Nato pledges 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan

The Telegraph ^ | December 5, 2009 | Bruno Waterfield

[myknowledge]

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato Secretary General, said he had received commitments from 25 countries and details would be announced in the coming weeks.

He said he also expected more pledges to follow an international conference on Afghanistan in January.

Yesterday's meeting of Nato ministers in Brussels raised an extra 3,200 troops on top of the 3,800 soldiers pledged in the last month, including 500 from Britain and 1,000 from Italy.

It came as Hillary Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, called on the alliance to rally behind the American-led surge of troops planned in 2010.

"This is our fight, together. And we must finish it together. The US will not ask others to do what we are not prepared to do ourselves," she told Nato foreign ministers on Friday.

[myknowledge]

NATO is committing 7000 more troops to Afghanistan. What for? Even with increased manpower, the Taliban will not be completely flushed. Period.

[Welcome2thejungle]

I have heard the German troops won’t fight. And when you consider the rules of engagement, you practically need special permission just to draw your gun. Maybe they should just send in an army of social workers into the battlefield along with an army of lawyers to read captured enemy combatants their Miranda rights.

[SunkenCiv]

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato Secretary General, said he had received commitments from 25 countries... an extra 3,200 troops on top of the 3,800 soldiers pledged in the last month, including 500 from Britain and 1,000 from Italy... Hillary Clinton... called on the alliance to rally behind the American-led surge of troops planned in 2010. "This is our fight, together. And we must finish it together."

[HalfFull]

What a disaster.....

[Tulsa Ramjet]

they would, just legally can’t. There government has put so many caveats on them,...and they take a bad rap.

the govt is afraid to because if they lose a butt-load in a fire-fight, then there might be a referendum for new elections and the current govt may fall. politics.

now the dutch,...they kick ass and very few people are aware of that. so do the australians, and canadians, and we owe them a great debt in afhganistan.

[CDB]

NATO sounds like a PBS pledge drive commercial

[Gapplega]

Do we really want Deutschland to rediscover its militarism? It’s a legitimate question. I’m an American of Polish, Dutch and English ethnicity. (and I speak German, much to my grandfather’s dismay). Maybe it’s okay for the Germans to sit on the sidelines and make those wonderful cars, Leica cameras, Glashutte original watches, etc. They’re wonderful people, but they don’t need to embrace that militarism anymore.

[guitarplayer1953]

and they will not be able to engage the enemy either. They have neutered the troops.

[americanophile]

I have to say 7,000 troops is more than the standard token force. Anders Fogh Rasmussen is pro-American and seems like a stand up guy, so I'm grateful for his efforts, and for those countries willing to stand with us. It is the U.S. that was attacked from 9/11, and given our relative military strength it's no surprise that the bulk of the troops will come from us. That said, Germany and France's decision is galling as usual. I can clearly see the value of NATO to most small and emerging eastern European countries, but I have more and more trouble seeing its value for America. France as always is totally motivated by its momentary self-interest and reflexive independence and therefore is never dependable, and it's clear that Germany has become totally pacifist, so I don't see why the U.S. should be obliged to defend it. Britain remains the true star of the European show, but seems to be tiring as well as undergoing a continental/multicultural metamorphosis, so who knows how long we can count on the disappearing John Bull.

[Macgedos]

Germany,Italy,England sending 500,1000 !!

After Bo’s speech at West Point who would want to trust him when he tells the world he is going to retreat within another eighteen months, takes months to decide a decision that should have taken only days. Other countries do not trust him
and neither do we and rightly so.

[itssme]

For the actual story, breakdown, go to the military blog. www.blackfive.net. Read the blog entries and the commentary...things are never as they seem.

[MajorThomas]

Does it really matter? The taliban already is poised to win, simply because Obama has already neatly drawn up his plan for defeat. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, if the US had told our enemies we would fight for 18 months then quit, I don’t see how any of our allies would have taken us seriously after that. Furthermore, our enemies would have taken that information, as if they had succeeded in breaking our radio codes and used that information to the fullest advantage to defeat us. It’s not rocket science. When you fight to win, you win, but when you fight to lose, you don’t. Some presidents understand this simple rule, regrettably, others don’t, and it is painfully obvious that our present TOTUS, has no clue how to fight to protect the citizens of the United States, let alone it’s military forces.

[longtermmemmory]

WE ARE NATO!

Nato is going to send american soldiers to supplement american solders?

Obama is shuffling the deck chairs.