NATO in command of US troops in Afghanistan?

dave_az · 10-05-2006, 10:03

Anyone with experience (not me) care to give a fair appraisal of how this will work out?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15131520/

x SF med · 10-05-2006, 10:33

Sounds like Special Operations Forces are not covered by this change in command structure, so for our (SF) guys, probably not a big difference.

CPTAUSRET · 10-05-2006, 11:23

I did a few dumb things during my time in uniform, but I iswore that I would never wear a "blue helmet"!

x SF med · 10-05-2006, 11:51

T-
but the blue helmet would look just sooooo nice in a pink helicopter....
(gotcha last, I quit)

CPTAUSRET · 10-05-2006, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

I did a few dumb things during my time in uniform, but I iswore that I would never wear a "blue helmet"!

Was just reminded that UN is "blue helmets"! DUH!!

Old brain cells!

BMT (RIP) · 10-05-2006, 14:11

The only problem I've read about is commo between diffirent country's equipment.

BMT

Five-O · 10-05-2006, 14:30

Commo is a big problem but far from the only problem. My experience as part of a multinational force is the American work ethic is superior to that of EURO and other forces (minus the Brits). The sense of urgency that exsits in US forces is also far greater than that of allied countries. I won't go into professional competence but there is also no comparison. Our work ethic and sense of purpose was the punch line of many a bad joke and friendly "ball-busting" during down time.

**Bill Harsey** · 10-05-2006, 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by x_sf_med

T-
but the blue helmet would look just sooooo nice in a pink helicopter....
(gotcha last, I quit)

Pink? I thought it was Lavender...

x SF med · 10-05-2006, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Harsey

Pink? I thought it was Lavender...

Puce, with mauve stripes and burgundy accents.....

**Airbornelawyer** · 10-06-2006, 14:25

In the short run, I suppose it will mask the failure of NATO to effectively expand its operations outside of Kabul and certain other safe areas.

ISAF, NATO's primary mission to date, is hobbled by restrictive ROEs, less restrictive than a UN peacekeeping mission would operate under but more restrictive than we would tolerate. ISAF generally doesn't venture out of the greater Kabul area. NATO expanded to take on some of the PRT mission, but primarily in areas deemed "safe", especially in non-Pushtun areas in the north where the Taliban never had much of a hold to begin with.

It was the expansion to the south that exposed NATO's weakness. Only a limited number of NATO members proved willing to expose their regular soldiers to the risks of taking over from the US-led OEF forces in places not fully pacified. And the Taliban recognized this and organized to test the resolve of those countries that did prove willing - primarily Canada and the UK, but also the Netherlands, Denmark, Romania and non-NATO Australia.

For the most part, the rest of NATO stood by, at least in terms of high-visibility conventional forces. SOF and airpower are a different story, since the political risks are usually less (though the political consequences of loss of 18 SOF got the US out of Somalia). Of major NATO members, for example, Germany, Turkey, Italy and Spain seem to desire playing no role that actually requires placing their combat troops at higher risk. France continues to keep SOF personnel under US, not NATO, command in southern Afghanistan, and has suffered several KIA among them, and has deployed its air force and naval aviation in CAS missions, but like the Germans its regular combat troops remain in Kabul with ISAF. Of mid-sized NATO powers, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Hungary and others also seem to be absent, with only the Netherlands, Poland and Denmark generally proving reliable. The Czech Republic has SOF in Afghanistan under US command, but very little with NATO. Norway has pretty much come out and said its military can't be relied on to actually fight wars anymore, what with budget cuts and peace dividends and all that.

10-28-2007, 12:42

Canada is a major player in Afg. Most Nato countries will not do any combat missions or leave the so called safe area. Wish other countries would get off their buts and take an active role in that country . We have been taken our share of casualities and KIA to support the mission in Afg. Our military is streshed thin but we are doing our best. With the pc party in power of the goverment, our equipment has been improved and hopefully manpower is on the increase .

This is not a so called peace mission under a UN flag. This is a war. The US was attacked on 9/11 automatically bringing in Nato . Many people do not get why we are even there . Worse is the fact that many countries are not doing enough .