Gates sends 'stern' letter to Germany over Afghan mission: report
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Additional Information:
US seeks troops for Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7221485.stm
US seeks troops for Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7221485.stm
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has urged Germany to send more troops to Afghanistan.
He warned that without reinforcements the Nato-led force could lose credibility in the country.
A German newspaper described Mr Gates' letter to German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung as "unusually stern", and its response equally blunt. Correspondents say the exchange comes amid growing signs of strain in the mission and in Nato as a whole.
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued both US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown with an ultimatum - that Canada will end its military mission in Afghanistan if Nato does not put more soldiers in the dangerous south of the country.
New mandate
The newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung said it was sent about 10 days ago.
It asks for Germany to consider a new mandate which could allow thousands more troops to be sent to Afghanistan with some deployed to the more dangerous south.
The Nato-led force has almost 37,000 troops in Afghanistan
Germany currently has 3,200 troops stationed in northern Afghanistan and around the capital, Kabul.
According to the current parliamentary mandate, the troops can only be sent elsewhere under exceptional circumstances.
The letter complains of a heavy burden on US troops and of a possible split in the Nato alliance.
The US has already promised to send an extra 3,000 US marines - but is urging other Nato countries including France and Germany to do more.
So far most Nato members have refused to send significant numbers to southern Afghanistan.
In a meeting with Mr Gates in Washington on Thursday, French Defence Minister Herve Morin called for a "comprehensive strategy" in Afghanistan but failed to pledge any more combat troops.
The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the US has tried to avoid a public row with Nato members.
But speaking to a senate committee a senior US diplomat stated that "we expect more from our Nato allies", adding that too few allies had combat troops fighting the insurgents in the south.
Thank you, Praxius, for informing me about this Gate's letter to Germany. Of course, I'm very much interested and really wonder, what the Germans will do. Already I heard that the government is trying to sneak combat fighters past the parliament, by saying, "we are only forbidden to have fighting units in our own land. Nothing is said about us fighting in another country"! Something along those lines, anyway. Because of the Nazi-time, Germany was never to be allowed to have a fighting army! Now they are trying to fiddle with that restriction. Most Germans are also questioning the reasons and validity of their involvement in Afghanistan. On the other hand, especially the young ones, are proud of their soldiers.
I'm eager to hear what Germany's response will be. I bet, they will oblige... Angela Merkel is a bosom-friend of Mr. Bush... she'll push for more troops, for sure.
I'm eager to hear what Germany's response will be. I bet, they will oblige... Angela Merkel is a bosom-friend of Mr. Bush... she'll push for more troops, for sure.
The thing I don't get was that it was the German Political Party who made the German Military the way it was in WWII, not the Military or Soldiers themselves.
The Nazis are no longer in power, the Allies bombed the living snot out of them, and forced German Citizens to bury the bodies of those killed in Concentration Camps..... I'm pretty sure they learned their lessons.
It's a different time/era, different government, and they're allies with us... I do not see why they require these restrictions on them anymore.
The Germans and Canadians alone had an interesting military history fighting one another in both World Wars.... I think it'd be interesting to see them actually fighting along side with one another.
From what I gathered, not much is going to happen from Germany when it comes to adding more troops, as they said the response letter was "direct and stern" which would lead me to believe they gave Gates the finger.
True... but they're still doing nothing, so it might as well be zero.
That's due to the lack of co-ordination and those countries avoiding the hot spots, which is required to make some sort of effect. Right now Canada is border-line keeping them at bay in the South, but if they had more support, more troops and helicopters to avoid IED's, then this could be more effective.
Then again.... once we switch from the LAV's and IED attacks, then we go right back to the Soviet days of Helicopters and RPGs..... lol... oh my.
Hi, Praxius;
you may recall that Dion suggested that we go across the border into Pakistan where the Talibanis congregate, regroup and train, but that brought a strong rebuttal from Musharraf.
I get the feeling NATO is getting deeper and deeper into this war that can't be won. Do we want to keep this going for decades?
In my humble opinion a negotiated settlement that includes the Taliban is about the only honorable solution to a graceful retreat.
you may recall that Dion suggested that we go across the border into Pakistan where the Talibanis congregate, regroup and train, but that brought a strong rebuttal from Musharraf.
I get the feeling NATO is getting deeper and deeper into this war that can't be won. Do we want to keep this going for decades?
In my humble opinion a negotiated settlement that includes the Taliban is about the only honorable solution to a graceful retreat.
Very defeatist of you.
Any idea what that settlement would look like in your view?
Graceful retreat...:roll:
Praxius:
When the German people found out what really happened under Hitler's rule and the devastating destruction of Germany because of that war, they themselves never wanted another war. Yes, they had learned their lesson.... "NEVER AGAIN!!!"
I am not fully clear on who ruled they could never have another fighting army. So, they have done peacekeeping and reconstruction duties mainly. I once read that they assisted the Americans with their high-tech night vision telescopes from a helicopter, to tell them where exactly the Taliban was hiding.
Also, it is the German parliament that makes all decisions with regards to their troops' deployments. There is no single ruling party but a coalition of several parties that govern together.
Germany is also still under American occupation to this day, although not in a restricted manner, but they are there in various bases, I guess for their own strategic advantage.
Yes, isn't it nice we are now partners due to NATO. Sad, the Canadians got themselves involved in that war, but as part of the English crown it was no question.
I once met a whole German contingent flying back to Germany after training north of Edmonton. I happened to be at the airport at the time and introduced myself and shook hands with one of the officers. (a great flashback to earlier times!)
Praxius, I've googled a little to find something on the fighting restrictions. It seems that now, don't know since when, the Germans are allowed to defend themselves when attacked. Because of membership in NATO, UNO and some EU pacts, they are also allowed to help an ally defend himself. There is a bit of a grey area with the situation in Afghanistan.
Actually, today the German foreign Minister Jung is giving a public speech in Berlin on his response to Gates' letter. That will already have happened, since they are six hours ahead of us. I must check news outlets and tomorrow's papers, to find out his reaction.
We shall wait and see ;-)
At the time, Germany was under a military dictatorship. Adolf Hitler had come to power with his NSDAP, something like "National Socialist German Workers Party".
When the German people found out what really happened under Hitler's rule and the devastating destruction of Germany because of that war, they themselves never wanted another war. Yes, they had learned their lesson.... "NEVER AGAIN!!!"
I am not fully clear on who ruled they could never have another fighting army. So, they have done peacekeeping and reconstruction duties mainly. I once read that they assisted the Americans with their high-tech night vision telescopes from a helicopter, to tell them where exactly the Taliban was hiding.
Also, it is the German parliament that makes all decisions with regards to their troops' deployments. There is no single ruling party but a coalition of several parties that govern together.
Germany is also still under American occupation to this day, although not in a restricted manner, but they are there in various bases, I guess for their own strategic advantage.
Yes, isn't it nice we are now partners due to NATO. Sad, the Canadians got themselves involved in that war, but as part of the English crown it was no question.
I once met a whole German contingent flying back to Germany after training north of Edmonton. I happened to be at the airport at the time and introduced myself and shook hands with one of the officers. (a great flashback to earlier times!)
Praxius, I've googled a little to find something on the fighting restrictions. It seems that now, don't know since when, the Germans are allowed to defend themselves when attacked. Because of membership in NATO, UNO and some EU pacts, they are also allowed to help an ally defend himself. There is a bit of a grey area with the situation in Afghanistan.
Actually, today the German foreign Minister Jung is giving a public speech in Berlin on his response to Gates' letter. That will already have happened, since they are six hours ahead of us. I must check news outlets and tomorrow's papers, to find out his reaction.
We shall wait and see ;-)
Last edited:
It's pretty much the only available option on the table.... of course so long as the US gets their way, this won't happen.
Apparently we don't negotiate with terrorist, even one's the US used to endorse and supply.... *tisk* what to do?
How about the entire world Gank the US and be done with it? Pretty much all the problems in the world can be traced back to some ignorant decision or policy made within the US and the numbskulls in power there, which were usually based on some form of capitalist plot for personal profit and gain for the fat cats in their seal skin & ivory mansions with moats surrounding them with oil.
They exist, I have pics
Last edited:
I believe you, Praxius.
But listen to this...
Germany said.... NO !!!! to a troop increase.Just like Gerhard Schroeder said NO to the Iraq war some years ago!
This restores my believe that they still have some good sense!!!:lol: I'm happy about their decision.
And the British are apparently going ahead with their 2000 troop removal shortly.
But listen to this...
Germany said.... NO !!!! to a troop increase.Just like Gerhard Schroeder said NO to the Iraq war some years ago!
This restores my believe that they still have some good sense!!!:lol: I'm happy about their decision.
And the British are apparently going ahead with their 2000 troop removal shortly.
Just found ...
Reader Comment by Mo
"Anyone who thinks that sending money and peace-keeping troops into a situation where there is no peace to keep, is living in La-La Land and has no grasp of reality.
Reader Comment by Mo
"Anyone who thinks that sending money and peace-keeping troops into a situation where there is no peace to keep, is living in La-La Land and has no grasp of reality.
I can see a split in NATO coming, pretty soon it will only contain the U.S., Canada and Mexico- the EU has it's own agenda and does not fear the USA.
Hello,
I cannot see such a split between the NATO partner. Basically is this the same issue between the US and Germany like in the years before. The USA wants, that the German army have to take over more military "responsebility" in the world. But this "demand" is in conflict with two German characteristics: Most of German people are more pacifistic and we have a strong peace movement who can decide parlamentary elections like this one from Gerhard Schröder as he said "no" to the Iraq war (otherwise he had lost the elections in 2002). And second, in Germany it is unpopular to invest money in the military. The German military budget is commensurate to only 1.2% of the German GDP, France and UK invests up to 3% of his GDP and the US about 5%. Thats also a controversial subject. Because thats why the German army is not reorganized for global interventions and peace keeping mission, what the US wants. In fact Germany has over 250,000 soldiers but only 10,000 or so are prepared for missions like this one in Afghanistan. This slow military transformation depends also on the low military budget.
The German point of view differs from this one. The north of Afghanistan, where the German ISAF Forces are, is dangerous too. Ok, not so dangerous like the area around Kandahar. But 26 German soldiers lost their lifes in combats with the Taliban. Thats not so much like the 78 Canadians, but we have casualties too.
So thats why I dont understand the Canadian or the US government. At the beginning of the operation in afghanistan everyone knowed, that the Taliban have many influence und followers in the south and that this mission will be dangerous. I remember that every German newspaper wrote that in this days, so I believe that this was also familar in Canada and US.
In addition to this, Germany pursue a soft strategy, with economic development and no repression in the north, while the anglo american forces pursue a hard strategy with carpet bombing of towns and much repression. It would be difficult to communicate this to the German people why German soldiers have to do it also in the south.
Nevertheless, I suppose that Germany can refuse a positioning in the south as so long as George Bush is President. But at the latest if the US have a new president we must follow the "demand" to the south.
I cannot see such a split between the NATO partner. Basically is this the same issue between the US and Germany like in the years before. The USA wants, that the German army have to take over more military "responsebility" in the world. But this "demand" is in conflict with two German characteristics: Most of German people are more pacifistic and we have a strong peace movement who can decide parlamentary elections like this one from Gerhard Schröder as he said "no" to the Iraq war (otherwise he had lost the elections in 2002). And second, in Germany it is unpopular to invest money in the military. The German military budget is commensurate to only 1.2% of the German GDP, France and UK invests up to 3% of his GDP and the US about 5%. Thats also a controversial subject. Because thats why the German army is not reorganized for global interventions and peace keeping mission, what the US wants. In fact Germany has over 250,000 soldiers but only 10,000 or so are prepared for missions like this one in Afghanistan. This slow military transformation depends also on the low military budget.
The German point of view differs from this one. The north of Afghanistan, where the German ISAF Forces are, is dangerous too. Ok, not so dangerous like the area around Kandahar. But 26 German soldiers lost their lifes in combats with the Taliban. Thats not so much like the 78 Canadians, but we have casualties too.
So thats why I dont understand the Canadian or the US government. At the beginning of the operation in afghanistan everyone knowed, that the Taliban have many influence und followers in the south and that this mission will be dangerous. I remember that every German newspaper wrote that in this days, so I believe that this was also familar in Canada and US.
In addition to this, Germany pursue a soft strategy, with economic development and no repression in the north, while the anglo american forces pursue a hard strategy with carpet bombing of towns and much repression. It would be difficult to communicate this to the German people why German soldiers have to do it also in the south.
Nevertheless, I suppose that Germany can refuse a positioning in the south as so long as George Bush is President. But at the latest if the US have a new president we must follow the "demand" to the south.
Germany is not under American occupation. There are bases with US military personnel, but they are allieds and guests. The occupation ends in 1955 with the German rearmament and the agreement in Paris between western Germany and the western powers.
Hallo, Roland!!
Ganz herzlich willkommen im Land der heulende Woelfe, grunzenden Baeren, kreischenden Adlern und lieblich tanzenden Loonen!;-) Und bitte, lauf nicht gleich wieder weg wie der data! Der war so enttaeuscht ueber die rauhe Inempfangnahme hier, und dabei ist der Mann sehr bewandert in der Politik. Ihn haetten wir gut gebrauchen koennen.
Danke, dass Du meine Angaben gleich berichtigt hast, ich bin naemlich leider schon lange nicht mehr im Bilde, was in D. so vorsich geht. So haben wir in Dir wenigstens einen echten, ortsangesessenen Fachmann! Sicherlich bist Du auch mit der allgemeinen europaeischen Politik vertraut.
So, nun habe ich hoffentlich die anderen Foristen gehoerig neugierig gemacht mit meinem Deutschschreiben!!
Wuensche Dir recht viel Spass und gute Unterhaltung, Roland!
dancing-loon
Granted and I stand corrected. Besides US, Dutch, British and our own troops, we don't usually hear much when it comes to other NATO casualties.
I think the main thing causing frustration is that there hasn't been any level of rotation of the forces, and although those areas you mentioned are still full of risk, I think some of the other troops wouldn't mind a little change up.
It was, and which was one of the reasons why Canada took it on... we're usually known for taking the difficult missions. But continually fighting there year after year without a change up or additional backup, it does start to cause a strain on any country placed in that situation.
That's mainly the US not Canada doing that. Our forces will restain from calling in air strikes unless there is no other option and they make sure civilians are not in the general area. Our forces are familiar with Afghanistan's concerns over civilian casualties at the hands of NATO, so they plan and take their time working out the proper approach.
While the US just bombs the living snot out of the entire area, killing everybody, and then blames the Taliban for using civilians as human shields, or that those civilians shouldn't have been there in the first place.... clearly an ignorant approach to the situation if you ask me.
So.... Germany is choosing not to assist other allied nations due to the fact Bush is still in power? Wouldn't it make more sense to just avoid assisting the US forces if that was the case, rather then affecting all the other allies?
True... but back on the whole NATO thing.... if Germany is more-so a passive country now and just isn't designed for offensive combat, etc. as you described, then why did they join NATO to begin with?
In fact, why did any of these other countries join? If you're not going to allow your forces to hold combat roles as equal or near par with other forces and do what is requested by the collective, then why join up to begin with?
If NATO does split, which wouldn't suprise me in the future, I'm pretty sure Canada wouldn't be one of the last to stick around.
Oh no, you misunderstood me. We dont avoid the Canadian or US forces. Today and in the past it is and was possible to demand German forces to assist our allieds in other region of Afghanistan. In the south, too. But only for a short period of time not for a permanent positioning.
And thats the issue. The US and Canada wants a permanent positioning of 3,000 additional German soldiers permament in the south, so that Germany had about 6,200 soldiers in Afghanistan. The German government is refusing this demand from Mr. Gates. Their reason are:
1) Germany has already at this time about 7,000 soldiers in permanent global positioning. The German parliament has decided mandates that allows our allieds to demand additional 9,800 German soldiers for Bosnia, Lebanon and Kosovo. To send more forces to Afghanistan could overstretch the military possibilities of Germany.
2) A real combat mission is a threat for the hole German mission in Afghanistan. The former communist party from East Germany, the peace movement, the muslim council and the christian churches could be going in opposition to the German government. The government is scared about this possibility, because they would lost many elections. And we have many elections in 2008 and in 2009 the election for the parliament.
3) Since the German reunion in 1990 the German politicans wants a permanent place and the right of veto in the UN Council. So that Germany will be accepted as a great power, besides China, France, UK, USA and Russia. But President Bush rejects this demand from the German government. Thats another reason why the German government is so loathy about US demands for additional German forces.They say: "we dont want only the cost and the risk of a global responsebility, we want to take part in global decision-making, too."
Thats only a part behind the complex of the controversial subject between Germany and the USA, why the Americans want that we pay more for military and why Germany is so reluctance in Afghanistan. It is part of complex of issues.
In this complex you have to see the end of presidentship of George W. Bush and why i said that the German goverment will follow the demand of a new president. Today George W. Bush is an unpopular, failed and weak president. It is easy to reject his demands and so to avoid the cost and risks of his demands for the German government. Besides this, president Bush is too weak to accept the German demands in global decision-making in the UN council and other international organizations.
That will change with a new, strong president. So that the German government will follow the US demands (at the latest after the German parliament elections in 2009).
When I understand you in the right way, is that a historical question.
At the beginning, western Germany joins the NATO in 1955. Thats is an important historical date for Germany, which I wrote in my posting before about the occupation of Germany.
In the time between 1949-1955, the state supporting westgerman political parties, the Christiandemocrats and the Socialdemocrats had two options, how the occupation of Germany will end:
1) The leader of the Sovietunion, Josef Stalin, offered us in 1952 the reunion of East and West Germany, if the united Germany will be a neutral and noncommitted to the NATO or the Warsaw Pact state. This political model had choosen other states like Austria and Finland before, who were member of the Axis in the Second World War.
2) The another option was the so called "integration into West". To go in the western NATO alliance structures as a decided country.
In this time the Christiandemocrats were the elected German goverment with Konrad Adenauer as the Chancellor. He decided for the second choice, the integration into West. Germany become so to the front state between east and west. Chancellor Adenauer made an agreement in Paris with the western powers, that Germany will be independent, so that the occupation of Germany ends and started a massive rearmament, so that Germany, together with his allieds, can overpower the communist armies of the east. Btw in this times, West Germany was able to mobilize and to arm about 10 Million soldiers in 8 months.
This decision from Chancellor Adenauer was hard fought. The Socialdemocrats blamed him in the German parliament as "the Chancellor of the Allieds!". In this time, that was equal to the statement "you are a high traitor on one country and foe of all Germans!".
I think Chancellor Adenauer wanted the integration into West, because he hoped that France, UK and Germany will be friends and the hostility over two centuries will end. That the so called hereditary-hostillity (in German: "Erbfeindschaft" = the foe of my ancestors will become also my foe and I will fight him to the death) ends. Thats one reason why the forerunner to European Union was born in 1957 (EAG).
I think another reason was, that he dont accepted the loss on German territory to poland and the Sovietunion. He hoped that Germany can reunited and retake this land after a victory over the Warsaw Pact.
Btw this historical role of the state supporting parties is continous to the persent. Christiandemocrats sympathize more with the USA and Socialdemocrats sympathisize more a discrete German politics (Schröders "no" to the Iraq War etc).
In present or better since 1990 after the reunion of Germany, is there a discussion "do we need the NATO?". Christiandemocrats say that we need the membership to realize the German global demands and the Socialdemocrats say that the USA are only one possible foreign partner besides Russia and the EU, with more emphasis to the EU and the US. They want to develop the EU to an own military and foreign-policy agenda as a balance weight to Russia and the USA. But this is problematical with other EU members like the UK or Poland.
Most of the German people say: "We are surrounded by friends. Why we should need a large military, the NATO or combat missions in Afghanistan? They are ok if the cost are less and dont annoying us." Most of the people set their focus on the EU and are more for an isolationistic policy, like the US in the 18th and 19th century.
So, for many Germans the NATO have more a defending character and they dont want an offensive alliance. Maybe they have contrary expectations about the NATO as you. You critisize them as passiv and non offensive (why they are joining?). It is the other expectation about our alliance. The roots of this expactions are in our different history and culture/civilization.
Germany join up the ISAF in Afghanistan, not the Operation Enduring Freedom. Thats a difference. The mission of ISAF is to establish democratic structures, rebuild the economy, to protect this reconstruction and to help-out the OEF forces if the have real problems.
Operation Enduring Freedom is an only military Operation to fight against terrorists, to find and destroy them. German forces are part of this, but their operation area is eastern Africa with Eritrea, Ethopia, Somalia, the Red Sea and the northern Indian Ocean, but not Afghanistan. Because the German government dont want from the beginning equal or near par combat roles in Afghanistan like the EOF forces. Thats why we join the ISAF in north Afghanistan. As the two Operations started was that for everybody ok, but now Germany will be criticized for that.
If NATO does split, that could result in fatal consequences in a long term. Now Europe and America have the same geopolitcial ambitions. After a split could that change in rival ambitions. No one will be profit from this situation.
Hallo, Roland;
Schock, Schock... ich bin ein "female"!!!:lol::lol:;-) Und ich bin gebuertige Deutsche, aber lebe schon viele Jahre hier in Kanada, wo ich mich jetzt zuhause fuehle.
Am very happy to be living in the best country in the whole world!
Makes sense then.... but what is considdered a short period of time?
Doesn't sound all that complex, just not informed over on this end of the spectrum. A situation not really talked about, just a lot of mention about NATO needing more troops and they make it out as though Germany is a part of NATO equally as all the other countries, therefore it seems equal to hound you guys as well as other countries.
But based on the US Contradictions (No suprise there actually) I'd say you guys are in a better position to refuse, as well as get out while you still can.
But last night I believe they anounced on the news we're getting Dutch choppers/pilots for the South.
Indeed.
Yar....
Agreed, and yet, here he is, thinking he can bring peace to the middle east.... psh... kind of an Oxymoron if you ask me.
Now with further background info, I know.
Sorta.
See, you guys always could put the boots to heads
I guess for a bit of Canadian/German Military history:
WWI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada
As well as other various battles in WWI and II, is kinda why I personally would have liked to see Germans heading down, more so then more troops from the US.... ugh. We're more prone to getting shot by them then the actual enemy.
I started to figure that reason a bit above, but makes sense.
Makes sense, two parties which fuel to the most common issues in the country. Happens everywhere, but can cause more problems then solves I found.
Deal with Canada. Just a few months ago, we were down in South America trying to make trade deals and such with many countries down there. Many of which are countries the US apparently won't touch for various reasons. We also trade and deal with Cuba, regardless of the US blockade. Our dollars worth more then the US now, we got the oils, uranium, fresh water, lumber, etc etc..... That and we have friendly customer service, what's not to like?
Quite honestly, Canada depends way too much on trade with the US, and their economy is going down the crapper and not buying anything anymore. So we're eventually going to feel it. Many businesses have already started trade in India, China, and other countries to balance it all out.... sometimes getting more profit then before.
All the countries in the world do not require the US and their grubby hands. There are plenty of us around the world to trade and deal with without needing to worry about the US and them stomping their damn feet always trying to get what they want. Sometimes killing in the process to get what they want.
Screw them.... cut all dealings, watch their country crumble and be forced to seperate into various states again and then bam... no more US meddling into everybody's lives.
But that's just me.
Not to mention the continual issues you'll have like NATO with each country in the Union devided about troop deployments.
That was Canada's mentality for the last 20 some odd years. We came from one of the strongest militaries in the world, to pretty much rock bottom in the 90's, where even peacekeeping missions were strained, our helicopters were falling out of the sky, and didn't even have the proper uniforms for some locations deployed (Forest Green in a Desert.... Wow)
But I believe, one good thing about the current government, is that they have put more money back into the military. Possibly due to the US's recent actions and volitility, with them continually invading nation after nation for bogus reasons and personal profit and resources for themselves. With the US and Russia starting to poke their noses into our Artic and looking for more oil and resources under the ice (Yeah, because more ships and refineries up there will really help the ice not melt :-? )
you maybe surrounded by friends now, but so were we, and our friends have now made our area a bit more of a target of attack. And what kind of attack remains to be seen, but I wouldn't want to be caught with my pants down.
Gotcha.
I believe we're a part of the same thing, and when you look up NATO in Afghanistan, it quickly directs you to the ISAF in Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
We were supposed to be combat for a short period of time and then focus mostly on reconstruction and training..... that apparently hasn't happened yet, and that's our issue. We offered to help in combat at first, but now we're stuck and no other nations want to rotate so we can finish the other half of our mission there, which is what is mainly in debate here in Canada. Many are complaining we're doing too much combat and not enough reconstruction, they're getting PO'd about the situation and some are wanting us to pull out now because of it, because it's not part of what we agreed to join for.
You guys made your obligations as you described above, but so did we, and we're not getting the same treatment. Apparently we're doing a great job by everyone else's point of view, and they don't want us to leave there.... but how many more years do our guys have to be out on the front lines taking the casualties while our allies sit back?
You mentioned not requiring a big military because you have allies and friends around you guys.... but what happens when your allies and friends need help? Shrug your shoulders and just say "Sorry, that's not our policy?"
Then what happens when those allies do the same thing when you need help? It is complex, isn't it?
Looking at more of the information, you guys seem like you're in it just as much as Canada is. We were not part of the original EOF either and only joined after the UN sanctioned it..... but we're fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#International_support
Perhaps, but there was also concerns over the failure of the Leaque of Nations too. The US and the EU need to have some pretty strong conflicting ideals and actions to cause such a thing. I doubt that will happen at this stage. The US is more concerned over Middle Eastern states at the moment.
Last edited: