Philadelphia Inquirer
December 17, 2006
By Alisa Tang, Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan - Sen. John McCain yesterday urged reluctant European allies to allow their troops to engage in combat operations and fight the resurgent Taliban, especially in Afghanistan's rebellious south.
The Arizona Republican, a likely contender in the 2008 presidential race, also criticized Pakistan for tolerating sanctuaries for the Taliban and other Islamic militants in tribal regions along its border with Afghanistan.
Taliban officials say they use these tribal areas for recruiting, training and staging cross-border raids.
"The Taliban remains a very big threat, and we have a long way go to before they are eradicated," McCain said.
McCain told reporters at a U.S. base in Kabul, the Afghan capital, that the U.S. would commit more troops to Afghanistan if needed.
"But the focus here is more on training the Afghan National Army and the police, as opposed to the increased U.S. troop presence," he said.
A report from the Iraq Study group said that the U.S. should provide "additional political, economic and military support for Afghanistan."
Afghan, U.S., Canadian, British and Dutch forces have done most of the fighting over the last year, McCain said, at a time when ambushes, suicide bombings and other attacks have multiplied.
Several NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan - including Germany, France, Spain and Italy - restrict the use of their troops to relatively peaceful areas of the north.
That, McCain said, makes it "extremely difficult for our NATO commanders to call on them for assistance when needed in combat zones."
McCain arrived in Kabul on Friday with three other Republican members of Congress for a two-day visit. One of them, Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, said that while there was much debate over how to proceed in Iraq, there was no question about continuing support for the Afghan government.
Before leaving for Pakistan, the legislators were expected to inspect military-led reconstruction efforts in rural areas and visit a training center for the Afghan army.

How does Mister McCain suppose we eradicate the Taliban? They seem to have a funny way of multiplying, so I wish them luck.
The trouble with this particular mission is that the European governments aren't too fond of a fighting war in Afghanistan. They know that our people don't respond well to body-bags and KIA's. That is why our troops went with only a mandate for rebuilding the land. They are mainly engineers with heavy howitzers, intended for all sorts of reconstruction. If their mission will be fighting, the mandate will be revoked and they'll be back in Holland before you can say: Taliban....

How is the drug economy progressing in Afghanistan? The Taliban rarely take a backward step these days.

Big difference in what they should do, and what they ARE doing, and WILL do.

So long as Pakistan continues to help the Taliban regroup within their own borders and so long as we continue to respect said borders the Taliban will continue to grow.

The Senator needs to address such to the US President, so the US President can addreess such to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General John Craddock, USA.

I'm not sure if NATO really wants the advice of McCain (or any Senator) on how to fight a War.

Having lived and worked in Europe I can tell you there are Europeans who are happy for Americans and non-European allies to sacrifice many of their soldiers lives and help rescue Europe from German aggression (WWI & II), and to go to great expense in protecting Europe from Communist expansion (supplying England, the Marshal plan & NATO were not cheap) BUT they do not want to return the favour by helping other countries - Iraq, Afghnistan, etc - to enjoy the same liberties and help the Americans and allies win those freedoms for these people.

It's called ingratitude and selfishness. Commendably, Poland and some in England and Italy however do not have short memories.

The Afghan Op. is covered under the NATO Treaty, as the United States of America was attacked by the forces in Afghanistan.
Iraq however is not a covered item, Iraq is Offense, NATO is more Defense. If Iraq would have attacked the United States of America it would be a NATO Mission under the NATO Treaty, because under the Treaty an attack on one NATO Member is seen as attack on all NATO Members.

Padre, I am delighted to see such a "worldly" view from a man of the cloth. I must say that I concur wholeheartedly.

Spike.

Many of you guys argue about the Western history and western model of politics. Remember, Afghanistan is located in Central Asia, is isolated (has no access to main bodies of water), and mainly Islamic.

It appears the Pakistanis are perhaps more aware of the situation in Afghanistan and that is why it is most important to refer to them for important updates and information. The Taliban or the insurgency in Afghanistan, is shaping into a People's movement known as the Pushtun People's movement. Reasons behind why they are gaining in strength and numbers is because of one simple reason. The US is repeating the same situation of what the Soviets did during the 1980's.

The Taliban have implied the same tactics of the Mujahadeen did during 80's by disrupting supply routes, attacking property owned by the ruling Afghan government, and engaging in various guerilla hit and run tactics.

The reasons why many European Politicians are reluctant of sending troops overseas is because of the general belief that NATO is not an occupying force or a peacekeeping force. This role is generally given to the UN, which is hopelessly powerless because of the lack of commitment. I do hope the future leadership of the US remember this, as we enter into another global century, every action must be done multilaterally and any unilateral actions will result in the mess like we see today in Iraq.