View Full Forums : Peacekeeping Versus Fight/Kill/Occupy


Thicket Tundrabog
07-17-2006, 11:08 AM
I saw little mention of it in American predigested, Pablum-media, but there is a shift in Afghanistan. In the southern Taliban stronghold of Kandahar and surrounding provinces, international military operations will shortly be transferred from the United States to NATO's International Assistance Security Force. Indeed, interim military leadership has been provided by Canada for a number of months.

Some will say "The major fighting is over. The Americans did the brunt of the work and there is minor cleanup left to do."

Others, like myself, will say. "The U.S. militarily conquered and occupied Afghanistan, but other countries are needed to bring peace and stability to the region."

Given the paucity and fickleness of American media, I attach the following.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/07/15/1686621-cp.htm

Note that military success is blended with reconciliation and peacemaking plans.

Now that international peacekeeping expertise will temper American fight/kill/occupy tactics, I have hope for the future of Afghanistan.

A day will come when the U.S. will need similar international support to extricate themselves from the Iraq quagmire.

There are some that say the United States doesn't need the support of other countries. They are fools.
--------------
edit:

Bah... link doesn't work. Here is the article.

Cdns continue Afghan assault
By TERRY PEDWELL


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Facing ambushes and small pockets of resistance, Canadian soldiers continued fighting Sunday as a major coalition offensive continued in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province.

Nearly 5,000 coalition forces, including about 600 Canadians, were involved in the operation west of Kandahar, along with soldiers from the Afghan National Army and Afghan police.

In two separate battles late Saturday afternoon, the coalition troops suffered no casualties, but killed at least 35 Taliban fighters, wounded more than 20 others and captured more than a dozen insurgents, according to Helmand's provincial police chief.

The battles happened in Sangin, where most of Canada's combat troops stationed in southern Afghanistan had been fighting since early Saturday.

A Canadian reconnaissance platoon and another infantry squad were reportedly ambushed, although none of the soldiers were hurt as they fired back during short, fierce battles.

Canadian coalition officials were unable to confirm the number of dead or whether Canadians were involved in the attacks that also led to the arrests of 14 Taliban.

In the battles for control of Sangin, eight Taliban fighters were killed and four others captured in one late afternoon altercation, the police chief said.

Then, about an hour later, 27 Taliban were killed, 18 wounded and another 10 arrested.

Canadian officials had earlier reported that 10 Taliban were killed during the coalition's first offensive push into Sangin involving Canadian and American ground troops and British paratroopers.

Coalition troops hope to create a "security pocket" in Sangin, where meetings can be held among local elders and military and Afghan government officials to talk about reconstruction efforts.

"This operation, when it wraps up, will be followed by a Shura," said Canadian coalition spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy.

"That's one of the meetings which will occur in which they can discuss the reconstruction that they require, and look toward the future as opposed to what they now face, which is coercion, bullying at the hands of the Taliban."

The coalition offensive is considered the final push of an operation known as Mountain Thrust, which has been underway since mid-June, aimed at cutting off the Taliban's financial centre.

However, there has been speculation that much of the Taliban resistance has already moved into Oruzgan province, north of Kandahar.

That's where Canada is expected to help Dutch soldiers establish a significant presence for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF.

Expatriate Canadian sources say they expect the violence in Oruzgan to only get worse in the months ahead.

In Zabul province east of Kandahar, an American soldier was killed Sunday in a separate firefight involving coalition forces in the Day Chopin district.

ISAF is slated to take over command of international military operations in and around Kandahar by the end of this month.

Canada currently has roughly 2,200 soldiers under the umbrella of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom, based in Kandahar, who will transfer to the ISAF in August.

Aidon
07-17-2006, 12:04 PM
Even with NATO taking over...it will be US money and US soldiers bearing the brunt, almost certainly, since we provide the bulk of money and soldiers and weaponry for NATO.

I fail to see your point.

Klath
07-17-2006, 01:16 PM
I fail to see your point.
I can't vouch for the numbers on this web site (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/LSGZ-6RLDAB?OpenDocument)but if they are correct, it gives the following numbers for coalition* forces in Afghanistan:

If the source of coalition forces by country are...
US: 23,000
UK 3,500 (an extra 900 approved Monday)
CA: 2,300

...and the populations of those countries are... (CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html))
US: 300 million
UK: 60 million
CA: 33 million

...then the per capita contribution by country would be:
US: 0.000076
UK: 0.000073
CA: 0.000069

With respect to troops, there does not seem to be a huge disparity in contribution. If you have a source that does a better job of breaking down the contribution (money, hardware, etc...), please post it.

*Coalition forces only. This ignores forces supplied by other nations via NATO's IASF.

To me, at least, it seems clear that other nations are more than willing to contribute in a significant way when they believe that it's justified.

Aidon
07-17-2006, 01:38 PM
I can't vouch for the numbers on this web site (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/LSGZ-6RLDAB?OpenDocument)but if they are correct, it gives the following numbers for coalition* forces in Afghanistan:

If the source of coalition forces by country are...
US: 23,000
UK 3,500 (an extra 900 approved Monday)
CA: 2,300

...and the populations of those countries are... (CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html))
US: 300 million
UK: 60 million
CA: 33 million

...then the per capita contribution by country would be:
US: 0.000076
UK: 0.000073
CA: 0.000069

With respect to troops, there does not seem to be a huge disparity in contribution. If you have a source that does a better job of breaking down the contribution (money, hardware, etc...), please post it.

*Coalition forces only. This ignores forces supplied by other nations via NATO's IASF.

To me, at least, it seems clear that other nations are more than willing to contribute in a significant way when they believe that it's justified.

The site doesn't take into consideration the reduction in US troop strength in the region over the years as we've pacified Afghanistan, relatively speaking, and installed a relatively functional government.

When looking at active duty numbers, Britain is proportional to the US.

However, this per capita crap and proportionality is only used because noone can argue that the US provides the most numerically across the board, financially and militarily.

Its a sop for the egos of other nations to try and pretend they mean as much as the US.

Panamah
07-17-2006, 01:46 PM
Having other countries involved here is important. I'd really like to see some non-Western countries involved, like Turkey. It'd be an important bridge between Muslim and primarily Christian countries.


However, this per capita crap and proportionality is only used because noone can argue that the US provides the most numerically across the board, financially and militarily.
Canada and the rest of the world can't help it if we choose to waste an enormous percentage of our GDP on excess militarization.

Thicket Tundrabog
07-17-2006, 01:52 PM
Even with NATO taking over...it will be US money and US soldiers bearing the brunt, almost certainly, since we provide the bulk of money and soldiers and weaponry for NATO.

I fail to see your point.

The point is;

* If you need to fight a battle with good equipment and overwhelming force then call in the Americans.

* If you want money for military or peacekeeping efforts, get it from the richest nations, with the United States at the top of the list.

* If you want selective fighting combined with diplomacy and peacekeeping, call in another country (or group of countries).

In the end, you WILL need part 3, unless you want to stay there indefinitely.

MadroneDorf
07-17-2006, 02:10 PM
Canada and the rest of the world can't help it if we choose to waste an enormous percentage of our GDP on excess militarization.

I'd rather the US spends excess money on militaryization then someplace like China or Russia heh!

I hate having taxes go to something that doesnt directly benefit me as much as the next guy, but personally I dont think the world would be as stable without a superpower, and despite our Flaws I like the US a hell a lot a better then the alternatives.

Ironically though, (well maybe not ironic, since its intergral to why we became a superpower) the US is probably a lot safer due to being buffered on both sides by peaceful countries.

Tudamorf
07-17-2006, 02:23 PM
* If you want selective fighting combined with diplomacy and peacekeeping, call in another country (or group of countries).The U.S. can do that too, though we would rather delegate it to someone else who isn't busy doing #1 and #2. The U.S. can survive militarily without Canada, but Canada cannot survive militarily without the U.S.

Aidon
07-17-2006, 02:28 PM
The point is;

* If you need to fight a battle with good equipment and overwhelming force then call in the Americans.

* If you want money for military or peacekeeping efforts, get it from the richest nations, with the United States at the top of the list.

* If you want selective fighting combined with diplomacy and peacekeeping, call in another country (or group of countries).

In the end, you WILL need part 3, unless you want to stay there indefinitely.

That's fine.

The US military is not designed for peace keeping and since the fall of the Soviet Union, because we are the major Superpower, any attempt to provide aid or rebuild is frequently viewed with less than pleasant responses ranging from skepticism to outright hostility.

The Good Guys of the world need someone who can project overwhelming destructive force against the Bad Guys of the world. The US currently fills that role quite nicely promoting relative peace and harmony. After the smoke and dust is clear...well, those nations without the will or resources to provide the military forces necessary to project violence across the world can do the job of policing and rebuilding. I don't even mind them doing so with US funding.

Just don't try to look down on the US. We're your Big Dog. Respect us.

Klath
07-17-2006, 02:46 PM
The site doesn't take into consideration the reduction in US troop strength in the region over the years as we've pacified Afghanistan, relatively speaking, and installed a relatively functional government.
Can you cite a source for this reduction? I poked around a bit and the results suggested that the reduction in troop strength is a recent thing and that the US forces were increasing in Afghanistan up until the last year or so with a maximum of ~27,000.

However, this per capita crap and proportionality is only used because noone can argue that the US provides the most numerically across the board, financially and militarily.
And Americans benefit from it the most numerically. More people, more benefit. Per capita seems fair to me.

Anka
07-17-2006, 06:27 PM
I think we should be congratulating each other for reasonable progress in Afghanistan rather than getting steamed up on the details. The international support was strong from all US allies and both NATO and the UN have been effective in their roles. Afghanistan is still one of the poorest and least governable countries in the world but it's a whole lot better than it might be.

Thicket Tundrabog
07-18-2006, 07:22 AM
I think we should be congratulating each other for reasonable progress in Afghanistan rather than getting steamed up on the details. The international support was strong from all US allies and both NATO and the UN have been effective in their roles. Afghanistan is still one of the poorest and least governable countries in the world but it's a whole lot better than it might be.

Aye. There was and is strong international support for the intervention in Afghanistan. Progress is reasonable. Northern and central Afghanistan are mostly Taliban-free. Their southern stronghold is being cleansed on a town-by-town basis.

A similar approach can work in Iraq, but there is more reluctance and less international support.