NATO seeks 2,000 troops in Afghanistan

[maddezmom]

WARSAW, Poland - NATO is seeking an additional 2,000 troops to bolster its force in Afghanistan amid increasing insurgent violence, a spokesman said Friday in Warsaw, where the alliance's defense chiefs were meeting.

NATO's top military commander, Gen. James L. Jones, on Thursday called on the 26 member nations to provide more troops for Afghanistan, which is facing its deadliest spate of violence since the Taliban regime was ousted in a U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

NATO spokesman Col. Brett Boudreau told The Associated Press the shortfall was for "2,000-plus" troops.

In a telephone interview ahead of the opening of the two-day conference, Boudreau said the defense chiefs were well aware of the demand for extra troops as the NATO forces engage in increasingly intense ground combat with the Taliban.

more;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_re_as/nato_afghanistan

[Dhalgren]

1. The article said that NATO and the US combined has over

40,000 troops in Afghanistan. An additional 2000 seems fairly paltry, unless they are for casualty replacement. If that is the case, we are not getting all of the news. It could be, however, that the 2000 new troops may be for some specific duty that they just aren't divulging - again, lack of news... :shrug:

[maddezmom]

2. here's another article:Afghanistan deadlier for coalition troops than Iraq

NATO soldiers fighting in Afghanistan face a higher risk of being killed than the U.S.-led international forces that invaded Iraq in 2003, a British statistician says.

~snip~


The analysis shows that troops are fighting one of the fiercest campaigns since the Bush administration's 'war on terror' began in 2001," Bird says in an extract from the article that was published early on the magazine's website.

Officials don't give 'true picture' of deaths

More than 18,500 troops from 37 nations make up NATO's deployment in Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which took over control of the coalition forces in the summer from the United States. The United States also has about 15,000 soldiers in the country.

more:http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/07/soldiers-statistics.html

[legin]

3. I think in may be that Afghanistan

is where the gap between reality and the propaganda is the widest.

1. Whilst most people have a fair idea about how many troops there are in Iraq, I've been trying quite hard to find out how many there are in Afghanistan and I'm still not quite sure. The effing media always split the figure up. The figure I sort of got is 30,000 - 35,000.

2. the reason for this is probably:

Recomended figure for counter-insurgeny/pacification operations = 20 security / 1000 population.
Population = 27 million, therefore troops needed = 540,000.

Number of occupying troops during Soviet invaison: started with 80,000 and went up to 110,000.
The article I read on the internet said they would not have been sucessful with three times that amount.

Recomended figure for policing peaceful stable areas like u.s./britain etc. = 2 secrity / 1000 population.

Afganistan, ruled by warlords, recovering from soviet invasison, used to be ruled by the Taliban, home of the opium poppy for the entire planet, gets about 1.3 security / 1000 population.

It's a joke.

[Dhalgren]

4. What, though, is the point of the "joke"?

I can kind of understand not calling US troops "NATO" troops, it's a lie, but if you split the numbers it sounds like less; but I don't get the down-playing of the Afghanistan seriousness. What would be the motives?

[legin]

5. Dificult question

I think it is just lack of troops.

e.g.
britain seems to have given Afghaistan to run.

Troops needed in Afghanistan equals 540,000,

plus 3 to 1 rotation (rest, recuperation, training, etc)

So 1.5 million troops needed.

Current british soldiers total = 100,000

therefore conscription needed.

My guess, this force currently in place is enough troops to con the general population that they are doing something in Afghanistan, even if they are not.

[Imagevision]

6. As Coulter boasts of things going swimingly in Afgan...

[Lisa]

7. I remember when war critics were derided for saying it would get nasty ...

... in Afghanistan, back in late 2001 and 2002. Central Asian experts were talking about how much conflict the country had experienced, going back centuries, and how even the British Empire and the Soviets had bogged down there. And when the coalition had sent troops into a few areas and dropped some bombs (some of which killed civilians and even their own soldiers), the right-wingers were gloating about how "easy" it had been, and what a bunch of useless worrywarts the peaceniks were. I'm in Canada, and the now-governing Conservatives were doing that, all over the airwaves. The top brass were bragging about how it was just "mopping up", and things were going so well because "young girls are going to school". Never mind the misgivings of aid groups and those monitoring the political situation.

They moved our troops into the south of the country, and changed their mission -- and the number of Canadian casualties has grown steadily since then.

A few days ago, on the news, one pro-war guy was complaining about the news coverage given to the returning coffins. Well ... in general, those in agreement with him had been complaining for decades about how "Canadians are ungrateful to the military" (this despite record turnouts at Remembrance Day ceremonies), and "military families don't get any respect for their sacrifices". If they're going to turn around now and start blaming people for being concerned about what appears to be poor planning (situation getting out of control), or avoidable casualties (another friendly fire death and injuries) -- I could say, "you can't have it both ways", but why should they start listening now?