Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The World Has Committed More than 50% of the Troops in Afghanistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:05 PM
Original message
The World Has Committed More than 50% of the Troops in Afghanistan


It's called the International Security Assistance Force. There are more than 55 thousand ISAF troops in Afghanistan. Their mission was originally to secure Kabul, but in 2003 was expanded to secure the entire country. Since then, troop levels have steadily increased and their troops have engaged in more intensive combat missions. This force is lead by NATO under the direction of the UN Security Council. This mission is separate, but in conjunction with the U.S. led mission of Operation Enduring Freedom, which also has troops from other countries, including Canada, Germany, France and England, as well as many others.

When George Bush unilaterally decided to take the focus off of Afghanistan and illegally invade a country, needless to say, he damaged relationships with these countries who all fully supported, and continue to support, the mission in Afghanistan. The world stayed committed to the mission in Afghanistan, even when George Bush turned his back on the world to invade Iraq. In fact, Bush liked to tout his Coalition of the Willing for Iraq... an abuse of the term and relationship of the International Community dedicated to the mission in Afghanistan, a mission Bush abandoned.

Whatever decision President Obama makes regarding Afghanistan, you can be assured that the decision was made with consideration of the people of Afghanistan, the security of our Nation and consideration for the world of Nations currently supporting the mission in Afghanistan.

People like to equate the problem of Afghanistan with that of Vietnam. I believe this analogy does not hold. Vietnam was a proxy war and the U.S. did not have the international support it has with Afghanistan. The mission in Afghanistan is supported by the world, including several former members of the Soviet Union, Russia herself involved in the operation.

The World United has taken a strong stance against terrorism. The nations of the world have been dealing with terrorism much longer than the U.S. We are relative newcomers to this issue. Don't expect President Obama to turn his back on the International Community's commitment to fight terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Someone has already unrecd this so they don't
want any facts out.

Thanks bernie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Well, they wanted the first response to importantly point out the UnRec
and you obliged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It's only obvious they don't want any facts out..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. If it's a 'world' concern
Edited on Thu Nov-26-09 01:24 PM by bigtree
Why is the U.S. force the overwhelmingly largest one and doesn't have Chinese troops* there (despite the fact they're neighbors)? At any rate, the international troops aren't in any hurry to escalate their own forces along with the U.S.. Some key allies are pulling out (Canada and Poland) and the negative politics in Britain (arguably our closest ally) is threatening their commitment as well.

Also, some NATO allies may delay on Afghan troops . . .

Brussels -- As US President Barack Obama readies to send extra troops to Afghanistan, NATO cautioned Wednesday that a number of US allies could wait until next year before following suit with reinforcements.
http://europenews.dk/en/node/27890


And, more importantly, what about the contribution and commitment to the U.S. initiated and dominated mission in the country from the Afghans themselves?

WASHINGTON, Nov 24 (IPS) - One in every four combat soldiers quit the Afghan National Army (ANA) during the year ending in September, published data by the U.S. Defence Department and the Inspector General for Reconstruction in Afghanistan reveals.

That high rate of turnover in the ANA, driven by extremely high rates of desertion, spells trouble for the strategy that President Barack Obama has reportedly decided on, which is said to include the dispatch of thousands of additional U.S. military trainers in order to rapidly increase the size of the ANA.

The ANA has been touted by U.S. officials for years as a success story. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal called in his August 2009 strategy paper for increasing the ANA to 134,000 troops by October 2010 and eventually to 240,000.

But an administration source, who insisted on speaking without attribution because of the sensitivity of the subject, confirmed to IPS that 25 percent has been used as the turnover rate for the ANA in internal discussions, and that it is regarded by some officials as a serious problem . . .

read more: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49397


Coalition casualties:

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country

USA: 857*
UK: 235
Canada: 132*
Germany: 40
France: 36
Denmark: 30
Spain: 26
Italy: 22
Netherlands: 21
Poland: 15
Australia: 11
Romania: 11
Estonia: 6
Norway: 4
Czech Republic: 3
Latvia: 3
Hungary: 2
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Sweden: 2
Turkey: 2
Belgium: 1
Finland: 1
Lithuania: 1

TOTAL: 1,465

edit* strike russian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeresyLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Most countries don't support either war.
Or the futile push on 'terrorism' Afghanistan is supposed to represent.

Countries were called out under Article 5 of NATO, and have done their duty, and are now heading home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. The governments of some of the world have donated cannon-fodder.
In most of the countries that have done so, by a wide margin, the citizens of those countries are against the war and sending more cannon fodder.

The war in Afghanistan is a CYA effort by Obama and the Pentagon to avoid facing the wrath of voters by admitting to another lost war, and being embarrassed by doing so.

See LBJ for precedent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. I hope you're right and Obama isn't "going rogue" on the rest of the world
like bush did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. Not quite, the US has the majority of the troops there;
The most recent data puts ISAF troops primarily from NATO countries at about 65,000 give or take. And US/British troops not under the ISAF at about 48,000 and 10,000 respectively. However, the ISAF numbers include 30,000 american soldiers under NATO.

So of the total 123,000 soldiers there some 78,000 are american, or about 63%. So the US is providing substantially more than half of the entire force. And more so in terms of actual combat troops and air power, as opposed to occupation troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. The US currently has 68,000 of the 110,000 troops which mean we have
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. stupid facts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I get my facts from the source: 71,030 ISAF troops, 34,800 American
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. How many of those ISAF troops are american?
about 30,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Isn't that exactly what I said?
More than 50% of ISAF is not American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. No no
so we have troops in the ISAF, about half, and troops that are not part of the ISAF, more than 30,000. So of the total ISAF/other contingent we have more than half.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. ISAF US Forces 34,800; Foreign ISAF Forces 36,230. A difference of
1430 more foreign troops in the ISAF. Just ignore the other 30,000 American troops there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. I get that
but I do have issues with the whole "ignore the other 30,000 american troops there" bit.

Those are still soldiers, they are just under direct american command rather than foreign. Of all the soldiers in afghanistan the majority have an american flag on their uniforms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Sorry that came off wrong. I agree with you 100%. The comment was
actually directed at the OP but I posted it here instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Oh, ok
nevermind then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. This is quite the cheer.
Russia being involved, color me shocked, of course they are, they have an ax to grind. Thats like saying twenty years after Vietnam we wouldn't have jumped at the chance to get revenge by lending support.

As for the coalition, it seems that just like Iraq, they are getting tired of having to be the unending enabler of our war effort.

"The nations of the world have been dealing with terrorism much longer than the U.S. We are relative newcomers to this issue." Kinda of a non-issue since our nations have different back grounds. And we are not new to terrorism, we just got a little of what we have been dishing out. That's what happens on a long enough time line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Yes, if facts = cheer, then consider me a cheerleader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mullard12ax7 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. You get your 10g yet for forced corporate health insurance?
That won't help the rest of us who have to live with the criminal banks and insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. +1
Edited on Fri Nov-27-09 01:12 AM by SammyWinstonJack
:evilgrin: :thumbsup: Obvious isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Thanks for the typical substance-lacking insult. FYI, I have two children with type-1 diabetes
and am an avid health care reform advocate. I've met with my reps and senators personally regarding the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
R. P. McMurphy Donating Member (394 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-26-09 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. k & r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
21. The World includes the US so it seems you are right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
22. Assuming that "the world" means non-US, your headline is false.
Edited on Fri Nov-27-09 12:59 AM by ConsAreLiars
The ratio is 3:2, but only if you exclude US paid contract mercenaries and support. Add them in and the ratio is closer to 4:1.

Sometimes making a false ideologically based argument is impossible without making a false statement about the facts.

(edit typo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Synicus Maximus Donating Member (828 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
26. I would think that the world has committed 100% of the troops
in Afghanistan. Or have they imported troops from outer space?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC