US to withdraw from Afghanistan...Uk to plug the leak.

[buttmunch]

British troops to target al-Qaida, Taliban and fill gap left by US withdrawal

Simon Tisdall and Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday November 15, 2005
The Guardian


Britain is attempting to build a coalition to pursue counter-insurgency combat operations against al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan after the withdrawal by the Bush administration of 4,000 US troops early next year.
Talks with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and several other countries are being held before a Nato meeting in Brussels on December 7. They follow the refusal of European allies, such as France and Germany, to allow their troops to become involved in counter-insurgency.

The discussions are among preparations for the deployment of 2,000 crack British troops backed by Apache attack helicopters to lawless Helmand province at the head of an expanded, British-led Nato force next spring. An additional 2,000 British troops are expected to be sent to Afghanistan next year bringing the total number to somewhere around 4,800. The British mission in the south represents a significant escalation of its overall involvement in Afghanistan. Military sources said it was potentially more hazardous - and could last longer - than Britain's postwar involvement in Iraq.

"The debate is not whether, but to what extent these troops will get into counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics," a military source said. "We are not talking war fighting. But there is potential for armed conflict in some areas. The reality is that there are warlords, drug traffickers, al-Qaida, al-Qaida wannabes and Taliban."

An officer said: "It could take longer to crack than Iraq. It could take 10 years."

Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest since the 2001 US-led invasion. Suicide bombers killed a German peacekeeper in Kabul yesterday. A British soldier died recently in a gun battle in Mazar-i-Sharif.

The source said talks were under way with other countries about contributions to Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) operations in Helmand. "Are they prepared to completely go war-fighting or do they want to do other things?

"The bits of the equation that have to be resolved are the overall size of the force package, where they will be and, depending on the Nato mood music and the realities on the ground, what their mandate will be."

Australia confirmed yesterday it was in talks about sending troops to southern Afghanistan. Fifty New Zealand SAS soldiers are understood to be serving in the south, at present under US command, after their tour of duty was extended. Canada has 1,500 troops in Afghanistan and offers to join the British-led force in the south have been received from the Netherlands, Denmark and Estonia.

Despite US pressure, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have refused to expand the mandate for their peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan to include "war on terror" combat operations. But their reluctance and the increased pressure on British forces is causing concern among MPs.

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "Nato runs the risk of embarrassment if it cannot find sufficient troops of good quality for the mission. The government has claimed that everything will be all right on the night ... this seems optimistic."

The Ministry of Defence said yesterday the aim of the mission "would be to help restore Afghanistan as a secure state and prevent it again becoming a haven for terrorists". In a Commons statement, Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, said "no final decisions ... had yet been made. But it was "sensible to begin British preparations for potential deployment".

Britain is also planning to send up to 2,000 additional troops to Kabul to bolster the Isaf peacekeeping operation, of which it will take command next spring. The deployments will raise British troops in Afghanistan to more than 4,000 compared with 8,500 in south-east Iraq.

The US will remove most of its troops in the south early next year and reduce troop levels in line with reductions in Iraq. The British troop build-up is expected to start in the new year.

Violence across Afghanistan has escalated in recent months despite US claims that democracy is taking root. Up to 1,500 people have been killed this year

OK, can someone please help me understand this? It was the Taliban/Osama who perpetuated 911. They were based in Afghanistan and continue to be there and in Pakistan. So, despite the fact that Osama is still on the run, presumably in one of the two aforementioned countries and presumably still a threat, the US is going to pull out. On the other hand, the illegal, supposedly pre-emptive war in Iraq, which was started under false premises, continues to drag on, with no plan to end it in sight.

[deckchick]

Answer here...

short version - U.S. doesn't want to be the lead in Afghanistan, but wants other countries involved. The Afghan war was a UN sactioned jobbie with a bunch of countries involved, the Iraq War was not.

The Battalion (Texas A&M) June 7, 2005

NATO's peacekeeping role should be expanded
In-Depth Coverage By Hayden Migl

The recent transfer of authority in western Afghanistan from the United States to NATO-led forces is an indication of the alliance's ability to provide a multinational peacekeeping force in order to secure peace amid a hostile environment. Similar transitions should follow throughout the rest of the country resulting in a diversified security force. The turnover of power is also a sign of the United States' desire to work with other countries in order to achieve peace in the region.

On June 1, a transfer of power was made from U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a NATO-led force established to provide security in the country. The alliance has taken command of provincial reconstruction teams in the western Afghan cities of Herat and Farah, according to an article on globalsecurity.org. These teams fall under the jurisdiction of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This force is supported by NATO, authorized by the United Nations Security Council and made up of willing nations, according to the Allied Forces North Europe homepage. The mission of the ISAF is to aid reconstruction efforts and prop up Afghan security forces through training. Its initial jurisdiction was only the capital city of Kabul, but the recent expansion means NATO-led forces are now responsible for the security of about 50 percent of the country.

The United States was justified in its invasion of Afghanistan, but it should hand over the peacekeeping duties in the region as quickly as is safely possible. The transition of authority does not mean U.S. forces will not have a presence in the country since some American forces currently operate under ISAF command. The relinquishing of U.S. control also increases the manpower available to hunt down insurgents in the southern and eastern areas of the country, according to asia.news.yahoo.com.

The region's power transition should be encouraged to increase the international presence. The ISAF provides that presence through a mix of nationalities. Soldiers from Italy are taking charge of one of the reconstruction teams, Spanish forces are running one of the bases, Lithuania is setting up another, and a Turkish lieutenant general heads the entire ISAF, according to globalsecurity.org. In fact, all 26 member countries of the alliance as well as 10 nonmembers have contributed manpower to the ISAF. The nations contributing the most troops are the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Turkey and Belgium, according to the ISAF Web site.

NATO faces many obstacles as it expands its influence in Afghanistan both from insurgents and the tense political situation.

One of the issues arising from the handover of authority concerns NATO's ability to deal with the constant threat of violence. Recent months have been particularly bloody including "a series of political killings, violent protests, attacks on humanitarian workers, and bombings targeting foreigner civilians and troops," according to an article on globalsecurity.org. These concerns were voiced in a column on BBC News which questioned if the ISAF will have the gear necessary to maintain peace or if the U.S. troop withdrawal will leave them under-equipped. NATO has the capabilities to handle unrest, as it showed in Kosovo, and the threat of attacks should not prevent it from expanding its operations in the region.

Another concern is the tension arising from the announcement the United States may establish a permanent military presence by setting up military bases throughout Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai faces pressure from political opponents due to his acquiescence of allowing a permanent U.S. presence, according to People's Daily Online. Criticisms include a belief Karzai's policy of allowing U.S. military bases is "tantamount to the complete occupation of the country." Decreasing America's military presence in the nation may help alleviate some of the tension, and increasing ISAF troops would help relieve U.S. soldiers in the country.

NATO's expansion into western Afghanistan is beneficial to the war on terror by allowing U.S. troops to focus on other areas of the country. An international presence through the ISAF is what is needed in the region. The experience NATO has in providing infrastructure and reconstruction efforts should be utilized as much as possible to shift the focus of coalition troops to the tracking of terrorists in the south and east portions of the country. NATO should also take this chance to prove it can be a viable player in world politics by showing its effectiveness in securing peace in a hostile environment.