NATO chief wants more troops in Afghanistan

Source: Reuters

NATO chief wants more troops in Afghanistan
Fri Aug 7, 2009 6:46am EDT
LONDON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - NATO's new secretary-general made a direct call for more troops in Afghanistan on Friday and said training of Afghan forces also needed to be escalated.

"Honestly speaking, I think we need more troops," Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister who took over as head of NATO this month, said from Kabul.

"I have seen progress in the south (of Afghanistan), not least thanks to the increase in the number of troops, so definitely the number of troops matters," he told BBC radio.

NATO has almost 65,000 troops in Afghanistan, with contributions from more than 40 countries, although around half of them are American. The United States has a further 36,000 troops operating outside the NATO umbrella.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSL7124615

according to this article we have around 68,500 troops there (half of 65,000 + 36,000). Which means all the rest of NATO is contributing 32,500 or so troops. Or less than half of what the US is putting in.

I think they could do better. It's not like they have a lot deployed in Iraq or elsewhere.

the two main nations that can contribute with more professional troops are :

the UK:

they are roughly 9000 now, but of the normally deployable force (20 000) the rest is worn out after Iraq or deployed in other missions round the world.
They have big equipment problems because a lot is obsolete or worn out. Besides the British opinion is very hostile to deployment in war zones after the Iraq "experience" and recent casualties in the Helmland province.

France :

Has an Army in good shape with a good equipment, even with stuff that matches US weaponry. Roughly 10 000 are already deployed throughout the world and in theaters that could flare rapidly up like Lebanon and Africa (Darfur). The deployment to Afghanistan will include 6 000 this year in December if you count Enduring Freedom (air support from carrier). That's why France is trying to compensate by putting the emphasis on material like attack helicopters, transport helicopters, heavy very mobile artillery (CAESAR) and drones. Besides a substantial air support is available with 3 different planes for different missions (Rafales, Mirages and Super Etendard). The opinion is hostile to the sending or more troops, but maybe not at the British level.

Remember the following facts :

The French Army and the British Army are small manpower armies compared to the US : they employ around 130 000 men and women each and not all of them are combat troops. But when you deploy 10 000 men, in reality you deploy more than the double with the rotations (every 6 months) and the necesseray reserves and eventual reinforcements. Because the non-deployed are training to replace the others, and time goes fast. Which means that if France sent 20 000 men to A-stan, it would have in reality to deploy 50 000. Which would mean pulling out of Lebanon, Kosovo and Chad. 50 000 directly or indirectly deployed is half the Army. But an increase with several thousands to A-stan is possible without stretching too much.

the Spanish are probably going to send reinforcements, Italy probably at its max with its involvement in Lebanon and Kosovo.

The other european armies besides the UK and France are conscription armies and the hostility to deployment is even bigger. The German Army is smaller than the French Army (100 000 men) but the current conditions (psychological and political) make it very difficult to deploy any numbers of professional troops in combat areas.

The other countries have smaller armies, except Poland. But a reinforcement with (all Armies counted) by 10 000 is feasible.

I think that what causes the European reticence is the lack of confidence in the US Army. Not in the ability of the US troops to fight, but in the US ability to use correct tactics and avoid collateral damage. Even with new US generals in charge, this confidence hasn't been restored. Thus the public and political "hostility".

Remember too that European troops are necessary to be deployed in theaters where the US wouldn't or couldn't deploy for political reasons like Lebanon or diverse African theaters.
And such theaters can arise any time.

with over 100 million more people, and a substantial chunk of the world economy, could contribute more than about half our contingent.

We have overseas military obligations as well: iraq of course, south korea, japan, germany, etc. We have troops stationed on every continent.

If the Europeans are unwilling to meet their military commitments that is fine, but they should state so publicly and untangle themselves from documents obligating them to act in a meaningful way.

Britain of course is the exception. They have provided far more support and troops than would be expected from a nation their size.

And if it "isn't politically expedient" to help out your ally then you aren't really allies at all.