Yup Bear, we (a lot of nations) have committed to do what is necessary in Afghanistan over the long haul. Better there than in our home countries! 

-Terry

That article is crafty.

"Canadian pullout from Afghanistan won’t harm NATO: official"

That's not a headline it's a forgone conclusion. Naturally Canadian pullout (which isn't in question) won't 'harm nato'. Is that really what the article is asking? No, it's implying there's no reason to be there at all.


Mmm no he's simply echoing what his British and American counterparts have been saying. This is a 'nothing' story.

There are a couple of misconceptions about the disagreement between the NATO countries.  Some countries entered the mission way back in '02/'03 on the condition only the 'cooler' less active provinces would be assigned to them and their roles would be not so much "non-combat" but "in the rear" to condense it. The countries who entered "without condition" naturally patrol the hotter areas/provinces and take the higher risk missions. Which is not to suggest that say French special forces or Turkish helo's aren't seeing action. (then again Im not saying they are;) )

Anyways when the mission came up for renewal in '06 it rubbed the "combat" nations the wrong way because they (i think especially Canada) expected to be given relief by someone else who would 'step up'. This was somewhat implied earlier. So the "combat nations" bitch but won't remind us of the earlier agreement, and the other nations don't want to leave but can't step up.

Lets not forget a lot (a LOT) of this has to do with journalism that from the get go has pretty much pushed incorrect information, stories that get peoples hopes up, or contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure as they wax Orson Wells about the coming "Taliban Spring Offensive" as though they were going to come streaming over the mountains like the Mongols of Ol'. When it turns out that 3 roadside bombs and 3 rockets constitutes a "offensive" they still play it like it's doomsday because they'd love nothing more.

Still to this day they play the Taliban as 'crafty' (and they're not stupid. more soldier-like than  what people generally think of in terms of an insurgent) and sneaky and fast when closer to the truth they're more like magpies to a lion. We roar, they scatter. (yes. With or without air support)





lol!
Why thank you. We have 'every right to debate it'. I am always amazed how writers can write essentially 1000 words of absolutely nothing and still get paid. That's great. Naturally we can 'debate it', and have continually done so. This is just another 'truism' statement, a "nothing" story.
 It is a key role regardless of how many troops. There are three NATO nations guarding the hottest provinces and the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan:

The USA, the UK and Canada.

Considering size of military among NATO member states what's wrong with that picture? No wonder there's a lot of casualties.

France has the second largest worldwide troop deployment and the (i think) 2nd largest military industry. Im not pointing a finger at France specifically because every nation is putting in and taking risks but that IS disproportionate. Heck it'seven disproportionate for a giant liek the US.
In a world where every friendly casualty becomes a political shot against a mission by, not 'the people' but the political opposition -- whose job it is to oppose -- many of the nations went to Afghanistan because their leadership knows how it is important beyond the USA-9/11 mass hysteria, yet they also know the mission can afford no casualties politically. After all there are only 2 ways to lose a war; fire power and will, in this case political will. This is what the opposition will always drive for.



Ahk

I didnt mean to forget anyone Terry. Especially since most everyone there is or becomes a 'believer'.




Ahk

Cass,

In the case of Australian S.A.S., they do. However, please don't blame the troops for their governments fallacies or missteps.

Kind regards
Terry

Terry, in reality though the comment may have been inappropriate in reference to the motto of the SAS as I understand it, it was more as a response to Akh's
"believer" comment. 

Who would know any better than we, perhaps even more you than I, that troops don't make the ultimate decisions related to warfare nor in the case of U.S. troops in many cases even the tactics used? 

I would suggest with the process of enlistment and the indoctrination that follows, true belief among those who are involved in combat is for most a given. Even more so with those who volunteer to be participants in special forces.  Yon, is also a primary example of such.

Then on that up close and personal level, I've had the life experience of the daily conflict of that retired "lifer" so very precious to me, who became a non-believer and the toll it took to complete his obligation, though admittedly
all that "time in" and the ability to complete those last years to obtain the earned retirement was also a factor. 

I wonder if there are others who just quietly depart their chosen careers without speaking out against those who IMO have made very bad choices?
For those who serve in militaries as a chosen career it is difficult to also face
one's own error of choice when recognizing the errors of the political decisions of leaders of a nation you've sworn an oath to protect and serve.

Certainly there is ample evidence of such departures at the top levels in the Pentagon in the U.S. as it relates to Iraq as general after general retires and then speaks out, in many cases prior to the time frame they might have been expected to.

Perhaps a better question here might have been, Can we, by the continued occupation, ever create a stable and peaceful nation in Afghanistan?

Cass,

To answer your last query, I would say we are not there to create a stable and peaceful nation, but to create the conditions that would allow such.


Kind regards
Terry

Apology to both fascinating posters. While I may appear as a hit and run one, I do have other life responsibilities and am departing.  Akh, I'll leave you with this
one, perhaps for your amusement?  We "relativists" often see truth as being only in the eye of the beholder.

Afghanistan is already half in peace.

I read today that in Brazil half a million poeple have been shot dead in the last decade, yet no one is saying that Brazil is at war.

There is no need to dramatize. The solution is to cut off the drug links, the "Taliban Connection", as much as possible.