NATO adds U.S. troops for Afghan mission

[frigidmagi]

Yahoo

PORTOROZ, Slovenia -
NATO decided Thursday to take control of military operations across all of
Afghanistan in what U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hailed as a "bold step forward."

As many as 12,000 additional American troops will be put under foreign battlefield command. That could be the most since World War II, U.S. officials said.

The move is expected to take place in the next few weeks, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said.

The largest number of U.S. troops ever under the control of foreign battlefield commanders was about 300,000 during World War I, said military officials traveling with Rumsfeld to the NATO meeting.

It was not clear how many troops were under foreign command during World War II. A U.S. officer, Gen. James L. Jones, is in charge of the overall NATO force, but the new arrangement would put the U.S. troops under foreign commanders on the battlefield.

The ministers also agreed to provide substantial amounts of military equipment for the Afghan army.

"There were in rough numbers thousands of weapons offered up, and I believe probably millions of rounds of ammunition," Rumsfeld told reporters.

Rumsfeld said at a press conference that some countries had stepped forward in response to appeals from NATO commanders for as many as 2,500 more troops to join the operation against the Taliban in the south. But he said more were still needed. He declined to say which countries had made offers.

NATO-led troops took command of the southern portion of Afghanistan just two months ago and have been struggling to stem the escalating violence there. This plan would extend their control to the eastern section, which U.S. troops now command.

NATO's takeover of the eastern section had been expected later this fall, and it would switch at least 10,000 American troops from U.S. command to NATO control — specifically British Lt. Gen. David Richards. Currently about 2,000 U.S. troops are serving under NATO commanders in other portions of Afghanistan.

In opening remarks, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer indicated that commitments for troops and equipment for Afghanistan would be a main goal of the meeting.

According to a senior U.S. official, Afghanistan had compiled a list of needed equipment, from helicopters and vehicles to armor and guns, and officials will set up a program to coordinate the donations. This information was passed on to the 26 NATO defense ministers at the meeting.

NATO countries recently have been slow to meet needs for more coalition forces for the alliance in Afghanistan, where violence has surged. Jones, who also heads the U.S. European Command, asked other nations this month for about 2,500 troops and other equipment, and said last week that some had come through.

Currently there are about 20,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan and an additional 21,000 from the United States.

Under the expected equipment deal, allies will be able to coordinate and donate supplies to the Afghan National Army. The official could not estimate how much equipment was included on Afghanistan's wish list.

I'm happy about this...And I'm not. I'm glad that NATO has decided to add more troops, I'm not that thrilled about the idea of US troops serving under German, Belguim or other such national commanders. Yes, a big part of it is nationalist, I don't like the idea of serving under anyone expect another American, I imagine other nations feel the same way (prefering to have their own in command I mean). Another part however, is professional. Germany for example... I'm not trying to slander anyone, but they don't fight anymore. They have great gear, decent training but the German army as a whole seems to have forgotten how to fight. The Belguim army is another example, one officer stated quiet bluntly that he didn't believe that the mission of his military was to fight. That's not someone I want to serve under, I rather serve under a Brit, a Canadain or God help me a Dutch (no offense to Holland, but not excaltly a military powerhouse, compenent you are however.) It is also slightly annoying to me seeing as the US has the most troops there and has the most troops in the combat zone. I understand why it is done and I don't oppose it, as long as we're still fighting to win.

[Batman]

They have great gear, decent training but the German army as a whole seems to have forgotten how to fight.

Not to say you are wrong (I have no idea one way or the other) but what leads you to that conclusion? There is the obvious lack of having fought so there's certainly a lack of experience but that is true for pretty much ANY european army except the brits, so I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this.

[frigidmagi]

You may remember Germen peacekeepers being deployed to Bosnia. In one small town they were deployed in to keep the peace, there was riot. These folks were not armed with heavy weapons, meanwhile the Germens are armed with all the usual military weaponry and gear you expect. Instead of breaking the riot and preventing people from being beatened to death. They locked themselves in their barricks.

I can tell you bluntly right now you don't have to outnumber rioters to break a riot. In fact you can be outnumbered on the odds of 10 to 1. A riot by it's very nature is panicky, leaderless, unorganized and prone to rapid shifts in moral. It does not even take lethal force. I was trained with other troops to break riots without firing a shot, the goal is not to shoot, that brings the riot to fever pitch and can cause frenzy, which is not panicky or prone to rapid shifts in moral. What is needed is displince, courage, good leadership and a willingness to stay in tight formation and confront the rioters no matter what. The Germans didn't have that, they hid, people died. They failed in their mission as peacekeepers.

This is only the most graphic example I can drege up from memory.

Then there's the fact that German leadership refuses point blank to go to South Afghanistan.

I don't say these things to insult or belittle anyone, there are Germans with courage and intergity. There are damn good reasons for German dislike of violence and paificism. I am aware of this. The fact remains however that in the modern times the German army consistencly fails in the only test of a military that matters. Fighting.