Bush's NATO support in Afghanistan tanking despite renewed focus

[KSinTX]

After years of stonewalling on Al-Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater and Sen. Joe Biden pressing Ambassador Ryan Crocker to finally admit this region poses the greater threat to U.S. security interests, NATO support for continued presence starts to crumble.

Canada rescinded its very recent threat to pull its 2,500 troops outonly after France pledged about 1,000 reinforcements. Korea politely informed the alliance that "We've just pulled our troops out of Afghanistan. I think it will be impossible to send them again." Despite a United Nations-inclusive declaration, in which 40 nations of the NATO-led peacekeeping effort affirmed "firm and shared long-term commitment" to Afghanistan, that commitment is lean judged by peacekeepers on the ground.

The problem in Afghanistan mirrors Iraq's: training and maintaining a domestic military force without having to bribe warlords in the process. In early 2002, Kabul officials announced the Afghan National Army would number 70,000 combat-ready soldiers by 2004. Instead, NATO-supplied coalition forces have grown to 70,000 and until this year, the Afghan Army's desertion rate was so high it could barely man less than half that number.

The good news? The Afghan Army reports it's built itself up to almost 70,000 soldiers.

The bad news? Now that domestic troop strengths are nearing the six-year-old estimates, the number needed to effectively fight an envigorated Taliban force, in face of a promised "Spring Offensive," now exceeds 175,000.

The Afghan army is effective at times now when it is deployed together with international forces. It is not capable of doing standalone combat operations," Barnett Rubin, Afghan specialist at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, said.

"There is no long-term plan in place for building, sustaining and equipping it <...>. At the moment it is entirely dependent on second-level appropriations from the US Congress, which is not exactly a long-term plan."

Taliban spokesman Qari Yusef Ahmadi last month said, "(The Afghan National Army) can't do anything. They have been claiming for years that they are going to have 70,000 soldiers, but our view is that these are only paid soldiers who are temporary workers. These people aren't able to fight against our mujahedin, who are fighting jihad on the basis of their faith."

On the other side of the equation, there are currently, about 70,000 coalition forces from 40 nations conducting military operations in Afghanistan under the command of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), according to reports. This number is up from the approximately 40,000 there in 2006, a significantly overlooked five-year anniversary.

The United States boasts 32,000 troops in Afghansitan-Pakistan region, with President George Bush promising even more US forces in 2009. While not disclosing a specific number, Defense Secretary Robert Gates verified the promise of a "significant number" calling it a "safe bet" regardless who wins the presidency.

With 40 countries signing onto the NATO-UN declaration of support, only 13 currently have levels force of more than 500 in the region. Britain's 7,800 troop contribution is the second largest force in country and perhaps the most immutable. Germany follows with 3,200 and Canada and Italy both over 2,000.The level of support by countries such as Luxembourg, Ireland, Austria, Singapore, Switzerland and Georgia is single-digit underwhelming. To be fair, Georgia has recently offered, but not promised, to up its contribution of a single doctor to 500 peacekeepers.

If this all sounds a little familiar, it probably should.

[tularetom]

1. You know, reagan didn't cause the USSR to collapse Afghanistan did

or more accurately getting bogged down in Afghanistan.

WTF makes bush think he can accomplish what the Soviet Union failed to do. He's bogged down in two places and he wants to attack a third. We're already going broke; regardless of anyone's motives (and bush's puppetmasters are thinking of only profits) we cannot afford this.

Are we going the way of the USSR?

[KSinTX]

2. Of course now that I've dipped into the wine ...

I can't find the numbers. But Russia was committed: something like 120,000 troops on the ground and still couldn't do what they needed to do.

[bemildred]

3. "Are we going the way of the USSR?"

Pretty much. But it's unfair to single out the USSR, a long list of empires and wannabe empires have made the same mistakes. I suggest "After the Empire" by Emmanuel Todd and "The March of Folly" by Barbara W. Tuchman if you are more interested in this subject.

[KSinTX]

4. Oh, please, no. I'm not singling out Russia for any sort of ridicule

Please understand that the lessons of history that have eveaded us throughout Southeast Asia, Iraq and pretty much anything we've done, stem from our very own Revolutionary War. We don't get it and won't. We have become "The British Empire" in our own minds. Not a winning scenario, know what I mean?

[bemildred]

5. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[KSinTX]

6. God, thanks for the hospitality! You folks here rock!!

I lived a weird little life (for a very short time) over with the Kosmonauts. Whoa, intense! Over here, life is civil (for the most part) and full of hospitality. Thank you for the wonderfully warm welcome. The wine is sort of a celebratory 100 post thing for me. My girlfriend sees no joy in any of it. Such is her life as a troglodyte.