Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
There's widespread belief in Europe that the fighting in Afghanistan has long since turned into yet another US crusade for nothing, and nobody really likes to send people to die in wars they don't believe in.
Also, there's a big difference in mentality. The US keeps talking about how they are sending men to war. The Europeans like to talk about trying to bring about peace. That little semantical issue makes a great deal of difference in the kind of operations each country likes to do.
Also, many European countries like to point out that maybe it's not that they go where there's less trouble, maybe there's less trouble because they're there. (This is very propably true, because if I was an islamist militant, I'd go for Americans first.)
I'm not saying the Europeans are necessarily right, I'm just saying that you can't just add up bodybags and come to conclusions.
That said, yeah, I wouldn't trust the French with a loaded gun either  |
I didn't. If you are able to check out the rules of operation for the German forces for example, they only went to Afghanistan on the condition that they are deployed in a less hostile area.
I will have to look it up but I think the Spanish and Italians had the same deal before committing.
This is information I recieved from europeans. No more valid than if I just made it up of course! I read of this arrangment somewhere also, but I have no idea of where to look for it.
Maybe Canada bit off more than we can chew, obviously so; I mean how many combat troops do we have? Maybe C. Crunch has a good number, but I'd guess at only 10-15 thousand.
Something like 70% of our army vehicles are in such need of repair as to be useless, and as stated above the head of all forces says we need to stand down for a full year.
My thought is that this is a NATO mission, and if so then all of NATO should pitch in. If one country is overburdened, what are our allies for?