This isn't about individual soldiers, or their individual deaths. Everyone who goes there and fights, whether they come back or not, is a brave person. If you want to use the dead people metric, we're at 149, France is at 25 - does that mean that French soldiers in Afghanistan are six time less brave than British ones? No. What we're talking about here, is the level of commitment shown by different countries.
Concern grows over Karzai poll call Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, is facing widespread criticism over his attempt to hold early elections. more: CLICK
How I told you before, the NATO leadership has to reconsider the responsibilities of its troops and draft a new plan before talking about things like "commitment/no commitment" and "embarrassment"... Btw: If you read that statement I posted above, you will see that he spoke about "the Europeans" being a 'waste'. That must be an insult not just to the alleged "lazy" Germans & French but especially to the Brits & Dutch who are in the south (or aren't they Europeans?).
Yeah, but that statement doesn't mean anything. What does the NATO leadership have to reconsider? How does it have to reconsider it? The Yanks don't think of us as 'the Europeans'. And in this particular context, they're right. We're useful when it comes to military shit.
I told you above. If you want the Germans in the south, you have to find a new solution for the north first.
What about the Germans do both? I think that's kind of what the new American administration is getting at ...
well our troop strenghth is below average and we do work in a rather peaceful region. But then other nations are contributing even less and we are the second largest nato contributor. Well Art. 26 GG says clearly states that our army has defensive purpose only. And there we are defending germany in Kabul? Our politicians did realize that they are in a legal grey zone. That`s why at the beginning of the mission they always emphasized that this was mainly a rebuilding and reconstruction mission. And that is propably one reason why we got the area in northern Afghanistan in the first place because it as rather peaceful and we could concentrate on rebuilding. But then in the last 2 year the noth has become more and more instablee btw 60% of the germans are against us being in Afghanistan. Still I do believe that us (and the other nations) being there actually helps the afghan population.
Don't forget that it's a NATO mission caused by an attack on a NATO member. Then I'm relieved. It's not only about protecting the Afghan population (especially women) from the Taliban & El Kaida terror ... but also about preventing those animals from spreading their silly ideology around the region and from threathening the world by terrorist attacks!
This is pretty surprising: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/03/20093885411963197.html Well, then let's hope there's really some "moderate Taliban" (somehow I doubt that, though)...
Actually, I saw a programme with the British Charge d'Affaire in Afghanistan and he was pretty adamant that a lot of the mid-to-low ranks of the Taleban are fed up to the back teeth of the situation and just want to go home to their families, so whilst the label "moderate" is probably a bit off the mark, there probably are lots of people to whom the US administration could usefully talk. I actually think that will prove a vital part in achieving an eventual vindication of the western intervention in Afghanistan - the highest echelons of the Taleban are certifiable nutjobs and need to be exterminated, but there's plenty amongst the rank and file with whom we could - and should - do business.
Considering Afghanistan is much closer to Europe than the US is, you'd think Europeans would be much more interested in preventing it from going back to a terrorist haven. Many of these criminals also want to kill them, too.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/04/200944132144764492.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617478,00.html The new strategy for Afghanistan is followed by a change of the NATO head.
This offensive had been planned for a while (going back to the Bush administration). But now it is official, Afghanistan is now Obama's war. God protect him, our troops, the allied troops and (maybe most of all) the Afghans coaught in the middle.
Afghan is a very tough place to fight. Alexander the Great tried, Mongol tried, British tried and Russian tried.
Well, what shall the NATO do? Immediately leave the country and let the Taliban & El Qaida gain power again? Unfortunately there's no alternative for being successful (as tough as it appears to be). A failure of stabilizing the country would be a huge disaster not only for the Afghans but also for the whole region and maybe even the world...
The best thing NATO could do at the moment is to remove the corrupt and quiet frankly totally pointless government and take it directly under their control. The Afghani government is corrupt and void of any power whatsoever, we've been pumping money into the country for 8 years and the improvements haven't reflected the investment due to corruption and incompetence.