Why is the US having to ask again for NATO to send some troops to Afghanistan. Isn't this the one we all agreed on?
Turkey sends 3 helicopters...wow thanks guys!

NATO has something in the number of 5,000 troops there yet the US has over 10,000. Why is our country being so overly represented there? We are one of 19 countries in the NATO. Do you feel that the NATO alliance, the only alliance Bush seems to favor, is not fulfilling it's commitment? Do you feel that this is political spill over from the Iraq war? And do you think these countries feel that the two...Afghanistan and Iraq are in fact one in the same war...on terror..and that to fully commit to one would be to inadvertently commit to the other.
Also I worry for Afghanistan...do you think the US would leave her in the incapable hands of NATO?
Lastly... what is with all this talk about the EUs autonomous defence plans and yet they can not spare any troops to Afghanistan!? How do you feel about this posturing?

NATO is a defence organisation and was not created to enforce US foriegn policy, many other members do not consider the WOT as a defensive action, and do not wish to get invloved in Afghanistan without clear UN backing.

Moif is correct in stating that NATO's "commitment" does not extend beyond the boundaries of the alliance.

However, NATO did take command of ISAF back in August - this marked the first time that NATO troops had been sent outside the Euro theater. From the beginning of ISAF ops in Kabul after the US and allies defeated the Taliban and seized control of the country, the ISAF command had been rotating every 6 months. This resulted in command and control issues because of the lack of continuity of command. NATO taking charge was an important step, not only historically for the organization, but operationally, for ISAF. NATO taking command also saw the incremental expansion of ISAF patrols outside of Kabul. These positive accomplishments were not due to the size of the force, but to the experience in operating in a joint/coalition environment that NATO brought to the table.

August 2003 was seeing the most serious increase in violent clashes in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. Of course, it went unnoticed, what with Iraq occupying the news. And Afghanistan is still a long way from being stable. There are serious problems in the country which are not being addressed - and they go way beyond the question of whether or not NATO is supplying a large enough force.

Final Communique: Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Defence Ministers Session 1 December 2003

I think NATO has the ability to fufill it's committment. It's just slacking so far



Because the US is more dedicated to scarificing our troops in the name of justice for the deaths on 9/11 and NATO feels that as long as it provides a number (any number) of troops, it won't be called "impotent"




No. NATO had already made it's decsion to send troops before the War in Iraq.




I worry about that too. I think the US would not leave Afghanistan under NATO control (or UN control) because this is "our baby" so to speak. We have come so far in Afghanistan (like Iraq), i do not think we would leave our first success in the WOT to crumble by or in the hands of any organization. I think NATO is great. Best international defense force in the world. But i do not think it is capable of nation-building.

And what about NATO's own policy...does it intend to enforce that too? NATO committed itself to Afghanistan...I am not speaking on the idea that they have an automatic duty to fulfill in regards to this issue...but rather they already committed...willingly.... waaaay back in August. They accepted the leadership role in Afghanistan like Mustang has pointed out...and yet they only remain in operation in the capital with some 5,000 troops...even tho in Oct. they pledged to expand their role. See I do feel this has everything to do with the size of the actual physical commitment being made since that is the gripe..and not just from the US alone. The US needs to lessen her troops in Afghanistan and needs for NATO to take up the leadership role that they accepted.

I am really interested as to why the European members of NATO are so reluctant to actually carry through with their role in Afghanistan ..are reluctant to provide the necessary troops, equipment and funding (NATO has not had a budget increase in 20 yrs) and yet they are all chatty again about the idea of a EU autonomous military operations. Shouldn't you prioritize and give precedence to those you have already made commitments to?

I think the whole question comes back to "What is the point of NATO?" Prior to the disintegration of the USSR, it was all about defending against the threat of USSR invasion, which -- when it was formed -- was a very real threat in a Europe still torn from WW2.

But now...? Europe seems interested in defending themselves now without our help. And the job left in Afghanistan is more fitting for the UN and not NATO.

Is NATO supposed to be a police force outside of Europe? Or is it just destined to eventually be disbanded?

Can someone clarify this for me - isn't the USA a member of NATO?

So why are we talking about "10000 US" and "5000 NATO" troops in Afghanistan - surely they are ALL NATO troops?

And if they are not, why hasn't the USA put its troops under NATO command? If it is because they don't trust NATO command to achieve their own foreign policy objectives, maybe it isn't the rest of NATO that is playing politics here?

And lastly, what is the total armed strength of the USA compared to the rest of NATO? For all I know, 2 to 1 could be a fair reflection of troop numbers that are available to be committed.

Not from my understanding are they all NATO troops. The 10,000 American troops are in fact a separate force...a military operation that NATO is not involved in. Yet it is a coalition effort....American led tho.

The 5,000 NATO troops I am sure do in fact include Americans. Yet NATO has 2 million troops under it's command. Afghanistan has increasingly come under critique and who do you suppose is being blamed?



Why should the US military have to commit more troops to NATO? We already have fulfilled that obligation. Our military forces operating in Afghanistan is our own private little get up we have...and it's objection is American security. Maybe the US does not want to entirely rely on NATO for it's security...not an odd thing to do really.

The US is MORE than willing to utilize NATO...and like I started this debate off..is in fact almost at the point of begging. The new NATO as amf was commenting on had appeared to want to reinvent itself post-cold war. The war on terrorism seemed at the time the perfect opportunity...yet as we are seeing Bush's policy with Iraq has possibly altered this path.

Robertson himself...a non American...has been very open about his condemnation for NATO member's lack of commitment to this operation...and America is not on his list of complaints.

After having nothing else to do during the 90's, except Kosovo, NATO has been idleing. It has had nothing to do. So it scraps some of their military stuff. Like a few have already said, the WOT is a chance for NATO to re-build it's self and become a force not to be provoked once again like it was during the Cold War.