With the apparent success of the Surge in Iraq (i.e. deaths and attacks are down to 2006 level, which, if memory serves me correctly, was the worst year in Iraq; all of which doesn't mean we are winning, we are just not losig as fast as we were), Afghanistan seems to be forgotten. (Afghanistan, for those with a short memory, is the country that gave refuge to bin Laden, who was behind 9/11.)
In the last year, the Taliban launched 140 suicide bombings, the most since the group was thrown out of power in 2001 . Attacks with mines and IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, increased 69% over the same period, according to NATO. Opium production is on the rise. An independent study co-chaired by retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Jones and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Thomas Pickering warned that a failure by the Administration of George W. Bush to obtain more international support — together with other shortfalls — could help Afghanistan become a failed state and a "forgotten war". - Time
Another part of the article points out why one country is reluctant to increase the number of troops they have there, especially if they would be under US command.
Gates' letter to Germany specifically requested up to 1,000 troops for the south together with helicopters. Within 24 hours, Germany responded with a simple rejection, although it will be sending another 250 rapid reaction troops to the north.
"After Iraq, after Abu Ghraib, after Guantanamo, it is very, very difficult for Germans to agree to put their troops under U.S. command, " says Henning Riecke, a security specialist at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin who advocates sending more German troops to Afghanistan. "Most Germans don't like the U.S. way of doing war." Germany, like many European countries, is also arguing that more emphasis be placed on reconstruction and less on combat, although some acknowledge that the two are not always separable. There has to be a peace to keep.
Further, there is discontent among other allies.
Most of Germany's 3,200 troops are, as a result, deployed in the more stable north. NATO troops in the south, including British, Dutch and Canadian forces, have taken correspondingly more casualties. Canada has lost 78 soldiers since arriving in 2002. Most of the 42 British losses have been in the south.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned last month that Canada would pull its 2,500 troops out of Afghanistan altogether by early next year if allies do not agree to send more troops to the embattled Kandahar province, which stretched Canadian troops now on patrol. "Kandahar is the center of the Taliban insurgency," he told reporters in Ottawa last month. "If NATO cannot put all the necessary troops and equipment in Kandahar province, I don't think it's ultimately going to do it anywhere."
It seems that the real war against terrorists has been shoved aside in favor of bush's war in Iraq. The question of which was the right war will be debated for a long time, but the strategy of the US in fighting both is no longer questioned. We didn't finish in Afghanistan, and the Taliban is back, and it is crystal clear now that those generals who said we'd need 3-400,000 troops in Iraq were right. Of course, the ones that said "Why there?" and advised not to go in were right, too. And, of course, like so many in recent Washington history, being right means losing your job.
Gee, maybe we could get some of the so-called Coalition of the Willing (49 nations, remember?) to send their troops to Afghanistan. We could get troops from
Oh, wait, those guys all left Iraq, most a few years ago. And Turkey, who bush always called part of the coalition, never sent anyone, nor did they allow US troops to enter Iraq from Turkey. Not to worry. Macedonia still has its 33 men there, each armed and armored with the latest in US equipment. (In fact, they got the newer body armor and the better-armored Humvees before US troops. Smart guys.)
What did Clint Eastwood call something like this in his movie about the US invasion of Grenada? A Mongolian Cluster something.
Posts: 17030 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I forgot Costa Rica in that list of Coalition members who no longer have troops in Iraq, but I'm not sure if they should be counted. Costa Rica has no military, and didn't send anybody. But they did express their best wishes for a successful invasion to bush, so I guess that counts for something, and they got listed as part of the coalition. (However, they asked that their name be taken off the list in 2004. The official number given by the administration in Washington still counts Turkey and Costa Rica, though.)
Posts: 17030 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
