NATO agrees new Afghan expansion despite insurgency

[Ghost Dog]

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060928150553.zvldtltm.html

PORTOROZ, Slovenia (AFP) - NATO has agreed to expand its military operations into eastern Afghanistan, even as it struggles to find troops to hold off a dogged Taliban-led insurgency in the volatile south.

Thursday's agreement, reached by alliance ambassadors, would see some 10,000 US troops come under NATO control within Afghanistan's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) by the end of the year.

It would put ISAF in control of international operations across the country, boosting its numbers to more than 30,000 troops from some 37 nations.

"The formal decision to move to the fourth and final stage of deployment for the International Security Assistance Force (NATO-led ISAF) was taken without any particular problems," a diplomat said.

Defence ministers of the 26 alliance nations were expected to formally announce the decision at their meeting Thursday in the Slovenian coastal town of Portoroz.

/more...

The article's a bit confusing (of course). 'Stage 4' seems to involve not only NATO 'taming' Southern Afghanistan and mving to the South-East, but also, now, putting 10,000 US forces under (British) NATO command. Equipment and other logistics, it appears, are still expected to come from some largely unspecified European countries...

[thereismore]

1. Europeans will eventually get Osama in Eastern Afg. nt

[Ghost Dog]

2. Reuters version:

NATO agrees fast takeover for Afghan peacekeeping
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-28T185956Z_01_L28607059_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-NATO-TAKEOVER.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2

PORTOROZ, Slovenia (Reuters) - NATO agreed on Thursday to take command of peacekeeping across all of insurgency-hit Afghanistan next month after the United States pledged to transfer an extra 12,000 troops to its force. Pentagon officials said the transfer of troops currently in Afghanistan's eastern region would entail the biggest deployment of U.S. troops under foreign command since World War Two.

The accord came as European nations failed to plug all troop shortfalls identified by commanders battling a fierce Taliban insurgency, and will mean the United States providing 14,000 of some 32,000 NATO troops that will be under British command.

"I am grateful that the United States has decided to bring its forces under ISAF," Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters after a NATO meeting in Slovenia, referring to NATO's International Security Assistance Force. "It should not be used as an argument that we can now rest on our laurels," he added, urging other allies to come forward with extra troops for the more dangerous south.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it was "perfectly understandable" if other NATO allies restricted where their troops could operate, but added it undermined NATO's flexibility on the ground. "The aggregation of that is the situation that's really not acceptable," he told a news conference. "I believe a little more progress was made today and we'll just have to keep working on it."

/plenty more...

ed: Takeover? What takeover? The US is supplying 'fresh' troops to the NATO operation, is all...

[Ghost Dog]

3. The (other) bottom line:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-28T185956Z_01_L28607059_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-NATO-TAKEOVER.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2

<snip>

Germany, whose parliament on Thursday agreed to extend for another year the mandate of its 3,000-strong mission in the relatively calm north of Afghanistan, once again declined at the talks to send any troops to the south.

Other large western European nations including France, Italy and Spain have all refused to send troops to the region, saying their armed forces are at full stretch elsewhere.

Poland has offered 1,000 troops to be deployed by next February, and Romania is expected to offer a similar number. Bulgarian Defense Minister Veselin Bliznakov told Reuters it could take a decision to send more troops in October.

Alliance sources said Canada, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Slovakia declared intentions to commit extra forces at some point but did not say how many more troops such offers would add.

/...

[Bragi]

4. Wait a minute...

I thought the Bush administration had a policy of not putting its troops under the command of another country, even if it is done via a multinational organization or pact, such as the UN, or NATO, etc.

Was I wrong about this? If not, why has the US now agreed to let generals from other nations command US troops who are part of, but not leading, a multinational force?

- B

[Ghost Dog]

5. Yes, exactly. They've had to back down.

... And Rummy looks pissed:



And also: http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060928150553.zvldtltm.html

"...But a senior US official played down expectations that the defence ministers would meet all the targets.

"I think we'll probably have more holes but we are hopeful the meeting will provide energy and focus to keep going with that," said the official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity.

"Some of the things that have been difficult -- air mobility, helicopters -- if you look around allied inventories, people are very, very stretched with other missions around the world," the official said.

The Taliban, ousted by the US-led military coalition in late 2001 for harbouring Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, has been backed by allies among drug runners and fighters loyal to local warlords..."

[Supersedeas]

6. thought Pubbies had a prob with Euro control of US soldiers...integrity

check --