Gates Suggests U.S. Should Take Over Volatile Southern Afghanistan From NATO
Agencie France Presse:
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday it was probably a good idea to put US forces in charge of NATO’s counter-insurgency efforts in southern Afghanistan.
Such a move would mark the return of the US military to an area that has seen a Taliban resurgence since American troops were replaced less than two years ago by a NATO-led force consisting of Canadian, British and other European troops.
“We’re basically just trying to see how do we best provide for unity of command, how do you have the most effective operations possible in Afghanistan,” Gates told reporters here.
“But we won’t do anything without prior consultations and agreement with our allies.”
Asked whether putting southern Afghanistan under US forces had merit, Gates diplomatically said: “I certainly think it is worth taking a look at.”
The United States currently has about 34,000 troops in Afghanistan, 16,000 of them under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in eastern Afghanistan.
The other 18,000 are involved in counter-terrorism operations and training of Afghan security forces.
But a contingent of some 2,500 US Marines deployed to Afghanistan last month to reinforce NATO forces in the south for seven months in anticipation of another round of tough fighting with the Taliban this year.
President George W. Bush told allies at a NATO summit in Bucharest last month that the United States would significantly increase its force levels in Afghanistan next year.
Gates also has pushed other European allies to provide combat troops and equipment to fill shortfalls in the south, but the response so far has been tepid.
The defense secretary infuriated countries with troops in southern Afghanistan earlier this year when he complained in a newspaper interview that allies were sending troops unprepared for counter-insurgency warfare.
Although he said he had been misunderstood, the incident highlighted the political sensitivities of “re-Americanizing” the south.
Gates said the US military had problems of its own to work out in Afghanistan, principally a bifurcated command structure in which US troops in ISAF fall under the US European Command and those involved in training and counter-terrorism answer to the US Central Command.
“I think we also need to take a look at some of our own command and control arrangements,” Gates said. “For example, does it continue to make sense to have two combatant commands involved in one country?”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
When faced with the choice of how “others” hold you in consideration …
To be loved?
Or, better to be held in a very high regard of respectful fear …
As a kid I literally hated my parents and the fear they inflicted in order to gain my respect.
Today I no longer fear them.
I love and respect them …
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pmNATO is close to being obsolete. What is the point of having NATO when member states are picking and choosing where and when they will fight when one of the members is attacked i.e. 9-11.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pmJust stand aside NATO, go drink some tea some-place and let the U.S. finish the job that other member states cannot or will not.
I need a freaking beer.
UN, NATO, IRS. All crooked and fucking worthless.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 pmactually Marc NATO met a day after 9/11 and 18/19 nations offered to send troops to help the US on whatever mission it would go on. we had enough of what we needed on our own though and only picked and choosed what we needed from other countries. that and the fact that europe (fra/ger) was against iraq made it hard to reask NATO to take command over afghanistan and to expect the troops we needed from the countries we dissed. (yeah, i know they are butthurt and shouldnt be)
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pmWhat would Eisenhower do?
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 pmThe uncertainity that Nato is encontering, is due to the uncertainity of the results of your presidential elections, therefore, see next year, in 2009 ; might be there some decennal aniversary of Nato, it’s also the occasion to rediscuss the objectives and adhesions
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 amFranchie, a lot of truth in what you say. If the democrats get in it will be immediate withdrawal and all will be for naught. It’s difficult to put any confidence in a government (US) that that could happen. But, that’s what democrats do. Democrats destroy confidence.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:45 am