article from May 2008 here, idk about current accuracy, but these caveats must be pretty dispiriting for some ISAF top brassMuch has been made by various commentators in recent months about the negative impact national caveats are having on Nato/ISAF operational capabilities in Afghanistan. As well as affecting operational effectiveness, such caveats - which place self-imposed restrictions on the way in which individual national forces may be deployed - are having a corrosive effect on relations between contributing Nato countries, and on overall ISAF morale.
Although forces from all 26 Nato member states are deployed in Afghanistan, only Britain, America, Canada, Denmark and Holland have not used caveats to limit the rules of engagement of their troops.
nah, sorry, i think i knew that you were talking caveats, but i just wanted to open that discussion up with a direct quote.I think relative casualty rates also have a lot to do with capacity and equipment. But the nations with lots of casualties are def in the most dangerous areas. Kinda mad that Denmark has the most. And yeah, sorry, the caveat thing is what I meant. The ultimate rules of engagement.
Uh, I realise I sound like a twat, so I just want to clarify: this is just a guy who comes into my shop. And he's an analyst, not, like, a spy.(Very recommended by a UK spook called Mr. Bob who always gives me great tips, but rather unnerved me last year by announcing, in hushed tones, that "democracy is probably finished.")