Posted on 09/17/2008 7:36:44 AM PDT by presidio9
France on Wednesday asked its European allies to relax restrictions on troop deployment and operations in Afghanistan just a month after losing 10 soldiers in a Taliban ambush.
Limits on troop operations and years of military underspending in Europe outside the United Kingdom and France were damaging the coalition war effort, French Defense Minister Herve Morin said on a visit to Australia.
"Most of Europe has made NATO responsible for their security. Therefore, the weakness of Europe is typified by what you see in Afghanistan," Morin told journalists.
NATO has struggled to get major nations to contribute more to its Afghan force, and as the death toll rises the challenge only gets greater.
Last month was the deadliest for foreign troops since the conflict began, according to independent website icasualties.org. Forty-three troops were killed, including the 10 French soldiers hit in a single Taliban ambush.
Many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have "national caveats" that restrict how their troops may be used, limiting their flexibility.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last year compared the problem to a chess game in which one side enjoyed full freedom of movement and the other could only move a single space in a single direction.
Australia and the United States, both close allies, have been critical of European countries for not doing enough to combat the Taliban in their mountain havens.
Australia, an original member of the U.S-led coalition that arrived in 2001 to topple the Taliban, still has around 1,000 troops in the restive Oruzgan province, including special forces.
Morin said "not a cigarette paper in width" separated his own views from those of his Australian counterpart Joel Fitzgibbon after 10 French troops were killed and 21 wounded by the Taliban on August 18.
"We share the point of view that
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wow. The French are stepping up.
The Sarkozy effect.
How much you wann bet that those French soldiers who were ambushed called for help, but were told none was available because of national caveats?
You know, I hate to admit it, but I like Sarkozy...
It’s nice to see that France is growing a pair. Truthfully, NATO should have been scrapped or revamped about 10 or 12 years ago. Europe today is wealthy and should pay for its own defense (Who foots the bill for most of NATO—the US. The Euros should have their own defense—if they did, they wouldn’t have the wussy nanny states that exist in France, Germany and elsewhere. The US should back off from Georgia and Ukraine being a part of NATO. As far as policy toward Russia is concerned, it’s is necessary to recalibrate that as well. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was left in a shambles and we basically rejoiced in it. Yeltsin was nothing but a disastrous drunk, the oligarchs stole everything that wasn’t tied down. Did we ever think that the Russians would ever try to get their sh*t together? That’s what Putin is trying to do. Now I am not canonizing Putin—but there is a rationale for Russia’s actions. We would be doing the same thing if the tables were turned. Because of our present involvement in the Middle East, we can only do so much insofar as countering Russia’s moves. They can make severe trouble for us in the Middle East and elsewhere—we already see that with regards to Chavez in Venezuela and Russian advisors in Lebanon and Syria. Some of this also goes back to the situation in former Yugoslavia. Both Bosnia and Kosovo should have been Europe’s problem not ours. Russia traditionally has been Serbia’s ally (since the 19th century)and NATO basically ran rough shod over Russia’s role in Kosovo (basically because Yeltsin being a drunk, they couldn’t take much action). The Albanians in Kosovo (the KLA) are a bunch of thugs and drug smugglers.
We should force the Germans and French into a position of taking a more vital role in Afghanistan. The Germans especially, have been playing with themselves and are as useful as t*ts on a bull as far as their military action is concerned. Afghanistan is basically a lost cause. The Pashtuns are happy to live in the Stone Age (except for the few who have been westernized). I see the Afghan situation and the Iraqi situation as two different entities. Besides ridding the world of Saddam and putting Osama in a less powerful position (at least he’s on the run) we haven’t gotten any hardcore benefit from our effort. Yes, Petraeus was right with the surge—but we can’t stay there for ever. The real reason we are involved in both places is not to spread democracy like confetti in a ticker tape parade-—it has an economic basis. It is about access to natural resources. The government should have been honest about these motives as well—there is nothing wrong with looking after one’s interests.
It’s nice to see that France is growing a pair. Truthfully, NATO should have been scrapped or revamped about 10 or 12 years ago. Europe today is wealthy and should pay for its own defense (Who foots the bill for most of NATO—the US. The Euros should have their own defense—if they did, they wouldn’t have the wussy nanny states that exist in France, Germany and elsewhere. The US should back off from Georgia and Ukraine being a part of NATO. As far as policy toward Russia is concerned, it’s is necessary to recalibrate that as well. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was left in a shambles and we basically rejoiced in it. Yeltsin was nothing but a disastrous drunk, the oligarchs stole everything that wasn’t tied down. Did we ever think that the Russians would ever try to get their sh*t together? That’s what Putin is trying to do. Now I am not canonizing Putin—but there is a rationale for Russia’s actions. We would be doing the same thing if the tables were turned. Because of our present involvement in the Middle East, we can only do so much insofar as countering Russia’s moves. They can make severe trouble for us in the Middle East and elsewhere—we already see that with regards to Chavez in Venezuela and Russian advisors in Lebanon and Syria. Some of this also goes back to the situation in former Yugoslavia. Both Bosnia and Kosovo should have been Europe’s problem not ours. Russia traditionally has been Serbia’s ally (since the 19th century)and NATO basically ran rough shod over Russia’s role in Kosovo (basically because Yeltsin being a drunk, they couldn’t take much action). The Albanians in Kosovo (the KLA) are a bunch of thugs and drug smugglers.
We should force the Germans and French into a position of taking a more vital role in Afghanistan. The Germans especially, have been playing with themselves and are as useful as t*ts on a bull as far as their military action is concerned. Afghanistan is basically a lost cause. The Pashtuns are happy to live in the Stone Age (except for the few who have been westernized). I see the Afghan situation and the Iraqi situation as two different entities. Besides ridding the world of Saddam and putting Osama in a less powerful position (at least he’s on the run) we haven’t gotten any hardcore benefit from our effort. Yes, Petraeus was right with the surge—but we can’t stay there for ever. The real reason we are involved in both places is not to spread democracy like confetti in a ticker tape parade-—it has an economic basis. It is about access to natural resources. The government should have been honest about these motives as well—there is nothing wrong with looking after one’s interests.
LOL! Don't quit you day job. That's not the McCain Administration you hear on the phone!
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
I don’t hate the Fench. I just have a special place in the bottom of my heart for French liberals.
I still can’t get all excited about a McCain adminisration—but compared with Obama-Biden what choice does one have. McCain has gained some ground in NY, but I want to see what the polls will say at the end of Oct. That determines if I vote Libertarian or Republican.
They’ve got the right guy in charge.
I was commenting on your summation of getting rid of Hussein and keeping bin Laden on the run as "good, not great." No terrorist attacks on the US for 7 years is plenty good enough for me, and we wouldn't have had that with Gore or Kerry in the White House.
Oh, yeah voting Libertarian shows SUCH concern for the Union. A more clueless group does not exist.
I know there is alot to be desired about the Libertarian Party, but in NY during presidential elections, nothing’s at stake because the Dems have such a stronghold here.
Well, nothing like losing 10 soldiers in a humiliating ambush to look at the tactical setup of NATO troops over there.
But, on a brighter note, (Don’t think Germany and Italy are going to join the British and American troops in bandit country), here’s a nice summary from ORBAT.COM.
>>Congratulations, France French marine special forces rescued a 60-year French couple from their yacht which had been hijacked by pirates off Somalia. The pirates wanted 1-million Euros and release of six pirates captured earlier by the French and now awaiting trial in France.
The ransom was paid, presumably to buy time; the special forces troops were dropped by helicopter into the water 50-meters from the yacht; they boarded at 04:30 undetected except by one pirate who opened fire and was killed. In a separate operation on land, the ransom money was recovered. Presumably other pirates are in custody from the land operation.
Nicely done, France.
Unless there is no Republican candidate running there is no excuse for voting L.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.