"On the front line in Afghanistan"
The BBC deigns to notice the Canadians. Note the Dutch Apaches as well as the UK Harriers. I wonder how typical this bit is, or whether it is purposefully written.
Soldiers' doubtsCelestial Junk has a post in rebuttal.
The losses are gnawing away at Canadian confidence.
What struck me was just how many doubts the Canadian soldiers seemed plagued by.
What are they in Afghanistan for? I was asked a number of times. Is it worth the lives of friends and colleagues?
Crouching in a gulley, Corporal Brad Kilcup confided, "All the guys out here, the only thing they think about is getting home safe."
A small man, his face caked with dirt, he fidgeted nervously with his gun.
Sitting beside him was Private Ryan Hunt, a sandy-haired, boyish-looking 21-year-old.
"All we want to do is help these dudes reconstruct their country," he added hopefully...
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 12:04 p.m.
3 Comments:
Yes, I have really been astounded as to why this question has not been asked more often:
Why our America's allies willing to pull America's chestnuts out of the Talibanistan fire at the same time America is redeploying from Afghanistan to Bush's un-provoked, unnecessary, largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (UULUIUOI)?
Can you enlighten me?
vigilante: The Americans are not redeploying troops from Afstan. That was the plan at the beginning of the year
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2006/Jan/04-979684.html
but it has since been dropped (for obvious reasons).
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D09A1804-D76E-416E-B63D-A45782B3EF3F.htm
US troops will remain at around 20,000 and they are fighting hard in east of Afstan on the Pak border.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17092006/140/massive-offensive-afghanistan.html
Mark
Ottawa
vigilante: Latest--US has 21,000 troops, NATO 20,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/17/AR2006091700570.html
'Some members of the alliance complain that others are not contributing enough soldiers or equipment, leaving a handful of countries shouldering most of the burden for a high-stakes mission that is becoming increasingly treacherous.
Although no members have criticized others by name, eight of the 26 countries are providing more than three-fourths of the alliance's 20,000 troops now in Afghanistan. Many members are providing fewer than 200 troops. Poland, for example, has contributed 10 soldiers to the mission, according to NATO officials, although it pledged last week to send about 1,000 more.
"It is important that the whole of NATO regards this as their responsibility," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said last week.
The United States has 21,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, more than any other NATO member, but only 1,300 are part of the alliance's operation; the remainder are under exclusive U.S. command. Britain is currently the largest contributor to NATO's force in Afghanistan, with 5,000 troops.
Other countries have complained that their forces are already overstretched.'
US troops in east are scheduled to come under NATO ISAF command around the end of the year.
Post a Comment
<< Home