Afghan coalition an unequal burden TheStar.com -October 22, 2007 Olivia Ward FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER
Article Link Sharing load tough when `every country wants to feel its troops are doing a noble thing'
Canadians may think of our soldiers in Afghanistan as lone rangers, galloping over the Himalayan hills to single-handedly hold off bomb-wielding renegades.
But Canada provides about 2,500 of 41,000 troops from 37 nations in the International Security Assistance Force – a NATO-based coalition struggling for stability in an increasingly unstable landscape.
The bad news is that it's mostly a coalition of the unwilling. Countries have drawn a line in the sand, but keep to the safe side of the sandbags.
Those on the front lines of combat, like Canada, the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, call in vain for reinforcements. Those in the rear may boost their numbers, but only in areas where it's less likely their troops will be killed.
The disconnect worries not only Canadians, but military strategists who say that if Afghanistan is to avoid sliding back to failed statehood, all of its supporters must be marching to the same tune.
"What has to be done is a rethinking of national caveats, and getting more troops in who can actually do something," says Sibylle Scheipers, director of studies at the Changing Character of War program at the University of Oxford.
But, she warns, "bumping up troop levels won't work by itself. A coherent strategy is what's needed, and so far that is lacking."
Countries from Albania to Ukraine are contributing to the peace effort in Afghanistan, some to please more powerful allies, others to fulfill an obligation to NATO or to detour the killing fields of Iraq.
But their troops come with strings attached – enough to keep them tethered to low-risk posts.
"We would like to see no restrictions on what troops can do," says James Appathurai, a spokesperson at NATO's Brussels headquarters. "But there are some factors that make that difficult."
NATO doesn't publicize its contributors' rules of engagement, but some of the known prohibitions are hard to surmount. One country, for example, hasn't trained or equipped its soldiers to fight in snow. Another has transport aircraft unable to fly safely at night.
Technical restrictions account for a small percentage of contributors' caveats. Most are concerned with the political risk of sending troops on combat, rather than "peacekeeping," missions.
Politicians also worry about overstretching forces and upgrading rundown equipment. And threats and kidnappings by the Taliban and Al Qaeda have raised fears that contributing countries will be targeted.
More on link
