The possibility of sending new U.S. troops to Afghanistan is in large part a response to requests from military commanders for additional forces to fight a resurging Taliban that is expected to renew offensive activity after the winter passes. The United States has repeatedly asked its NATO allies to provide additional forces, but thus far the alliance's member states have proven reluctant to heed U.S. requests. Several NATO states insist they are contributing as much as they can, although many countries place restrictions on their troops that hinder effective military action in Afghanistan's most troubled provinces. The NATO web site says, "NATO is a key component of the international community's engagement in Afghanistan, assisting the Afghan authorities in providing security and stability, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance."
Unofficial defense reports indicate that the deployment of additional U.S. forces would be limited to around seven months and would help both train the Afghan Army and provide additional military power to combat an expected increase in violence in the spring. In addition to the gains made by the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan, much attention has been paid to the troubled area along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Greg Bruno, writing in an analysis for The Council on Foreign Relations, says the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan with a lot of help from elements within neighboring Pakistan.
In a backgrounder published late last year, Jayshree Bajoria of the Council on Foreign Relations says Pakistan has had a hand in fostering extremism in Afghanistan: "Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan's then military ruler Zia ul-Haq promoted the jihad in Afghanistan...."
NATO assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) more than four years ago. According to a fact sheet published by the alliance, "ISAF's role is to assist the Government of Afghanistan and the International Community in maintaining security within its area of operation." The force, which is operating under a United Nations mandate, numbers around 41,000 troops from nearly 40 contributing nations. The Afghan Army is expected to reach a strength of around 70,000 during the next year.
Sources: Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder, NATO web site, Council on Foreign Relations Analysis, NATO Fact Sheet
Published by AC Writer
I have very diverse interests and never seem to know what's going to hold my attention at any given time. View profile
- How the Cold War May Have Given Birth to the War on TerrorThere seems to be little connective tissue between the Cold War and the current on War on Terror. A closer examination, however, reveals a very strong bind.
What the Democrats Don't Understand About the War on TerrorBy criticizing President Bush over the hunt for Bin Laden, and by calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the Democrats demonstrate that they don't understand the purpos...
Why the "War on Terror" is WrongIntended as a rebuttal to Greg Reesons article, What the Democrats Don't Understand about the War on Terror. I contend that the "war on terror" is wrong. It is wrong because the...
Why We Must Win the War on TerrorWhy this disabled veteran and concerned parent feels we must win the War on Terror.- 24, Fiction and the War On TerrorFighting the War on Terror is all that some presidential candidates have to offer
- NATO Eradicates Afghan Poppy Fields, Supports Wheat Farming
- Council on Foreign Relations Tackles Global Climate Change
- Bush vs. Iraq: How the war on terror became a war on Iraqi human rights
- War on Terror
- President Bush and "The War on Terror"
- War on Terror Vs. War in Iraq
- The War on Terror: Protesting the Liberation of Iraq
