Some NATO countries have not sent combat troops. Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States are supplying the combat troops. Non-NATO member Australia is the other country supplying combat troops. There are about 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
As for Iraq...many countries didn't believe in the cause, or the intelligence, and Canada was not under any NATO obligation to intervene. I regret that they weren't with us...but then you can blame that miserable Jean Chretien. Steven Harper's conservatives wanted to participate in Iraqi Freedom.
Whatever the reason, Canada didn't join us in Iraq. The UK, Spain, Italy, and others were under no obligation to join us, but they did. Canada didn't join us in Vietnam either.
Canada's military has become a joke with just 50,000 personnel on active duty. Canada spends about 1% of its GDP on defense. And Afghanistan has weaked the military so much that the army must take a year off.
I am in no way diminishing the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, but Canada is not pulling its weight as a member of NATO generally and has allowed its military to wither and almost die. It is far easier to have the Americans shoulder the burden, both in blood and treasure.
No dispute there...it's always the U.S., U.K. and Canada. I give credit to Denmark and the Netherlands...but these are tiny countries and you know exactly who I'm referring to. NATO is a joke.
"Whatever the reason, Canada didn't join us in Iraq. The UK, Spain, Italy, and others were under no obligation to join us, but they did. Canada didn't join us in Vietnam either."
Yes, and every country you mention had conservative leaders at the time with the exception of the U.K. Leadership matters - countries don't take plebecites on whether they go to war. The Left is the Left everywhere. The U.K. didn't join us in Vietnam either though, so please, if you're going to hold that against Canada, than piss on the U.K. too huh? Of course we didn't help the U.K. in the Suez Crisis or in the Falklands...
"Canada's military has become a joke with just 50,000 personnel on active duty. Canada spends about 1% of its GDP on defense. And Afghanistan has weaked the military so much that the army must take a year off."
Canada shares a border with two NATO allies - Denmark, and the U.S., the world's only superpower...do you blame them for finding other spending priorities? Especially in light of having a population of just over 33 million people, about the same as California. If Canada with 33 million people, and 50,000 on active duty, spending 1% of GDP on their military is pathetic, then I assume you would make the same argument about the U.K., with a population of 66 million, with just 180,000 active duty, spending 2.4% of GDP...and you could make the same argumnet about the U.S. using similar raw data...numbers don't tell the whole story. Especially when you consider that Canada has suffered the 3rd highest combat deaths in Afghanistan. They are more than pulling their own weight there.
"The military may need a one-year break from operations starting July 2011 when the Afghanistan mission winds down, the head of Canada's army said Monday. Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie told the Senate defence committee Monday that the Canadian Forces have been strained by the mission that began seven years ago and need time to regroup."
The U.K. has taken a similar break by pulling almost completely out of Iraq. Smaller countries need breaks...and I'll bet our troops could use one too. France has taken a break since 1815.
"I am in no way diminishing the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, but Canada is not pulling its weight as a member of NATO generally and has allowed its military to wither and almost die. It is far easier to have the Americans shoulder the burden, both in blood and treasure."
No, referring to their military as a 'joke' and claiming that they're not pulling their weight...particulalry as members of NATO (despite being 3rd on the combat death list in Afghanistan) is no diminshment!