The unknown surge
Daniel Korski 1:48pmEveryone following developments in Afghanistan will know of the demand by military commanders on the ground for more international troops to be deployed. A former NATO commander said he needed at least 400,000 troops. Doctrinally, a 20:1,000 security force-to-population ratio is deemed necessary for counter-insurgency operations. That would mean putting at least 200,000 troops into the southern and eastern parts of the country, a figure well beyond NATO’s capability. But there has, in fact, been a steady –- if unknown -- increase in the number of NATO troops deployed to Afghanistan, including from Europe:
Clearly this is not enough and numbers do not equal capability - as many of the troops are hampered by so-called “caveats"; various force protection measures, which shield them from the Afghan population; and limited funds to make a non-military impact in their area of operations. But it still shows that the international coalition has sought to improve in the last two years.
Previous
Percepied
December 8th, 2008 2:54pm Report this commentThere is no mention of Romanian forces in that graph of which there are over 500 in Afghanistan, and its President has shown great willingness to contribute to the mission
mac
December 8th, 2008 3:55pm Report this commentNorway's force contribution is missing too.
Daniel Korski
December 8th, 2008 4:04pm Report this commentI meant to pick EU countries only, hence no Norway. But Romania's an oversight - she now has 740 soldiers deployed in ISAF.
Read more about the Romanian contribution here: http://www.cotidianul.ro/autori/daniel_korski-435.html
mac
December 8th, 2008 5:28pm Report this commentI don't understand your rationale. "EU countries only", you say. Why? Your piece doesn't mention the EU, which makes sense since this is a NATO operation, not a EU one.
Rhoda Klapp
December 8th, 2008 5:52pm Report this commentSome people would like to equate the EU with military activities which do not come under the EU, possibly in order to ascribe to that organisation a world influence which is not justified in fact.
Wilf
December 8th, 2008 6:11pm Report this commentAren't the Dutch making a contribution towards numbers of troops?
Daniel Korski
December 8th, 2008 6:32pm Report this commentMac,
I have now put Norway and Iceland into the table. You were right to call me on this - I should have put them in from the start.
But I have still not included the U.S, Canada or the many other non-European countries (like Jordan) who take part in ISAF because I want to highlight Europe's contribution (or lack thereof).
Nobody doubts the U.S commitment or that a U.S surge is likely to happen in 2009. But many complain about the lack of a corresponding European commitment. I wanted the debate to be informed by the actual numbers.
I have also not included OEF figures. I asked the State Department for numbers but they said they were classified. Going on the June figures, which gave U.S forces in Afghanistan as 48,250 with 40 percent serving in OEF, that would mean approximately 19.300 U.S soldiers in OEF. See more here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22633.pdf
mac
December 8th, 2008 7:33pm Report this commentDaniel,
Noted!
I understood your emphasis on the European contribution but, like Rhoda, I prefer to see European NATO properly identified for what it is. Mr Hutton's predilection for what can only be a toothless "EU Army" isn't a comforting appealing prospect.
(And glad to see you've completed the picture by including Iceland's contribution, even if it is only an 8-strong contingent.)
Back to top