War in Pakistan

scottdisco

rip this joint please
thanks Vim!

yes AFAIK the four countries i mentioned up-thread have tended to be involved in the most enemy contact out of international forces (or i think did the last time i was following this with any regularity which i admit was way back last summer; also Denmark has had the most troops killed of any international country relative to population).

this is mostly because their troops, especially Canada, the US and the UK, have been deployed in what have been the most dangerous areas, and less, i think, to do with their rules of engagement being significantly different from that of other partners.
i don't think the British ROE are much less strict than the German ones, say.

what can differ considerably from country to country is the caveats.

Much 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.
article from May 2008 here, idk about current accuracy, but these caveats must be pretty dispiriting for some ISAF top brass
 

vimothy

yurp
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 effective rules of engagement.
 
Last edited:

scottdisco

rip this joint please
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.
nah, sorry, i think i knew that you were talking caveats, but i just wanted to open that discussion up with a direct quote.
really, you said everything i said in my post, except you said it with 'ISAF is a bit of a shambles' (something i realised after posting): i do esteem concision :)

would be interested to hear more on the capacity/equipment - relative casualty rates you mention. (if there is much more to be said.)
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
oh of course re equipment affecting casualty rates i see what you mean, sorry, how well-armoured vehicles are, stuff like that.
 

vimothy

yurp
Yeah, that's it. And also what amount of fire power, types of weapons, forces, level of training -- there's what, 22 different national defence policies represented in the ISAF?
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Odd how Afghanistan is now more problematic than Iraq. Would be nice to talk about the turn around in Iraq of course. The success. From connections within the LFIQ and GFIW ranks, I've been hearing about it for a while now, as well as in reports from the US military which is, despite the reputation falsely attributed by, for example, Abu Ghraib, the most robust and least corrupt US establishment left standing.

Anyone read Mansoor's Baghdad At Sunrise, for example? It's worth it. (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.")

I think West Point deserves more respect than it gets. It produced Wes Clark and Petreaus and other Thucydides-spouting ubermensch and that's always useful.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
(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.")
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.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
i got a bit eyeballed by some impeccably dressed heavies from Côte d'Ivoire's London embassy once not long after leaving Craner and his Foyles tales.

hmm.

that was more impressive in my head than getting typed out.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I have met King Abdullah of Jordan in the course of my job, although I really wanted to meet his wonderful wife instead. I was in charge of his account, so I know what he likes to read in bed.
 

vimothy

yurp
Did Scott mention to me that the Sudanese embassy were ordering up every book ever published on international humanitarian law and genocide? (Most of that evening lost in a mist of real ale...)
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Yes, they did, but the Sudanese Embassy never paid their account, we had orders going back 2 years, so we cancelled it.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I once looked after a guy from the Sri Lankan air force who had 2 long lists of books: 1 list was all Industrial Chemistry books, the other, ballistics. He told me he was doing "a Phd".
 
Top