ISAF = I Saw Americans Fight?
Daniel Korski 6:25pm
The imminent Dutch withdrawal from NATO’s Afghan mission will ignite the question of allied troop contributions. But what are the real numbers and how do they compare to past missions? In a new article for the Spanish think tank FRIDE, I have done the sums, as part of a broader analysis of transatlantic “AfPak” policy since President Obama came to power.
The contribution of EU member states to NATO’s ISAF has grown from 16,900 soldiers in 2007 to 22,774 in 2008, 25,572 in 2009 and 32,337 in 2010. Soldiers from EU countries have until this year made up 45–53 per cent of the total force and for three consecutive years.
In 2010, following a US surge, the percentage has slipped down to 38 per cent, while the US has maintained substantial troop numbers outside of ISAF. But the ISAF figures are not far from the European contribution to past NATO missions. in 1995, European troops made up some 59 percent of NATO’s IFOR mission in Bosnia.
Of course, measuring Europe’s commitment by how many troops it deploys gives only a partial perspective. Military utility depends on where new troops can be deployed and whether deployment is restricted, for example if troops have to remain in one place or will not leave their base at night. Similarly, ISAF commanders require a particular type of soldier that EU member nations do not volunteer; the lack of trainers or drill sergeants has been particularly problematic.
Yet there is no denying the three-year long European surge and the exponential increase in troop deployments after Barack Obama entered the White House in early January 2009. How long this will last is another question.
Previous
Austin Barry
February 24th, 2010 7:54pm Report this comment"Military utility depends on where new troops can be deployed and whether deployment is restricted, for example if troops have to remain in one place or will not leave their base at night."
Or if they're like the Germans who according to a December 2008 report in The Times:
"First they were accused of not wanting to fight. Then they were blamed for failing in their main mission to train the Afghan police. Now Germany’s battered military reputation has received a further humiliating blow. According to official reports the 3,500 troops in northern Afghanistan drink too much and are too fat."
How Hitler's Schutzstaffel must be spinning in Hell.
roman lee
February 24th, 2010 9:34pm Report this commentThat german troops are mostly rubbish is a reflection of german society as a whole, until they stop grovelling before anyone who shouts nazi at them they are going to eventually have to pay others to do there fighting for them, the only thing going for them in that respect is that the people they will have to pay to fight there probable next war all live between them there most likely invader Russia, the germans added bonus is that these people hate russia more than they hate germans. most germans seem to have forgotten the the russians have at least 30 million reasons to hate them and more to the point they have a ultra rich country just ripe for the plucking. the usa will surely on day get sick of covering for the most vile ungrateful people on earth and that does not mean just the germans it means all western european countries.
mailman
February 24th, 2010 9:57pm Report this commentIts pointless counting the numbers of soldiers in Afghanistan because that isnt whats important.
What really is important is the number of COMBAT troops AND the types of limitations imposed upon the use of soldiers in Afghanistan.
If the Dutch contribution CANNOT be used in combat situations or CANNOT be moved outside of their base then they are about as useful as bacon flavoured syrup in Saudi Arabia!
Quite rightly Americans are miffed at the complete and utter lack of back bone demonstrated by many members of NATO because whether we like it or not, failure in Afghanistan WILL affect EVERYONE, American or not!
Austin Barry
February 25th, 2010 7:36am Report this commentThe Dutch didn't exactly cover themselves in glory at Srebenica did they?
Of the 28 NATO members only the British, Canadians and Americans tend to win wars. The others are mostly perennial pacifists or white-flag merchants.
As always the Anglosphere has to do the heavy lifting.
M
February 25th, 2010 4:07pm Report this commentNice commentary above. It’s an A (mericans) B (rits), C (anada) and D(anes) contribution, the rest are F-ing around and looking for the way out.
J, Dean
February 26th, 2010 8:34am Report this commentIf its all ABCD in Afganistan where are we Australians? AABCD?
Back to top