NATO To Provide More Afghanistan Troops

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 9-20-2006 | Lolita C Baldor

[blam]

NATO to Provide More Afghanistan Troops

Wednesday September 20, 2006 6:46 PM

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - After weeks of prodding, European nations have agreed to provide more troops for the alliance in Afghanistan, where violence has surged and efforts to eradicate the opium crops are floundering, NATO's top commander said Wednesday.

U.S. Gen. James L. Jones said that requests for additional military aircraft have not yet been nailed down, but he is optimistic he will get the aircraft he needs. Jones said he is still looking for a commitment to send some helicopters.

Earlier this month Jones met with other military leaders, asking for about 2,500 troops to augment NATO forces in Afghanistan. On Wednesday, he said that Romania has agreed to send a battalion in October, and the United Kingdom and Canada are adding to their forces. Poland had previously said it would send a battalion and some special operations forces in January.

Those agreements, Jones said, would nearly meet the full troop requirements. There are currently about 20,000 NATO troops there, and another 21,000 U.S. troops.

Jones offered a mixed view of progress in Afghanistan. He said officials are not making headway on the opium problem, but recent military operations in the southern part of the country killed 1,000-1,500 Taliban, and forced others to retreat.

Violence has increased in the south because it is the center of the drug trade and the home of the Taliban, he said.

[Boreas]

Here's some old news (September 11) that I haven't seen outside Canada yet (one of the links should get past the paper's registration requirement):

Leopard tanks and more Canadian troops for Afghanistan

Leopard tanks and more Canadian troops

[DontBelieveAugPolls]

I am not sure they need heavy slow moving armour. Of course they will be more safe from IEDs.

More helicopter guns ships would be helpful. Light armoured high seed vehicles would be best if not for the IEDs

Fact:

The USSR has won the Afghan war by 1985. The Afghans had nothing that could bring down the Hind helicoprt gunships. The war was over. They were getting chewed up the the Soviets

Then the CIA shipped stingers to the mujahadeen and the war turned. Without the stingers, the USSR would have won.

[MinorityRepublican]

The Europeans won't do any fighting, they'll just stand at their garrison, except for the British and Canadian Troops, both who are currently helping US troops to eradicate terrorists in Afghanistan.

[Boreas]

I am not sure they need heavy slow moving armour. Of course they will be more safe from IEDs.

Agreed. On TV here, we've seen the Taliban in 2 foot wide WW1 type trenches, most uncharacteristic. Commanders see a chance to use tanks against Taliban in trenches, hence the rush. Up until now, we've seen Canadians pouring fire into mudhuts (when you can see through the dust and flying debris). Otherwise, we wait for A-10 support. NATO is clearing out the Taliban area by area, then going in with recontruction aid and money, and attempting to wean farmers off poppy cultivation. Winning hearts and minds, as President Bush has said.