their support financially.
Considering our already long commitment and the number of our troops that have been killed or wounded, isn't it now time for us to withdraw our troops and make others do their share?
Or do other European countries think more of the safety of their troops than our politicians seem to think of our young lads and lasses?
In view of how much our troops are overstretched in Iraq (4,100) and Afghanistan (7,800), why do we need 22,500 of them sitting on their backsides in Germany?
It has also been announced that some NATO countries are not prepared to send troops into Afghanistan, but are willing to increase their support financially.
Considering our already long commitment and the number of our troops that have been killed or wounded, isn't it now time for us to withdraw our troops and make others do their share?
Or do other European countries think more of the safety of their troops than our politicians seem to think of our young lads and lasses?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Britain and the US invaded Afghanistan so for us to run away will look like a defeat. So instead we will fight an unwinable war for another decade or more.
the rest of the world, be they UN or NATO countries decided from the start not to be part of the folly, why should they commit young lives to clear up our mess?
the rest of the world, be they UN or NATO countries decided from the start not to be part of the folly, why should they commit young lives to clear up our mess?
NATO invaded Afghanistan with us. Unlike Iraq, it was pretty obviously a 'defensive' war.
And Afghanistan's not unwinnable. Not yet.
The thing that gets me is that we could've done a hell of a lot of good in Afghanistan (and still could), and could also beat the taliban quite happily had the USA (and the British) not overstretched themselves by going into Iraq.
And Afghanistan's not unwinnable. Not yet.
The thing that gets me is that we could've done a hell of a lot of good in Afghanistan (and still could), and could also beat the taliban quite happily had the USA (and the British) not overstretched themselves by going into Iraq.
The invaiin of Afghanistan was solely a US/UK operation as part of Bush's war on Terror. The second phase, operation Enduring Freedom did include other counties, mainly Canada. NATO were persauded to take over the ISAF role in 2003.
The stated aims were to capture Osama, remove the Taleban and destroy al-Qaeda. 7 years on and non of those objectives have been met.
it is curious to note that at the precise time that Bush wants the eurpean countries to send more troops, ex-CIA operative Osama Bin Laden releases a tape threatening Europe.
The stated aims were to capture Osama, remove the Taleban and destroy al-Qaeda. 7 years on and non of those objectives have been met.
it is curious to note that at the precise time that Bush wants the eurpean countries to send more troops, ex-CIA operative Osama Bin Laden releases a tape threatening Europe.
Sorry, Grom, you're right. My mistake.
My point still stands, though. The Taleban is beatable, and would probably be beaten if it weren't for Iraq (I'm not saying we should pull out mind). The fact is that counter-insurgencies take time. It took the British 12 years to beat the CTs, for instance. The problems relate to under-staffing, under-funding, and problems with Pakistani border controls. Not unwinnable warfare.
My point still stands, though. The Taleban is beatable, and would probably be beaten if it weren't for Iraq (I'm not saying we should pull out mind). The fact is that counter-insurgencies take time. It took the British 12 years to beat the CTs, for instance. The problems relate to under-staffing, under-funding, and problems with Pakistani border controls. Not unwinnable warfare.
No one has yet explained why we have 22,500 troops still in Germany when we are so overstretched in these two theatres of war?
Regarding chairobyx16's answer:-
ceremonial forces are of little value.
I beg to differ, in fact the Grenadier Guards, along with other Foot Guard Regiments, as well as the Household Cavalry have all served with distinction in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are crack troops, capable of taking part in the thick of the action, when they are not putting on a show for the tourists.
Regarding chairobyx16's answer:-
ceremonial forces are of little value.
I beg to differ, in fact the Grenadier Guards, along with other Foot Guard Regiments, as well as the Household Cavalry have all served with distinction in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are crack troops, capable of taking part in the thick of the action, when they are not putting on a show for the tourists.
We are paying for the Bush administration's past incompetence in Afghanistan. Clinton had realised that theUS had spawned a monster by supporting the Islamic fighters who beat the Russians but became the Talenan. Clinton isolated them and even bombed their terrorist training bases.
adifferent message was sent out by Bush who invited the Talban to Texas. Bush and his oil company friends who paid vast sums to get him elected wanted the Taleban to stablise Afghanistan so they could built an outlet to the sea for the vast fields of oil landlocked in the countries north of Afghanistan.
911 scupered those plans and Bush decided an invasion was the only way to tame the place. However, 7 years on and the Taleban are still there.
Al-Qaeda have been allowed to spread to neighbouring countries and further afield and Osama is still on the loose. Bush has publicly stated that the capture of OBL is not a priority.
if that is not a catalgue of failure, I do not know what is.
adifferent message was sent out by Bush who invited the Talban to Texas. Bush and his oil company friends who paid vast sums to get him elected wanted the Taleban to stablise Afghanistan so they could built an outlet to the sea for the vast fields of oil landlocked in the countries north of Afghanistan.
911 scupered those plans and Bush decided an invasion was the only way to tame the place. However, 7 years on and the Taleban are still there.
Al-Qaeda have been allowed to spread to neighbouring countries and further afield and Osama is still on the loose. Bush has publicly stated that the capture of OBL is not a priority.
if that is not a catalgue of failure, I do not know what is.
I'm not saying it's been a success. I was just trying to attack the idea that the war in Afghanistan is 'unwinnable'. Sure, it's been unsuccessful so far. But that doesn't mean there's no possibility for victory. Doesn't make it a likelihood, either, but it's a hell of a leap to assume the war is unwinnable.
To be honest, I've always found the 'guerilla warfare is unbeatable!' argument incredibly irksome. I thought you were going to go off on one of those.
To be honest, I've always found the 'guerilla warfare is unbeatable!' argument incredibly irksome. I thought you were going to go off on one of those.
Update: According to the Washington Post, here, both America and 'Europe' have pledged more troops.
The report says the European contributions are coming from the British, French, Poles, Romanians and Spanish. Which individually isn't much.
The report says the European contributions are coming from the British, French, Poles, Romanians and Spanish. Which individually isn't much.
Why?
On September the 11th, the USA was attacked. You can say all the crap you like about oil company conspiracies, but the fact remains that Afghanistan was a response to an attack on America (of course this claim is considerably more dubious when it comes to Iraq but try to view it in the light of the time rather than from a post-Iraq viewpoint). That's why NATO got involved.
If that's not good enough, consider the fact that Afghanistan has been in a state of on-off civil war for 30 years. It's one of the world's poorest countries. The invasion hasn't improved things, but we can at least give reconstruction a kickstart. If the Taliban are beaten, we're not only defending ourselves, we're doing the whole region a favour.
On September the 11th, the USA was attacked. You can say all the crap you like about oil company conspiracies, but the fact remains that Afghanistan was a response to an attack on America (of course this claim is considerably more dubious when it comes to Iraq but try to view it in the light of the time rather than from a post-Iraq viewpoint). That's why NATO got involved.
If that's not good enough, consider the fact that Afghanistan has been in a state of on-off civil war for 30 years. It's one of the world's poorest countries. The invasion hasn't improved things, but we can at least give reconstruction a kickstart. If the Taliban are beaten, we're not only defending ourselves, we're doing the whole region a favour.
No, I am not saying they should have seen it coming, I am saying Al-qaeda are just the foot soldiers. The people who want jihad and want to spread fundamental Islam are not in Afghanistan. They are people who pretend to be our friends, but the wealth they make from us goes to the people trying to kill us. Maybe if we want to stop Al-Qaeda we should fight its backers and not the brainwashed ilierates on the frontline in Afghanistan.
I am saying Al-qaeda are just the foot soldiers.
Be careful.
There's evidence to suggest that the Saudis funnelled money to the 9/11 hijackers (and that they've helped AQ). That's a far, far cry from being intimately involved in organising the attacks (which to my mind is what you need for your argument to work). The Taliban however not only funded AQ but also protected them. And refused to hand over Bin Laden after AQ was clearly involved with an attack on the USA.
Plus AQ draws funding from all over the place. That's not the same as those sources being the 'true threat'.
Be careful.
There's evidence to suggest that the Saudis funnelled money to the 9/11 hijackers (and that they've helped AQ). That's a far, far cry from being intimately involved in organising the attacks (which to my mind is what you need for your argument to work). The Taliban however not only funded AQ but also protected them. And refused to hand over Bin Laden after AQ was clearly involved with an attack on the USA.
Plus AQ draws funding from all over the place. That's not the same as those sources being the 'true threat'.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
News7 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
Film, Media & TV11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.