Commitments To 'The War on Terror' tm

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
Many Bush-fans claim that Iraq hasn't take America's eye off the ball with relation to the fight against AQ.

With the Taliban resurgent in Afghanistan and OBL and AAZ still loose, check out the troops commitments there....

UK: 5500 troops
Germany: 2500
Canada: 2500
Netherlands: 2200
USA: 2000
Italy: 1200
France: 1000
Poland: 1100

The US is behind Germany, Canada and the Netherlands in their commitment to Afghanistan.

Is this an indicator that Iraq has diverted essential resources away from their battle against AQ and the taliban?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5344596.stm
 
Yeah. Bush couldn't give less of a shit about terror. All he wanted to do was have his big war, one that had nothing to do with terrorism. Wartime presidents ALWAYS get re-elected.
 
It would certainly seem like Bush's Iraq debacle has adversely affected the battle against extremism....
 
It's amazing how much people confuse the two. Bush HAS to have been doing some lying here. We get hit by terrorists and then suddenly he uses that as an excuse to invade a country that has nothing to do with such things? He's using the deaths of the people of 9/11 to accomplish political goals.
 
It's amazing how much people confuse the two. Bush HAS to have been doing some lying here. We get hit by terrorists and then suddenly he uses that as an excuse to invade a country that has nothing to do with such things? He's using the deaths of the people of 9/11 to accomplish political goals.

The period in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was a time of Orwellian nightmares, a nation whipped into a war-frenzy using dodgy rhetoric on the back of an terrible attack.


History will not be kind to Bush. The red mist appears to be clearing in the US, slowly but surely.
 
Those are NATO forces. The US also has forces not in NATO in Afghanstan.

>>There are at least 18,500 foreign, mainly Nato soldiers in Afghanistan in addition to about the same number of US troops deployed
 
UK: 5500 troops
Germany: 2500
Canada: 2500
Netherlands: 2200
USA: 2000
Italy: 1200
France: 1000
Poland: 1100

Weird. Iraq has definetly diverted our resources and troops from the real fight against Bin Ladin.

But, I noticed that these numbers indicate only NATO troops which are under ISAF command.

Its possible there may be some U.S. units operating independently outside the ISAF command umbrella.
 
Its possible there may be some U.S. units operating independently outside the ISAF command umbrella.
//

Yes Cypress, but is that allowed ?
I mean can we have "maverick" troops in afganistan not under Nato supervision ?
 
uscitizen said:
Its possible there may be some U.S. units operating independently outside the ISAF command umbrella.
//

Yes Cypress, but is that allowed ?
I mean can we have "maverick" troops in afganistan not under Nato supervision ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think its possible.

The NATO security forces, I believe, has a certain defined set of responsibilities - civil affairs, internal security, and counter-insurgency.

The U.S. may have units operating independently, that have other functions: intelligence-gathering, covert ops, etc.

But, I'm just guessing. I think we DO have more that 2500 troops there. But, its possible bush pulled them out and sent the to Iraq - like an idiot.
 
Seem Any must be right, there are only 2000 US soldiers in Afghanstan. Nevermind what the article he linked to said. Guess he had that part on ignore! LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top