McCain: European Allies Should Help Fight Taliban

Team Infidel

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
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....
 
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.
 
Last edited:
CABAL said:
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.
Click to expand...

And like the Soviet occupation, the Afghani's are getting their weapons and supplies from Pakistan and are operating within Pakistan free of persecution. Let's not forget that in the days following 9/11 many people thought we would have to fight our way to Pakistan to get to Afghanistan because Pakistan was many things but a US ally was not one of them.
 
Gator said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the current prevailing selfish European attitude - France being the main culprit - than the NATO treaty.
 
France just rejoined NATO Military Command in 1993, after taking a 27 year break from NATO Military obligations, in my opinion the French were pissed they were not put in charge of NATO.

The French may still be a little gun shy.
 
Padre said:
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 favor by helping other countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, 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.
Click to expand...

Well being an American currently living and working in France for almost 10 years, I must say your opinion is neither fair nor accurate. Since you seem to single them out, the French have 4500 of switch 1900 are ground troops. There are 200-300 Special Forces members. Thats almost 20%. Could they send more? Yes. So could Australia, or the US, or the UK. So could a lot of countries.

If you look at Wikipedia you'll notice that France contribution also includes an entire Carrier Battle Group, including the De Gaulle, 3 Frigates, and a SSBN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-present_war_in_Afghanistan#.C2.A0France

The reason they are so reluctant to send combat troops is because the Europeans (especially the French and British) have a LONG history of fighting Islamic Extremists. You can read a book on the British expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan or the French in Algeria for proof. So they are not about to readily do a reenactment of some failed military policies just because the US Administration asks them to.

Next consider the fact that the current US leadership with its proven track record of dishonesty and ineptness doesn't exactly inspire other peoples confidence (lets alone its own) with its leadership abilities. Personally, I wouldn't trust the President to walk my dog, so you can image how Europeans must feel about letting them lead their troops. I would point out that all the Major NATO countries did participate in the Gulf War (Bush the elder) and in the Balkans (Clinton). The difference was in both cases that they actually TRUSTED us. Then again a vast majority of Americans don't trust the Bush Administration on Iraq and Afghanistan either. So I think your claims of selfishness are without merit.

Finally, lets also not forget the disgraceful manner certain US politicians (and their supporters) treated the Europeans for refusing to take part in the Iraq debacle. I am not just talking about the constant ridicule, but also of specific foreign policies (like Kyoto and World Court) that this Administration basically told the world to go f*** itself. If you slap a friend in the face, do you really expect their help afterward? I hear tons of anti-French, anti-Europe, comments all the time here on this very forum. How can you people be surprised or angry that they don't feel like helping us afterwards???

The next US president (GOP or Democrat) is going to have to kiss major butt to make amends for the damage caused in foreign relations.

Now with that being said, I think the Europeans (and a few others) should send in more troops, because despite the history and the wrong thats been done, the Taliban and al Qaeda are a threat to them as well.

Gator

The French have been gun-shy since the end WWI, it is why they lost in 1940. Some people accuse them of being cowards (mainly in the USA) but thats easy to say. The US was almost untouched by WWI, they lost 300000 men total. The French lost over 7 Million men and was the only country completely obliterated by the war. It was worse than the South after the Civil War. When Germany and Japan were destroyed in WWII they lost their will to fight as well.

The morale of the story is this: Its easy to have a hawkish/militaristic viewpoint as long as the war is not fought on your own soil. The French had 3 major wars, all fought in France, with large numbers of Causilties within 100 years.

Is that not then understandable?
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Well being an American currently living and working in France for almost 10 years, I must say that opinion is unfair. First of all Europe is in Afghanistan. Holland, France, the UK and several others have all sent troops, including Medical units, transport units, engineers, and Special Forces. Since you seem to single them out, the French have 1900 troops in Afghanistan (out of 10000). Thats almost 20%. Could they send more? Yes. So could Australia. So could a lot of countries...

The reason they are so reluctant to send combat troops is because the Europeans (especially the French and British) have a LONG history of fighting Islamic Extremists. You can read a book on the British expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan or the French in Algeria for proof. So they are not about to readily do a reenactment of some failed military policies just because the US Administration asks them to.

Next consider the fact that the current US leadership with its proven track record of dishonesty and ineptness doesn't exactly inspire other peoples confidence (lets alone its own) with its leadership abilities. Personally, I wouldn't trust the President to walk my dog, so you can image how Europeans must feel about letting them lead their troops. I would point out that all the Major NATO countries DID participate in the Gulf War (Bush the elder) and in the Balkans (Clinton). The reason was in both cases that they actually TRUSTED us to do the right thing. Since we have decided to endorse a political ideology that seems to be based on delusion, is it not surprising that other wish not to follow. So I think your claims of selfishness are without merit.

Finally, lets also not forget the disgraceful manner certain US politicians (and their supporters) treated the Europeans for refusing to take part in the Iraq debacle. I am not just talking about the constant ridicule, but also of specific foreign policies (like Kyoto and World Court) that this Administration basically told the world to go f*** itself. If you slap a friend in the face, do you really expect their help afterward? I hear tons of anti-French anti-Europe comments all the time here on this very forum. How can you people be surprised or angry that they don't feel like helping us?

The next US president (GOP or Democrat) is going to have to kiss major butt to make amends for the damage caused in foreign relations.

Now with that being said, I think the Europeans should send in more troops, because despite the history and the wrong thats been done, the Taliban and al Qaeda are a threat to them as well.

Gator

The French have been gun-shy since the end WWI, it is why they lost in 1940. Some people accuse them of being cowards (mainly in the USA) but thats easy to say. The US was almost untouched by WWI, they lost 300000 men. The French lost over 7 Million men and was the only country completely obliterated by the war. It was worse than the South after the Civil War. When Germany and Japan were destroyed in WWII they lost their will to fight as well. Having a war fought on your soil is not the same as having it fought on somebody else's.

In retrospect is it not understandable?
Click to expand...


I was posting about the 1966 to 1993 timeframe as far as being gun shy.
I'll point out that the French lost 1,375,800 Troops in World War I and 40,000 Civilians due to Military Action, for a total of 1,415,800, the Russians lost more. As far as losing their will to fight after World War II, well the French fought in Vietnam after World War II.

France and the US go back a long way, France helped the United States become a Nation, but as far as NATO goes, I believe France has little to offer NATO, so I really do not care if France is in NATO or not, but if France is going to claim NATO membership the French need to pull their own weight.
 
Padre said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would like to know what countries you are addressing here, Padre... Please provide some sources to back up your statements of Europe not participating and have in mind participation is much more than military troops and figures. Europe is much more than Poland, England and Italy and prior the next time you call my country selfish please look up our military history from 1945 until today.
 
Last edited:
Gator

Thats only Killed in Action. (actually the number is closer to 1.5). But its 7 Million if you count the Wounded and the Missing. I always considered Wounded and Missing as Casaulties of war as well. I understand what you meant, what I am saying is that the mentality is earlier that 1966, that it started in 1918 and has continued ever since. That is why they were defeated in both 1940 and in Vietnam. Their unwillingness to use force when necessary has cost them dearly. The good news is that since the Gulf War they have been slowly regaining confidence.

As for NATO you are mistaken. While a member of NATO, France no longer participates in the NATO military. Technically the military is independent although joint military exercises are very common. It still remains the 2nd largest military force in Europe (after the UK, which is slightly larger).

As for pulling its own weight, Gulf War, Bosnia, Lebanon, various African countries and as I mentioned it is by my count the 3rd largest force in Afghanistan (almost 2000, with another 2500 on the water).

The only war it passed on was Iraq, which was not a NATO operation. Turns out they were right to do so. Had we listen to the French (and Germans) we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in now. Here is what many people don't understand: NATO is not under the thumb of the USA (or any other nation). Just because 1 member gets into a scrap doesn't mean EVERY member has to join in, unless a NATO member is attacked. We were attacked on 9-11 NATO (France included) send force (other other types of aid). Iraq did not attack us, hence France and most other Nation countries decided to stay out.
 
Last edited:
Even when France withdrew from NATO it still worked closely with NATO forces in wargames, rescue operations, etc. It was a NATO member in every way that mattered but name, which comes down to the whole post-WWII depression France needed to get back on their feets, so De Gaulle miraculously "withdrew" from Algeria (was kicked out) against heavy public criticism and is now considered a hero of the people, he also "kicked out" the US Army and withdrew from NATO. They were ways of making the French feel better about themselves, you know, it's like "We can't do anything about this problem, so we will do this instead because to not do anything would be even worse." Hell even right after the invasion of Iraq (2003) French forces were training with US Marines in Florida, I believe that's where they were.

Besides, the French themselves rarely engage in military actions, instead they send the Foreign Legions, which is very useful to politicians, they can send these mercenaries in to fight for France's interest and the French don't care because those who are doing the fighting and dying aren't French, so no loss for them.
 
Damien435

Yes, thats true the French still conduct exercises with NATO. But your wrong about De Gaulle. De Gaulle is popular because he stood up against the Nazis during the occupation. Most people were glad France got out of Algeria, the ones who were not were the Settlers (similar to the Israeli settlers on the West Bank) who were not wild about the idea about leaving their homes.

Contrary to popular opinion the Foreign Legion isn't as 'Foreign' as you think. Most people who join are French. There are still foreigners but its no different than the South Americans who join the US military. Although the current commander of the Legion is Lebanese. The Foreign Legion is an elite unit, therefore it doesn't make any sense to claim they are expendable. Also when you consider that the pay of a Legionaire is only about $15000 a year, most Mercs would do better in the REAL merc units the US Army has hired in Iraq like Blackwater Security Corporation were they can 8-10 times a Legionnaires salary.

Your mercenary claim is totally baseless and frankly, shows a anti-French bias on your part.

I don't think the French avoid military conflict more than anyone else. Name one area they avoided aside from Iraq. And in retrospect, the fact they opted not to do Iraq turned out to be a very wise decision.
 
Why the devil should European troops loose their lives in a war that should never have been started? Once again the USA starts a war and expects others to pick up the pieces. Have you never heard the song "When will they ever learn?" This would well apply to the USA forces overseas!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top