in world politics, Kevin went straight for it:Let’s just get this straight. The Australian Prime Minister complains about the European troop commitment to the invasion / occupation of
What is the aim of insinuating that if it weren’t for the lack of courage by the European contingent, there would have been more progress in NATO’s Afghan adventure?
Although it was the
According to a CNN count, as of March 28, 2008 there have been 777 coalition deaths – listed in order of casualty numbers:
Whilst the casualty numbers seem to imply indeed that US troops are paying a higher price than many of their European allies, European countries have lost more than 200 of their soldiers in the invasion / occupation of Afghanistan, which is more than a quarter of all allied casualties. This ISAF map shows where the respective
nations have deployed their troops. Should, as repeatedly requested by US officials and now not surprisingly Kevin Rudd, Europeans take on a greater role in the south eastern end of Afghanistan and move their units into those hard fought for areas, who would fill the void in the north west? With the Germans, Spaniards, Dutch, French & Italians all moving south, would the Mericans and Canadians move north, in effect swapping jobs with the Europeans? Sounds like rotating NATO troops along the lines of “Come on guys, you do the killing for a while, we’re due for a holiday.” More from Kevin on that issue:
"We need to sign up a common script both military and civil on how we actually prosecute and succeed in this conflict," he said.
If I read that correctly then they don’t have yet a common strategy on how to succeed in
But then again, with two such mighty good leaders in place, I am almost certain we will have world peace in no time at all. Check out their credentials:
In what was often a jovial press conference, Mr Bush pegged Mr Rudd as a straight-shooter who was a strategic thinker and basically a decent guy.
And he was quick to agree that he too was befitting of the moniker "Man of Steel", a term he first bestowed on John Howard for his resolve in the war against terror.
Mr Rudd returned the favour by making the President an honorary Queenslander...
The Blues better watch out, George doesn't like loosing. Before you know it he'll spike NSW onto the axis of evil.
Finally, after all these numbers, sports & politics, and just to wrap this up, here a link to a site that cracked me up when I read it today, Vlads Daily Gloat, the radical Russian with a weakness for anything US American.
2 comments:
That's very much obfuscating the truth.
Kevin Rudd and the US are complaining about European troops not being deployed IN THE SOUTH of Afghanistan.
Currently, only US, British, Dutch, Canadian & Australian troops are fighting in the very dangerous southern areas.
The European countries have abstained, leaving their troops in the quiet north.
THIS is the main issue, not necessarily the numbers alone.
And it's a fair grievance. If one claims to pull the hard yards, they need to demonstrate that. No point saying you're doing such a good job, but leave your forces in the relatively calm north.
People notice this farcical situation.
The Europeans need to back up their supposed commitment by deploying in the dangerous soth.
Why has Canada suffered so many casualties compared to most European countires? As you say, they face the toughest action.
But your argument against this point is really non-existant.
The "invasion / occupation" of Afghanistan, as you call it, has a United Nations mandate.
You're not in the business of opposing UN Resolutions are you now, surely?
Not one who lambasts the USA for ignoring the UN. You wouldn't do that yourself now?
New Old Guy,
I appreciate your comment and largely understand your argument.
However, I did point out that Rudd's comment was not really aimed at criticising the European troop commitment in terms of sheer numbers, but that he was diplomatically insinuating that Europeans are cowards for not deploying their soldiers into the dangerous south. So no obfuscating the truth there.
I agree with you, it is to a point a fair grievance when US & Canadian officials explain that they are sick of doing all the hard work, they are. If you define hard work to be dying for the cause.
If you do the math on the ratio of soldiers killed v soldiers on ground, the numbers look like this. For every 1000 soldiers, the countries listed lost that many men:
Country Ratio
US 32.5
Canada 32.4
Spain 31.1
Denmark 17.3
Estonia 15.4
Czech 14.8
Portugal 12.5
UK 11.4
Romania 11.2
Finland 9.5
Holland 8.5
France 7.9
Germany 6.9
Norway 6.1
Sweden 5.8
Italy 3.8
Australia 3.7
Poland 2.7
When looking at those figures, we have to keep in mind that one of the reasons for why the US Forces lost the most personnel is that they executed the initial invasion without any support. A large rest of the now 40 allies trickled in after month or years.
But what the list also tells me is that if we solely use the allied casualty numbers as an indicator of where the dangerous zones are, then I would have to come to the conclusion that wherever Spain, Denmark, Estonia, Czech Republic and Portugal have their troops operating, is more dangerous than where the British are. They are all Europeans.
As a matter of fact, just to get back to Kevin, if you'd count the cost and contribution given to the Afghan cause in human lives, then Australian soldiers are stationed in about as dangerous an area as Italians or Polish troops, their lives seemingly less endangered than say that of their German or Finish colleagues.
Don't get me wrong though, I am not blind to the fact that the overall picture indeed shows that US & Canadian troop operate in regions with greater risks.
To put the blame for that squarely on the steps of Europeans is however not helpful, as there are many other factors why the Taliban is celebrating its renaissance and Coalition soldiers still have to die. Here are two:
* The US withdrew a large part of its contingent for a senseless attack on Iraq without having finished the mission in Afghanistan.
* To this day no political or diplomatic efforts are undertaken to resolve the issues revolving around Afghanistan. I quoted Kevin Rudd in my post as saying they need to draw up a strategy plan. What took them six years? Karzai as the mayor of Kabul is about as effective as Maliki in Iraq. Leaders living in protected "green zones", living in constant fear of being killed by their people. hats where the country is at, after six years of killing, with estimated civilian deaths in excess of 6000. That’s twice as many innocent Afghanis killed as Americans on Sep 11.
I have no sympathies for religious fanatics like the Taliban, far from it, but I find it is about bloody time the Coalition is starting to engage in other measures than “kill ‘em, kill ‘em all” when it comes to dealing with them. But I am afraid there are too many interest groups meddling in what is essentially an internal Afghani affairs, and for peace and unity allowed to come about, is Pipelineland far too important a square on the global chessboard.
Finally, as long as there are stories like this, Afghan people will always rebel against the occupation forces:
KABUL, April 1 (Xinhua) -- Three civilians were killed as NATO aircraft targeted suspected position of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan's southern Kandahar province, a local official said Tuesday.
"NATO aircraft pounded three persons all of them farmers when they were busy in irrigating their lands in Panjwai district Monday night killing the trio," Hajji Shah Baran the district chief of Panjwai told Xinhua.
Lesson one to be learned, UN resolution or not, should your goal be to make friends with the local population, be really really careful not to bomb innocent civilians.
Post a Comment