Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post - NATO in command of US troops in Afghanistan?

**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.

10-06-2006, 14:25	#10
Airbornelawyer Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,947	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.
Airbornelawyer is offline