Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Wants More NATO Help in Afghanistan(and recruit able new members)
KNX1070 ^ | 11/22/06

Posted on 11/23/2006 9:17:57 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster

President Wants More NATO Help in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Reuters) -- President Bush plans to urge NATO members to send more troops to contain increasing violence in Afghanistan and remove restrictions on soldiers already there, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Bush travels next week to the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, where the rising Taliban insurgency was expected to be a top issue.

NATO has about 31,000 soldiers in Afghanistan but some member nations have placed restrictions on what they may do, upsetting the United States, Britain and Canada, who complain their soldiers are doing most of the fighting in places like violent southern Afghanistan.

''If NATO is to be successful and to continue to complete this mission, obviously it will need enough troops and the right kinds of troops to be able to do the mission and it will need troops in the right places,'' said Judy Ansley, an official with the White House National Security Council.

''You can expect that there will be a discussion about the need for some flexibility in where troops are, for an increase in the number of troops, maybe a decrease in some of the restrictions on troops that are currently there,'' Ansley added.

Fighting in Afghanistan this year has been the worst since U.S. and British-led forces ousted the Islamist Taliban five years ago after the Sept. 11 attacks. The hard-line Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.

NATO's top commander said in October the alliance did not have enough soldiers in Afghanistan to secure a victory over Taliban fighters in the coming months. In the short-term, NATO is looking for another 1,500 soldiers.

Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry declined to predict if the United States would eventually have to expand its own force of 23,000 troops in Afghanistan to deal with the resurgent Taliban.

''I think it will be best at this point to wait and see what NATO is able to provide,'' he said at a news briefing with the visiting Afghan defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak.

Some NATO countries have so-called caveats for their troops, such as not allowing them to operate at night or banning some from fighting altogether.

Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said that amounts to having the troops controlled by defense ministries in the home countries, rather than by NATO commanders.

''What that essentially means is that if the commander decides to redeploy troops to meet an emergency, he cannot do so quickly,'' Burns said.

Burns said the president would seek an arrangement for NATO to increase its ties with five non-member countries -- Japan, Australia, South Korea, Finland and Sweden.

Burns said the ''global partnership'' Bush is seeking at the Nov. 28-29 summit would involve having the five countries have more training sessions and meetings with NATO. They would not be asked to become full members of the alliance.

Copyright 2006 by Reuters. All Rights Reserved.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; globalpartnership; nato; taliban; troop
The recent move by U.S. to court Japan and S. Korea as new NATO partners is also reportedly related to Afghanistan problem:

U.S. to propose NATO partnership with Japan, S. Korea, Australia

A Korean-language news report from RFA suggest that U.S. may solicit help from these two countries in combating Taliban in Afghanistan.

1 posted on 11/23/2006 9:18:04 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; Jet Jaguar; AmericanInTokyo; All

OMG what going on tiger


2 posted on 11/23/2006 9:23:32 PM PST by SevenofNine ("Step aside Jefe"=Det Lennie Briscoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Afghanistan is Americas war. We don't need more foreign troops, all we need is a change in the ROA. We must pursue and destroy the enemy and not let them find sanctuary. Massively bomb their bases whether they are across the Pakistan border or not. We should have learned from Vietnam that you cannot permit the enemy to find sanctuary just by crossing a political border. This is war and must be fought as one.
3 posted on 11/23/2006 10:02:37 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
This is war and must be fought as one

Well said! It's a direct result of the problems we're facing in Iraq.

http://www.cafenetamerica.com

4 posted on 11/23/2006 10:47:59 PM PST by MaineVoter2002 (www.cafenetamerica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

You know, Nato sits there and accuses the U.S of crimes, yet they're the ones committing actual crimes by refusing to help those who are oppressed- We're doing all we can with our soldiers risking their lives every day & Nato & U.N don't hardly lift a finger to help! I'm guessing maybe there should be a coup against the U.N- Overthrwo the worthless unit & start anew with less racist nations. We've declared nations as axis of evil, but we still allow them to be part of a governing world body? http://sacredscoop.com


5 posted on 11/24/2006 9:02:16 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson