NATO needs more troops

Afghanistan Forum

NATO needs extra 2000

So it's now obvious we were lied to, the Government said the troops going to Helmand were only going to take part in reconstruction operations and to give farmers alternatives to poppy growth. It seemed a little unusual then when we sent in the Parachute regiment, sent in more commandos, kept the commandos we had there and kept all heavy artillery and air support.

British troops have lost more troops in the last 7 days than we have lost since the 2001 invasion, Canada is in the same boat and Holland is racking up the KIA numbers so maybe it's time our goverments, NATO and the UN cut the crap and admit that in 5 years we have not made a dent in the Taliban and now were are paying for it. The problems go back to the "end" of the 2001 invasion when the UK and US, French and Canadians gave themselves a pat on the back as they saw elections and a government in Kabul, the only problem was Kabul was as far as the government went. Huge parts of Afghanistan are lawless and a no go area, they are also Taliban strongholds a nice little safe haven where they can launch suicide attacks in to Kabul and possibly Pakistan if they so wish, Helmund is the largest of these provinces.

SO now we have NATO asking fro more troops proof if ever it was needed that Afghanistan has gone the way of Iraq you don't ask for more troops unless you really need them and you certainly don't ask for 2000 troops unless the whole thing is serioulsy f***ed up.
As for these troops where exactly do we get them from the UK cannot commit anymore, ditto Canada. The French have sent or are planning to send a lot of troops to Lebanon and they also have troops in the Balkans so they are stretched, the Germans said they were only ever going to commit planes and intel, the Dutch said it could send troops but only a few hundred, the other 32 have said they only agreed to take part in work that would be non combative so where in the hell are we going to find 2000 battle ready troops and what will happen to the region if we don't get them?

What exactly are the British troops doing in Afghanistan? Are we fighting Taliban or getting rid of the Herion trade? And if it is the heroin problem, then is this a job for our soldiers anyway? How come we've failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq to set up a homegrown army that can look after their own problems?

Well I think it's time that our defence secretary came out and said exactly what the mission is either we are in a combat situation or we are in a reconstruction project. The parachute regimentr and commandoes are not renowned for housebuilding and city regeneration ( quite the opposite in fact) so I think we can assume that we were if not lied to mislead by the government. Then we have the MOD who are saying there is not a problem in Afghanistan and that no more troops are needed for NATO howvere of course NATO are saying the opposite and if comes to some guy at a desk in Whitehall or the commanding officer in Helmund I know who I believe.


As for the armies well I have been critical of the Iraqi army for a long time and there are so many problems and we are failing due to a number of reason's 1. Most people don't want to be a soldier but the paycheck is attractive. 2. You have a number of armies teaching them diffrent things so you could have a British officer saying do things this way and then a few months later a US officer saying no that's wrong do it this way. 3. We are to pig headed to use the Republican guard who would make great commandos, special forces or teachers and would only need a few months traning. or 4. could be just old fashioned incompotence.