NATO’s War in Afghanistan
Reuters is reporting that NATO is in Afghanistan for “the long haul.”
The lede:
NATO pledged on Wednesday to stay in Afghanistan for the long haul to restore peace and stability there, after a summit where nations offered some concessions to improve the mobility of troops battling Taliban insurgents.
Alliance leaders also reversed policy on Serbia and Bosnia by offering them a first step toward NATO membership, despite concerns over war criminals still at large, and said other Balkan nations could expect entry invitations in 2008.
“We are committed to an enduring role to support the Afghan authorities, in cooperation with other international actors,” the 26 leaders of the military alliance declared in a joint statement after talks in the Latvian capital Riga.
Since early last summer, the Taliban and its remaining Al Qaeda allies have been testing the NATO force. The Taliban wanted to inflict at least one casualty-heavy defeat on a NATO ally, and then magnify that in the media. The Talibs goal: a “Spanish-style” withdrawal from Afghanistan by a NATO nation.
The Taliban has failed –and failed miserably.
NATO’s leaders note the continuing coordination problems between the military and “civilian” developmental aid agencies:
NATO leaders called for improvements in the often haphazard coordination with other international players in Afghanistan such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the European Union, and backed a French idea for an Afghan “contact group”.
The development organizations all play critical roles — but effective “unified action” in the field (coordinating military and civilian components of power) is tough to achieve.
There are still many operational issues NATO has not resolved. The most significant is the multiple “rules of engagement” (ROEs). Different NATO contingents have different rules covering the use of force. That’s bad for several reasons. Nations with “robust” ROEs (like the US, Britain and Canada) will end up with the toughest missions (those most likely involving combat). That is not burden sharing, folks. Paradoxically, in certain situations contingents with “less robust” ROEs may increase their level of risk because they are less prepared or slower to react to a threat. (NOTE: All NATO nations in Afghanistan permit self-defense — and on the ground commanders usually give “self defense” a very broad interpretation.) Likewise, restricting national contingents to certain areas greatly limits the operational commander’s option. The Reuters story says that Germany, Italy, and France will permit the deployment of their troops outside their assigned zones only in an emergency situation. That needs to change.
The Reuters story added that Canada is increasing its troop strength
As a veteran of a few UN led relief/peacekeeping missions, I suspect that one of the reasons the nonprofits appear to have haphazard coordination is that NATO actually coordinates and operates in a systematic manner, whereas the nonprofits are used to operating in the UN dominated relief sphere, which operates, if at all, in a haphazard and poorly coordinated manner. I’m not sure if you could form an effective and efficient central coordinating body that imposes something like uniform coordination and communications standards on what is ultimately a volunteer effort, but if you could do so, it might help a bit. Thoughts? ED NOTE: Read my Creators column of three or four weeks ago on “unified action.” It’s the one about lunch with Donald Rumsfeld. Here’s a link. Lack of coordination is a continuing problem.
Comment by Al Maviva — 11/29/2006 @ 9:16 am
You might want to check this out ———- Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai. Pakistan’s foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops. Western ministers have been stunned. “Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban,” said one Western official who met the minister recently. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/wafghan29.xml
Comment by grayp — 11/29/2006 @ 10:31 am
Of course, if one reads enemy propaganda, er the MSM, Afghanistan will be back under Taliban control the day after tomorrow at the latest.
Comment by Rich — 11/29/2006 @ 11:11 am
The Mideast, 221 (November 29, 2006) — Sadr Walks Out of Iraqi Government Over Bush-Maliki Summit… According to Reuters, NATO is in “for the long haul” concerning Afghanistan. However, Austin Bay notes that members with “robust” Rules of Engagement tend to haul the combat burden more than others. Chaos, tyranny, and fledgling democracies in the…
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 11/29/2006 @ 11:22 am
NATO in Afghanistan… The most of the alliance seems determined to carry the ball over the goal line, but several of the bigger members appear to be getting cold feet. Canada, Bulgaria, Spain and (aspirant) Macedonia are all pledging more troops, all Germany, France and……
Trackback by Dawnsblood — 11/29/2006 @ 5:16 pm
The NATO meeting ended with the Kermies surrendering (almost) and the Germans refusing to fight. Why am I not surprised?
Comment by AF Dad — 11/29/2006 @ 7:07 pm
¿POR QUÉ se han estado complicando las cosas en Af…… …
Trackback by Barcepundit — 12/1/2006 @ 3:58 am