Afghanistan is often referred to as 'the forgotten war," but in the case of NATO, it should be called the ignored war. Radio Free Afghanistan details NATO's lack of serious commitment to the Afghanistan mission. "As NATO's defense ministers begin a two-day meeting in the Netherlands today, the United States is criticizing member states' inability to dedicate more resources to the alliance-led mission in Afghanistan."
The United States, which has over half the NATO forces in Afghanistan, is frustrated by NATO's failure to pony up resources for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not mince words as the latest NATO meeting.
Speaking after a meeting of the Council of Southeast Europe Defense Ministers in Kyiv on October 22, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly attacked NATO members for not living up to the commitments they have undertaken. "I am not satisfied that an alliance, whose members have over 2 million soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, cannot find the modest additional resources that have been committed for Afghanistan," he said.
NATO commanders in Afghanistan have been screaming for an additional two battalions of combat troop--about 1,000 soldiers--to reinforce ISAF units in heavy contact with the Taliban in southeastern Afghanistan, but no troops have been offered.
Many of the units in Afghanistan operate on what are called caveats--restrictions on when, where and how the units can fight. Countries like France, Germany, Spain, and Italy have significant troops in Afghanistan, however they are restricted to securing the peaceful northern and western portions of the country (in defense of the French, they have a 200-man special forces team in southern Afghanistan which I am told does some bloody work.) The Americans, Brits, Aussies, Canadians, and the Dutch are left shouldering the load of the fighting, and the Canadians and Dutch, which are respectively deployed in the southern hotspots of Kandahar and Uruzgan, may have to withdraw from the mission due to a lack of political support.
Most of the units lack organic air and logistical support, and rely on the United States or Britain for this support. NATO is considering leasing--leasing--30 helicopters to support combat and logistical operations. The greatest military alliance on the planet cannot spare 30 helicopters.
I'll pass on a short story from my embed with the Canadian Army in the southern province of Kandahar during June 2006. The Canadians were in the midst of fighting the Taliban in the Panjwai and Zari districts. As part of Operation Mountain Thrust, we moved out into the deserts of neighboring Helmand province and pushed eastward. The heat was so intense that I dehydrated and developed a kidney stone (if you haven't had one, trust me, the pain can be quite intense).
The medics offered to medivac me, but said it could take time to get a helo out there. I was aware of the real problems the Canadians had with air support, and declined. The Canadians were in a hot fight, and I didn't want to divert the valuable air resource for my very painful but non-life threatening condition when a soldier could potentially need it. But the point is, NATO does not have the resources it needs for this fight.
