By Steve Hynd
The Washington Post's Craig Whitlock writes today that NATO is coming up far short of the hoped for 10,000 extra troops to back Obama and McChrystal's surge of 30,000 Americans in Afghanistan. France has refused to send any more of its soldiers and Germany has pledged 500 instead of the hoped for 1,500. Britain had originally said it would send 500 more if the rest of NATO ponied up, only to have Brown announce last November that he was sending them anyway as he was certain the target for other nations would be reached. At present, NATO is touting commitments of 7,000 extra troops for the surge, however
NATO has not provided a precise breakdown of where its promised 7,000 new troops will come from. It appears that only about 4,000 of those forces were not previously announced or deployed.
For instance, U.S. State Department officials have acknowledged that NATO is counting 1,500 troops sent to Afghanistan last year to provide security for the August presidential election; they will remain in the country, instead of returning home as originally planned.
Similarly, U.S. and NATO officials have touted the forthcoming deployment of 900 soldiers from Georgia, which is not a member of NATO, even though the government in Tbilisi had committed to the mission well before Obama announced his revised Afghan strategy.
NATO is also excluding the planned withdrawal of some forces from Afghanistan this year, including the entire Dutch contingent of about 2,000 soldiers, scheduled to leave in December.
Daniel Korski, a senior analyst with the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to the Afghan government, said NATO members routinely inflate their troop commitments.
"Every nation fibs a little, and when you aggregate all the small fibs, it's hard not to come up with a big fib," he said.
So we're looking at a shortfall of 60% over original intentions. No wonder the U.S. is begging the Dutch to keep their troops in theatre, a plea which has faint hope of success.
And in crucial areas for McChrystal's plan, it's even worse.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday that NATO allies had provided only about 10 percent of the trainers promised for Afghan security forces, a situation he called "totally unacceptable."
So far no-one in the British press or the UK's political opposition appears to have noticed that Brown flat lied on this issue, but that can't last forever and when they do it'll no doubt add to Brown's electoral woes.
Outgoing UN special representative to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, blames Obama's announcement of 2011 as the maybe-sorta beginning of the end date for US military involvement, saying it sends the 'wrong signal' to other countries involved. I think he's got that arse for elbow - NATO allies coming up short or dragging their feet is something that's been happening since Bush's first term. It's far more probable that the very obvious yearning for an exit by his allies is what led Obama to announce the 2011 date. The London Conference was announced before Obama endorsed McChrystal's assessment and was clearly set up as a gathering to plan a papering over of the cracks followed by a rush for the exits.
One thing we can be sure of: America's irrational adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have left a sour taste in its allies' mouths and NATO will never be the same again.
(H/t to @mtwirth for the post headline)
No comments:
Post a Comment