Is it just Britain and America in Afghanistan?

[The riddler]

Is it just Britain and America in Afghanistan?

At the moment lots of British and American soliders have been killed fighting for their country in Afghanistan but i have never heard of a Frenchman or German being killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other countries of that ilk.

A friend of mine has told me that other then Britain most of Europe won't fight terrorism because they're not bothered to spend the time, money or resources. From what I've read on the internet i'd have to agree with him. This makes me quite angry because France and Germany are supposed to be to of the main countries in Nato and yet i don't find much effort from either of them in this war for democracy over injustice, prejudice and terror. I believe all of Europe should be involved in the fight againest the taliban and i also believe that it shouldn't just be only Britain and America paying in money and blood defending the freedoms of the peoples of the middle east and the west.

Please post your opinion and thanks in advance for any replies.

 

[mgb_phys]

but i have never heard of a Frenchman or German being killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other countries of that ilk.

Does fox report the deaths of foreigners ?

A friend of mine has told me that other then Britain most of Europe won't fight terrorism because they're not bothered to spend the time, money or resources.

There are approx 2800 Canadian troops, 4000 German, 3500 French, 2000 Dutch

From what I've read on the internet i'd have to agree with him. This makes me quite angry because France and Germany are supposed to be to of the main countries in Nato

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
Afgahistan = not predominately in the North Atlantic, in fact it is rather deficient in the whole ocean area.

 

[chemisttree]

Really, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan" better.

 

[George Jones]

125 Canadians have died in Afghanistan,

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/668767.

 

[tiny-tim]

some friend!

A friend of mine has told me that other then Britain most of Europe won't fight terrorism because they're not bothered to spend the time, money or resources. From what I've read on the internet i'd have to agree with him.

Some friend!

He needs to spend the time, money and resources to look at wikipedia's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan" (as of two days ago) …

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country
USA: 667*
UK: 185
Canada: 124*
Germany: 38
France: 28
Denmark: 26
Spain: 25
Netherlands: 19
Italy: 15
Australia: 11
Romania: 11
Poland: 9
Estonia: 4
Norway: 4
Latvia: 3
Czech Republic: 3
Hungary: 2
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Sweden: 2
Turkey: 2
Finland: 1
Lithuania: 1

TOTAL: 1,184

 

[MATLABdude]

I think the point is made succinctly:
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/E1mn...erman+Soldiers+Killed+Afghanistan/-mHNjtAMEe7

I'm Canadian, and images / stories like the following are coming on a weekly (and sometimes daily) basis now (remember that our entire military, up and down the chain of command, only has 65,000 people):
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090718/soldier_funeral_090718/20090718?hub=Canada

I won't let outrage rule me, as it has your friend. I would hope he / you don't continue to spread that misinformation. You're free to suggest the NATO allies ought to do more, but don't get all self-righteous and tell us we're not doing anything or are cowards (a FOX Morning TV host made a really, really poorly timed / delivered joke(?) mocking Canadian contributions in Afghanistan on the day following the death of 3 Canadians).
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2009/03/23/redeye-soldiers-mocking.html

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Wow, really tiny_tim? Only 1,184 casualties? That's crazy.

 

[lisab]

Wow, really tiny_tim? Only 1,184 casualties? That's crazy.

Not sure what your point is...the number is crazy high, or crazy low?

 

[Pinu7]

Wow, really tiny_tim? Only 1,184 casualties? That's crazy.

That is the size of a small town all dying. It is no WWII, but it is not insignificant neither.

 

[rootX]

I don't think tiny_tim meant anything other than pointing out that US and UK are not only ones that are losing men neither see any of his opinion on this.

All I see is US and UK have 70% of the deaths and other countries 30% (plain numbers). I don't know how to interpret these numbers or even if contribution (which can be of different forms and based on interests) can be measured by deaths.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

No. I just found it crazy low. It's amazing how they can conduct these wars with so few casualties. From a soveignty perspective, for the cost of an extremely small hamlet you could have your own sizeable country.

 

[MATLABdude]

No. I just found it crazy low. It's amazing how they can conduct these wars with so few casualties. From a soveignty perspective, for the cost of an extremely small hamlet you could have your own sizeable country.

The raw cost (yes, factoring in inflation) to equip a US soldier today is about 100 times what it was during WWII. This doesn't factor in the considerable training they get these days, nor the overwhelming (to the enemy) logistics used to maintain the troops in the field:
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/oct/04/cost-equip-us-soldier-17500-please/

Because of better medicine, medivac, and the ability to fly the wounded out to a state-of-the-art real hospital (e.g. Landstuhl in Germany) within hours, the survival rate is significantly higher. Frankly, many of the service people who are wounded in action today would have died in past conflicts. That's also why you're seeing and hearing about many more service people with symptoms resulting from severe head trauma--they would've just died in the past:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39414

Tangentially, the average soldier may, or may not, be facing more intense conflict than ever (number and duration of engagements per solder per year). That may be fueling the amount of PTSD cases you're seeing. Or people might just be more willing to talk about it. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050412-gone-to-war.htm

EDIT: Not a soldier, officer, or doctor.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No. I just found it crazy low. It's amazing how they can conduct these wars with so few casualties.

Its because they mostly bomb them out.

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- The number of civilians killed in armed conflict in Afghanistan rose 40 percent last year, to a record 2,118, a U.N. report said Tuesday.

[snip]

Among its findings:

• Insurgents killed 1,160 civilians. Most died as a result of suicide-bombings or roadside blasts in crowded areas. The majority of the casualties took place in the south of the country, which saw heavy fighting in several provinces.


• Afghan security forces, U.S. and NATO troops killed 828 civilians. Airstrikes -- many at night -- were responsible for the largest percentage of these fatalities.

• The remaining 130 deaths could not be accounted for because of issues such as crossfire.


• The victims included 38 aid workers, double the number for 2007. An additional 147 were abducted.

cont...

This is apparently for last year alone.

 

[Office_Shredder]

There are somewhere around 20,000 total civilian casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 (numbers vary widely between 10k and 30k). On the other hand there are some 25,000+ military casualties (coalition plus insurgents. Source: Wikipedia. If you think it's wrong, prove it). So it's about 1 to 1 civilian to military casualties. Nearly twice as many civilians as soldiers died in WWII, in WWI there were as many civilian as military casualties, in the Korean war there were about as many civilian as military casualties. The civilian casualty count in Afghanistan is not shockingly higher compared to the size of the conflict when put in light of other conflicts in the past century.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Call me a callous machievellian douche but a couple thousand deaths and an entire country changes hands vs. hundreds of thousands to extend a line of trenches a couple miles... I honestly thought that the afghan war was COSTLIER than it was/is.

 

[russ_watters]

The public's stomach for accepting casualties in war is a lot lower than it used to be. That's why you're surprised at how low the number is.

 

[The riddler]

Thank you everyone for your posts. The reason i posted this is because after talking to my friends they all agreed that this was the situation in the middle east, i wasn't really posting my own opinion as much as i was trying to recreate their opinion and what may be public opinion which is usually based on the supposedly bias news (For example: We didn't even know there were Canadians in Afganistan).

But after researching the situation in Afganistan further i found that German and French forces are actually not the on frontline but mainly based in the much quieter north of the country, most are not killed in action, 12-16 of the 38 Germans were killed by accidents and many of the rest are killed by car bombs and other booby traps.

So basically I am asking why are the Americans, Canadians and British on the frontline and why aren't the French or Germans? and do you think this is fair?

 

[Borek]

Before looking for the answer you should be aware of the fact that not everyone believes that military action was the best way of dealing with the situation. Still, countries that preferred other approaches felt obliged by pacts to take part in the operation.

Note: I am carefully not stating who is right and which option (military vs political) was a better choice.

 

[mgb_phys]

I honestly thought that the afghan war was COSTLIER than it was/is.

It's not really a war as such it's more like a police action.
The afghan government is on our side, the other lot don't have an army/navy/airforce the casualty figures are roughly in line with most other similar actions - higher than N. Ireland, lower than Gaza.

Casualty figures for real (two armies in uniform) wars have an interesting trend.
From the middle ages, through the Napoleonic wars upto the first world war the majority of casualties were due to conditions, weather, lack of food, poor water etc. Almost nobody died due to the enemy.
WWI and into WWII machine guns and decent artillery managed to kill more soldiers.
Then in Korea and Vietnam limited contact with the enemy reduced the figures again and improved medical evac meant that wounded were much less likely to die. But more mechanized equipement and more rear-area personnel meant more deaths from accidents.

Ultimately in gulf war I almost all the deaths were due to accidents or friendly fire - that's pretty much the standard now.
For some parts of gulf war II and Afghanistan the casualty rate was lower than for some exercises (per number of troops).

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well the notion that the war in afghanistan or iraq was about terrorism or tyranny is laughable. If america were to compile a list of potential threats eliminated/democracy gained (by force of course) vs. american casualties I wouldn't even think afghanistan or iraq would make the top 30 (I mean why not invade Haiti or Columbia or some such). And the notion that they were after osama or wmd's is equally preposterous. If their priority was osama/al-qaeda they would have either just sent in an assassination squad or tried to poison his aspirin (a la castro) or try to turn one of his inner circle to do the job for you. Full scale invasion with months of warning before you even get close to his location? Not exactly effective. Case in point, no one knows where osama is no one really cares.

So why didn't france and germany rattle the sabre with the states? Well look from their perspective. America wants to make itself a nice little home in the middle east (since israel just wasn't cutting it) and they want your man power to do it. However, if they do get said foothold then you will reap the benefits as well (cheaper oil). So you make token protestations about war mongering and illegal invasion and then just toe the line between minimal compliance and alienation (in terms of the U.S. gov't, not the U.S. people, I don't think the french gov't gives two hoots whether podunk americans relable french fries freedom fries) and see what happens.

Now, why did Canada go? Well because we depend on the states for trade in a huge way so the risk of alienation was much greater than it was for france or germany so we went. Did we think you were full of it? Oh most definetly. Canadian soldiers are dying because Bush got tired of OPEC.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Ultimately in gulf war I almost all the deaths were due to accidents or friendly fire - that's pretty much the standard now.

That's pretty much the standard now for the superiorly equipped, superior number forces gang banging third world armies. The other side doesn't get it quite so easy.

If there was something like a US vs Europe throwdown, or even a smaller action like US vs just Finland or something, I'm sure the killed in combat rate would rise as both sides are capable of firing at each other effectively

Maverick, you realize Afghanistan doesn't even export oil right?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I do, although it makes a nice spot for a pipeline and a nice staging area for further action in the middle east. Funny how within only a month or two of starting the invasion (an action they still haven't finished) they were already prepping to invade iraq. Not to mention the fact that Bush was always eying Iran. Now a war with Iran, that could have been scary indeed.

 

[mgb_phys]

That's pretty much the standard now for the superiorly equipped, superior number forces gang banging third world armies. The other side doesn't get it quite so easy.

Yes I was assuming from the point of view of the side that had internet forums.

If there was something like a US vs Europe throwdown, or even a smaller action like US vs just Finland or something, I'm sure the killed in combat rate would rise as both sides are capable of firing at each other effectively

Assuming you aren't doing a full out WWII style bomb them to dust you generally aim to reduce your own casualties. Modern troops are too expensive (in training costs and public opinion) to have killed. Hence the interest in ROVs and remote operations.
It is interesting though that the force with superior numbers generally does less well just form the increased incidence of friendly fire and accidents.

Maverick, you realize Afghanistan doesn't even export oil right?

But it is in the way of the nice '..istans' that do have oil and the ocean. Of course you would also have to make sure the other istan immediately to the south is friendly.

 

[MATLABdude]

After 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history (unified response in the event of unprovoked attack):
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/english/summaries.html

The initial invasion of Afghanistan basically was basically carried out by the US, with logistical and air support from NATO countries. Coalition forces were on the ground at least for the fall of Kabul.

NATO ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) was tasked with holding and securing the Kabul area in the aftermath of that invasion. Right around the time of the invasion of Iraq (March 2003), the NATO countries were asked to expand their role, and (it was perceived) make up for US/UK forces being redeployed to Iraq. Summary at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

This was deeply unpopular in the European allies and Canada (the perception that we were enabling the invasion of Iraq, or were allowing the US to run roughshod over International Law as per the Bush Doctrine--preemptive attack to counter near-immediate threats). I think that's when you really started seeing disengagement and disparity of fighting amongst the participating NATO allies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do, although it makes a nice spot for a pipeline and a nice staging area for further action in the middle east. Funny how within only a month or two of starting the invasion (an action they still haven't finished) they were already prepping to invade iraq. Not to mention the fact that Bush was always eying Iran. Now a war with Iran, that could have been scary indeed.

The pipeline was already given a go and since has been stalled due to the situation in Afghanistan. Doesn't seem like the invasion helped at all.

Invading Afghanistan seems to me to be far more political than anything. Everyone and their grandmother over here were yelling war cries after 9/11. To have not invaded would have ended Bush's career right then and there.

 

[russ_watters]

Invading Afghanistan seems to me to be far more political than anything. Everyone and their grandmother over here were yelling war cries after 9/11. To have not invaded would have ended Bush's career right then and there.

War is politics by other means. I guess what you are getting at is that the war wasn't morally justified. But we were in a situation where an enemy had been making sporadic war against us for nearly a decade, and getting bolder and more successful as they went along. To not respond with an invasion of Afghanistan would have been morally wrong - Bush would have been shirking his responsibility to protec the American people.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well you did train them in guerilla/covert action, supply them, imply that you would give them everything after and then left them to dry after the soviets pulled out.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

If some cuban exhile at the bay of pigs feels cheated by the U.S. and decides to off a major politician is it Cuba's fault?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I mean don't get me wrong. I'm not a bleeding heart. I'm down with Machiavelli. If you want to grab a valuable commodity while trying to divert public opinion by manufacturing an enemy go for it. That's a decent idea. I just don't appreciate situation bringing me along for the ride.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

War is politics by other means. I guess what you are getting at is that the war wasn't morally justified. But we were in a situation where an enemy had been making sporadic war against us for nearly a decade, and getting bolder and more successful as they went along. To not respond with an invasion of Afghanistan would have been morally wrong - Bush would have been shirking his responsibility to protec the American people.

I was really just responding to the idea that the US invaded Afghanistan for oil.
I try to avoid discussing moral justification. You are right that I did not agree with the invasion but I would be more likely to cite the historical logistics nightmare that military actions in Afghanistan have been than to call it immoral.

 

[russ_watters]

Well you did train them in guerilla/covert action, supply them, imply that you would give them everything after and then left them to dry after the soviets pulled out.

Hyperbole aside (we did help them successfully beat the Soviets, didn't we?) that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue, as that was not used by Bin Laden as a justification for his terrorism. Osama hates us because of his radical islam, plus maybe a little inferiority complex about how we helped Saudia Arabia defend against Iraq after they rebuffed his offer. He doesn't - he can't - acknowledge the US's role in the Afghan/Soviet war.

If some cuban exhile at the bay of pigs feels cheated by the U.S. and decides to off a major politician is it Cuba's fault?

What? No. Just no. You're talknig gibberish. That's nowhere close to anything here. It's nonsensical.

I'm down with Machiavelli. If you want to grab a valuable commodity while trying to divert public opinion by manufacturing an enemy go for it. That's a decent idea. I just don't appreciate situation bringing me along for the ride.

Again, what the heck are you talking about? Are you saying you actually buy into that conspiracy theory crap? As conspiracy theories go, that's a pretty dumb one. As was pointed out, Afghanistan has no oil and the pipeline issue isn't even an active one.

These posts are really out in left field - they have very little connection to reality.

 

[studentx]

A friend of mine has told me that other then Britain most of Europe won't fight terrorism because they're not bothered to spend the time, money or resources.

Taliban killing troops is not terrorism, it is just war. Targeting civilians makes it a different story tho. I would say Britain is fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, but inside its own borders its losing the ideological battle and is somewhat behind compared to other countries

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Hyperbole aside (we did help them successfully beat the Soviets, didn't we?) that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue, as that was not used by Bin Laden as a justification for his terrorism. Osama hates us because of his radical islam, plus maybe a little inferiority complex about how we helped Saudia Arabia defend against Iraq after they rebuffed his offer. He doesn't - he can't - acknowledge the US's role in the Afghan/Soviet war. What? No. Just no. You're talknig gibberish. That's nowhere close to anything here. It's nonsensical. Again, what the heck are you talking about? Are you saying you actually buy into that conspiracy theory crap? As conspiracy theories go, that's a pretty dumb one. As was pointed out, Afghanistan has no oil and the pipeline issue isn't even an active one.

These posts are really out in left field - they have very little connection to reality.

Suggesting that the war in Afghanistan was a disguised precursor to the war in iraq which could potentially be a precursor to further mucking about in the middle east is a conspiracy theory? And to suggest that this sequence of wars was motivated by oil? You may not agree with that summation but a conspiracy theory? Really?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden evidently I'm not alone in my "gibberish". It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels with the bay of pigs.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thank you everyone for your posts. The reason i posted this is because after talking to my friends they all agreed that this was the situation in the middle east, i wasn't really posting my own opinion as much as i was trying to recreate their opinion and what may be public opinion which is usually based on the supposedly bias news (For example: We didn't even know there were Canadians in Afganistan).

But after researching the situation in Afganistan further i found that German and French forces are actually not the on frontline but mainly based in the much quieter north of the country, most are not killed in action, 12-16 of the 38 Germans were killed by accidents and many of the rest are killed by car bombs and other booby traps.

So basically I am asking why are the Americans, Canadians and British on the frontline and why aren't the French or Germans? and do you think this is fair?

Not expressing any opinion on this, but thought it relevant-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4016186.ece
The article mentions that "Only the special forces were sent on offensive operations", and gives some reasons why.