Brown: NATO prepared to send 5000 more troops to Afghanistan

by albertacowpoke | November 13, 2009 at 04:23 am

119 views | 42 Recommendations | 15 comments

It has now been 11 weeks since General Stanley McChrystal submitted his report and recommendations for a troop surge to the White House.

President Obama has had at least five meetings with his National Security Council and has rejected the options presented to him. He has tasked the NSC to come up with more options that include governance and an exit strategy.

While the Joint Chiefs support General McChrystal's recommendation, both James Jones, National Security Advisor, and Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan have voiced concern with such an increase.

Prime Minister Gorden Brown has stated that NATO countries might send and addtional 5000 troops to Afghanistan. The UK had already pledged an additional 500 troops to Hellmand Province.

The German Defence Minister Karl zu Gutenberg announced that Germany is prepared to send an additonal 100 troops into the Kunduz region. The Kunduz region has been relatively stable but has seen an upsurge in insurgent activity lately. Kunduz was also the region where NATO attacked two fuel tankers killing several civilians.

Nation building and reconstructing Afghanistan is particularly important in the heavily Taliban controlled provinces of Kandahar and Hellmand.

The strategy, that has been in effect since 2006, envisages an approach of providing a secure environment for diplomacy and development to take place. This task has been left to the military to this point, with some success. The military, however can't do it all. General McChrystal is merely requesting the additional troops to support this strategy.

The troop surge is needed to provide that safe environment to allow diplomats and government and non-government aid agencies to move in and provide Afghan's the resources to rebuild their country.

Whether or not this is a worthwhile effort, I leave to the reader to decide, however, anything short of this endeavour should be a trigger for NATO to withdraw from Afghanistan.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Friday that NATO countries might send 5,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

Speaking during an interview with the BBC, Brown acknowledged that Britain must "adjust our approach" as casualties rise.

Brown's comments indicate that NATO seems to be willing to contribute more to Afghanistan at the same time that U.S. President Barack Obama considers whether to increase the size of the American military presence there.

Brown said the U.S. and the U.K. "need our other NATO allies to help" and that "we could probably get another 5,000 forces into Afghanistan."

The comments from the U.K. prime minister came on the same day that German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who is in Afghanistan visiting troops, said that Germany will send another 100 soldiers to Afghanistan in January.

Germany will send the troops to northern Afghanistan, where most of its 4,000 soldiers in the country are posted.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Paschen

at 06:15 on November 13th, 2009

I am not certain this will help. I think the opposite may be the case here.

albertacowpoke

at 06:20 on November 13th, 2009

Canadian troops will be out by 2011, the Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay was pretty clear on that today. He said there was no difference in reading the situation between him and he Chief of Defence. Canada however will continue to assist in the reconstruction and development process.

Roy C

at 08:11 on November 13th, 2009

NATO countries combined population is about 350 million, but I am using figures from ten years ago. With the new countries in NATO, it is much higher.

Now, how does it come to be that we don't have equal numbers of troops in these theaters of war when we have both been targets of Al Qada?

You and I have talked, ACP, about isolationism. I don't believe in it and I don't think Europe does but there has to be a commitment of many more troops and much more money by Europe to not see them either as effectively isolationist, with a refusal to engage the enemy outside their borders in anything but a token presence or letting the US do the heavy lifting again.

albertacowpoke

at 08:34 on November 13th, 2009

You raise a valid point Roy. I don't have the answer to that question. Besides numbers, there are also a number of European nations that have attached caveats to the use of their troops. My understanding is that when NATO initially set up ISAF in Afghanistan, they wanted to make it an all European organization. The UK was instrumental in changing that. The UN and ISAF let individual nations choose the regions that their forces would operate in. The UK, Canada, Norway, Romania, Australia, the Netherlands and the U.S. have been doing the heavy lifting in Kandahar and Hellmand provinces. For a small nation as Canada, in terms of Armed Forces, this has taken quite a toll both in terms of equipment and personnel.

The question remains, what the Strategy for Afghanistan will be which will include goals and objectives and an eventual exit strategy.

How other NATO forces are used and how many remains the domain of individual NATO countries. To this point many efforts have been undertaken by Canada the UK and the US to get a bigger involvement. Canada, for example has asked for several years for an additional infantry battalion, strategic airlift and helicopters.

The U.S. was the country that eventually provided the extra battalion in he form of U.S Marines. Canada had to fasttrack the purchase of C17 transport aircraft and Medium Lift Helicopters.

Canadian troops still believe in the mission and think that they have made a difference, but the toll of the last 7 years has been immense.

t k kidwai

at 08:27 on November 13th, 2009

Nato may send 5,000 troops to Afghanistan not to win war but to create a bigger mess for US.British troops may help Talibans to attcak US forces.Britain, which is licking her wounds like an injured dog after second world war when her all influence and concessions were usurped by US in the Middle-East ,doesn't want to loose any opportunity to put US in an embrassing situation.

Bottom line:US imperialists are arrogant and stupid;Britshers are cunning and deceitful.(recently two British soldires were expelled from Afghansitan by acceptable-to-none Hamid Karzai for funding Taliban).

YankeeJim

at 08:29 on November 13th, 2009

Let's see how this adds up:

35,000 from Obama

5,000 from NATO

= 40,000 McChrystal Troops

= Happy General

Canada comes home by 2011

As Canada goes so so the rest.

All out by 2011.

Everybody happy?

albertacowpoke

at 08:33 on November 13th, 2009

Your figures add up, see my comments after Roy's above. Thank you Jim.

a211423

at 08:50 on November 13th, 2009

I would only add that Karzai needs to step up with some actions that show he is attempting to address the corruption in his government because without credible governance no matter what is accomplished there by NGOs or other infrastructure development under the protection of the military, it is not sustainable without reliable leadership in Afghanistan. The next move is Karzai's.

Will Karzai act at this time, or let history pass him by to the detriment of his country?

albertacowpoke

at 09:07 on November 13th, 2009

If Karzai is the criteria on what should be done about Afghanistan, I think it.s time to kick the tire into the ditch. Corruption won't be eliminated with a stroke of the pen. This would be a long time endeavour. The key, to my mind, is developing trust between Governors of Provinces and the government in Kabul.

a211423

at 09:37 on November 13th, 2009

cowpoke

I agree, and to begin developing trust with the governors, he needs to show he can be trusted to have their best interests at heart and Afghanistan as a whole. If he begins by making some tough choices internally beginning with Kabul, this will begin to demonstrate his good faith to the provinces who have been alienated from the central government thus far.

albertacowpoke

at 09:59 on November 13th, 2009

Another reason they have been alienated is because NATO and as an extension the Afghan National Army has not been able to provide security. This is just one more factor in addition to the fraud uncovered during the election. Actually I think NATO is happy with the outcome of the election. It's better to work with the devil you know than the one you don't know.

The Administration, including Karl Eikenberry and General McChrystal know that Karzai is ham-stringed without security provided by NATO and or Afgan Security Forces. I think the rest is theatre for North American consumption.

t k kidwai

at 17:24 on November 13th, 2009

Alberacowpoke,you are right.Working with a devil,known and renowned,is an easy job than with a devil no one knows about.

albertacowpoke

at 17:29 on November 13th, 2009

thanks kidwai:)

Babel-Fish

at 18:08 on November 13th, 2009

500

USA 39500

Gordon Brown does not speak for Europe he has thrown in a speculation but it hints on what possibly Obama has asked Europe to pledge.

But the speculation of 35000 troops from USA is still a speculation 15000 could be more likely. Although USA has a 2,000,000 Military force 1,000,000+ grunts or so, many are deployed around the globe. Here we see media speculations that may not be possible unless Iraq is handed back. Just thinking out a loud... lol