geriatrickid, on 2012-05-27 22:42:07, said:
In fact, the Dutch have a commitment for training Afghan police. While the 2011 budget includes start-up costs, the 2012 and 2013 budgets are both set at 109m euros, and that for 2014 - 94m. The Netherlands has a total of 545 personnel deployed in Afghanistan, most of them in Kunduz(Source BBC) Yes, the Dutch military troops withdrew from combat operations, but personnel remained to facilitate an orderly withdrawal of the NATO task force. The Canadian contingent has pulled back from combat operations, but training and support is firm until 2013. Unlike the French, both countries gave a commitment and both countries have respected their agreement despite overwhelming public sentiment to pull everyone out. The French decision is unilateral and without any consideration for their supposed partners and allies.
In respect to French combat operations, please be realistic. Flying high above the ground and dropping ordinance is hardly as risky as having actual boots on the ground. The French stayed as close to Kabul, the safest spot in Afghanistan. I recognize the contribution the French made, but the reality is that when there was an all out combat operation it typically fell to the US, UK and Canada to carry out the operations. This is why those 3 countries' combat fatalities were so high. The French presence in Afghanistan hot zones, typically lay with logistics and air support. The French could have easily reduced their presence while still maintaining support for the protection of aid initiatives and NGOs. This is what the Dutch and Canadians have done.
I appreciate that this thread is not about nations' conduct in WWII, but the French have a long history of folding when the pressure is on and the abandonment of a longstanding understanding is in keeping with French practice.
Unfortunately not only are you talking nonsense, but offensive nonsense to boot!
You appear to have some fixation with the French which I'm afraid is sadly misplaced in terms of Afghan commitment. If you really wanted to go after gun-shy members of ISAF, the German, Spanish or Italian contingents in the relatively quiet northern & western provinces would be fairer game. See map below:

If you wanted to criticize pullouts you should start with the Dutch, who far from pulling out as per schedule, upset the whole apple cart in 2010. Having extended their mission from 2008 to Aug 2010 the Dutch PM assured NATO that he would further extend the Dutch mission beyond Aug 2010. Despite massive political lobbying he was unable to deliver on this promise, his government collapsed and NATO had to quickly readjust to a far earlier than predicted Dutch pullout. See below:
http://www.theaustra...o-1225833062148
As the article underlines, the Dutch pullout set the stage for the Canadians to depart, which was a major loss in terms of combat capability. Their departure in 2011 has been exacerbated by Harper's insistence that all Canadian troops are gone by early 2014, again much to NATO's disappointment. See below:
http://www.vancouver...4922/story.html
You seem to belittle French casualties and claim their combat role has been minimal. Their role in the Kapisa area is hardly without incident (search "French Kapisa" for video clips etc), and your claim that Kabul is " the safest spot in Afghanistan" is ludicrous given events in the last 12 months there. If you want a quiet life try Herat (Spanish/Italian) or Mazar-e-Sharif (German). The French SF troops have operated throughout southern and eastern Afghanistan in joint ISAF operations with great professionalism.
Not content with apparently labelling the French army "cowards", you then proceed to belittle the role of aviation assets in general (you sure seem to enjoy pi**ing people off). Flying jets or helicopters brings its own set of challenges and risks, while not as immediate as those experienced by the PBI (poor bloody infantry). Also if you shared your views with anyone who has called in air support that subsequently delivered, they would join the lengthening queue of people who might take your comments a tad less lightly!
Hardly surprisingly, given the unpopularity of the war with voters and the cost at a time of cutbacks and austerity, there is a slow motion rush for the exit underway, and even the Australians are adamant that they will be out before their election in 2013. "Bringing the boys home" before an election is powerful vote-winning stuff (hence the US decision to pull out 33,000 combat troops by Sept 2012, a far bigger hit than 2,000 French troops).
Every pullout has been unilateral and deeply unpopular with ISAF/NATO. Hollande campaigned on a pullout of French troops in 2012, and Sarkozy had already cut a year off their deployment and had pledged to bring them home ahead of schedule in 2013. Intrigued by your comments re protection of civilian aid projects and NGOs, both of these are now tragically few and far between, therefore not requiring much force protection.
Rarely am I an apologist for the French, but your arguments are weak, and apparently unsupported by facts.





Find content
Not Telling
Posted
Posted
