CBC today "NATO chief rejects claim Canada bears Afghan burden"

[Trimmen]

CBC Feb 23 2007
"The secretary general of NATO had a message for Canadians on Friday: Contrary to what they may believe, Canadian troops are not facing more danger in Afghanistan than NATO soldiers from other nations.

On a short tour of Kandahar Airfield Friday, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer addressed the idea that Canada is taking on an unfair share of the burden to rebuild war-ravaged Afghanistan.

"I think [that's] the wrong impression. I don't share that assessment," he told reporters. "As we have seen, unfortunately, recently in other areas of the country, there is also danger."

He noted that a Spanish soldier was killed on Wednesday when a convoy of ambulances was attacked in western Afghanistan, and two British marines were killed in separate incidents Wednesday and Thursday.

"In the south, where the situation is tough, where there is fighting from time to time, I say again this is a collective effort."

De Hoop Scheffer dismissed claims that Canadian NATO troops were fighting and dying while many of their international counterparts continued to take on less dangerous duty in the north."

I find these comments ignorant and offensive but I don't find them surprising.

 

[career_radio-checker]

CBC Feb 23 2007
"The secretary general of NATO had a message for Canadians on Friday: Contrary to what they may believe, Canadian troops are not facing more danger in Afghanistan than NATO soldiers from other nations.

This is a position created by the Canadian media not Canadians, and most certainly not by Canadian soldiers. It has been pointed out by other members on army.ca that for the longest time Canada's defence policy freeloaded off of our American and European allies, and as late as 2-3 years ago, our mandate did not allow us to patrol outside of the Kabul area. Now after one year of many casualties, it appears and the media makes it look like Canada is bearing the brunt, when the US has x5 the number of boots on the ground and at least x10 the casualties in Afghanistan. It would be nice to have some help from NATO allies but we are not the only ones fighting the good fight and loosing lives.

 

[riggermade]

When it comes down to it he is a politician and if he agreed with the Canadian outlook what would be the backlash from the other NATO countries there...if they pull ou of where they are at what will happen in the country?

 

[Trimmen]

You have a great point and I understand that NATO needs troops in every region in order to maintain balanced and strategical stability.....but I also believe that there are more dangerous areas than others. Take 4000 of those dormant European troops and put them in the battle for example.
Does it always have to be the US, UK, Canada and the other commonwealths that do 99% of the fighting? This always seems to be the common equation. I mean where are France and Germany and Italy...a total population base of 210 million people and the 3rd 5th and 7th strongest economies in the G8.
Maybe I'm just totally off base but I feel that the EU component of NATO should grow a collective back bone and commit more combat ready troops to this process.

 

[flamingbear]

I think last year's numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Armymedic]

This is a position created by the Canadian media not Canadians, and most certainly not by Canadian soldiers. It has been pointed out by other members on army.ca that for the longest time Canada's defence policy freeloaded off of our American and European allies, and as late as 2-3 years ago, our mandate did not allow us to patrol outside of the Kabul area. Now after one year of many casualties, it appears and the media makes it look like Canada is bearing the brunt, when the US has x5 the number of boots on the ground and at least x10 the casualties in Afghanistan. It would be nice to have some help from NATO allies but we are not the only ones fighting the good fight and loosing lives.

It would be nice to have more help. I agree with the assessment it is a media fueled opinion that we are bearing the brunt. For a whole yr all we did in Kabul was maintain a camp and had little or no effect in the country (except an ETT team) until the PRT was initiated and the Bg moved south.

Now we are earning our keep, not bearing the brunt. I suspect that this summer the British in Helmand will feel like we (the Cdn we) did last yr after all the fighting in the Panjway.

 

[gnplummer421]

I think the NATO chief is Dutch (correct me if I'm wrong) the Dutch are right there doing Battle as well. Perhaps they look at numbers and feel that our 2500 soldiers is not as much as other contributors and use that to base their opinion.

In the case of Canadian soldiers, it is not Quantity but Quality that sets us apart. I like the way our Military is conducting itself over there, and think that we are making progress. Maybe if Jaap spends some time embedded with Canadian soldiers he'll see the light and call for the nations not presently engaged in battle over there to come out of their compounds and give us a hand eh?

The Americans are contributing more assets which is good, but the guys from 10Th Mountain must be getting tired.

My 2 cents

Gnplummer421

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

My 2 cents:

First, I am not of the opinion that we "freeloaded" off NATO for years.  After all, the role of our NATO contribution was to defend Europe from the Soviet hordes; I don't recall many NATO countries (US aside) directly contributing to the defence of Canada.  While I might agree that our contribution was under-resourced and (at times) mainly symbolic, I take issue with the connotation that we were taking a free ride off the likes of Germany and France.

Secondly, as has been pointed out many times on this forum, there are major NATO members engaged in Afghanistan that could and should be doing more.  Germany's recent glee at being able to confine their participation to "training" (heh) the ANP and to flopping around in the north more than proves my point.

There are NATO nations who have stepped up in Afghanistan (and I'm not entirely convinced that we should number the Dutch amongst them, but that's a different discussion) and there are those who certainly have not.  I have pointed the finger before at some nations who are obviously in theatre for purely political reasons, who are pathologically risk-adverse, vacillating, hectoring, holier than thou and who have accomplished virtually nothing since 2002.

When will I be satisified?  When the caveats are revolked, when the theatre QRF comes from a European NATO country, and when a German (or French, Spanish, or Italian) battle group conducts a RIP with us in Kandahar or with the UK in Helmand.  Until they get into the mix (and a single mine incident in Herat hardly qualifies), I've got neither time nor patience for them.

It would be nice to have more help. I agree with the assessment it is a media fueled opinion that we are bearing the brunt. For a whole yr all we did in Kabul was maintain a camp and had little or no effect in the country (except an ETT team) until the PRT was initiated and the Bg moved south.

This is unfair and inaccurate and misrepresents both the threat and level of activity in Kabul province (a view that is indeed media fueled).  The fact of the matter is that the province was quite active and that some nations (the usual ABCA suspects plus one or two others) were heavily engaged.  Most of the remainder - as I've stated repeatedly - did practically nothing.