(Mission of Folly: Part five) Unlike Canada, most NATO member countries are not enthusiastic about the Afghan mission.

At the end of 2006, under NATO command, there were about 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, about one third of them American. In principle, the alliance’s mission in Afghanistan is the key priority for NATO members. In reality, while this is a NATO mission, the major partners engaged in serious combat have been the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

The International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) were first deployed to Afghanistan under a UN Mandate. They were placed under NATO command in 2003. From then until 2006, the ISAF units were mostly charged with providing security in Kabul and in the relatively peaceful north and west of the country.

In October 2006, NATO took command of most of the foreign forces in Afghanistan including 12,000 of the American troops. Another 8,000 U.S. soldiers remained under American command and were charged with training the Afghan National Army and hunting for Al Qaeda members and Taliban leaders.

Here is a list of NATO countries and the number of military personnel they have deployed in Afghanistan (in October 2006):

  • Belgium, 300, whose main task is to secure the airport at Kabul;
  • Bulgaria, 150, in 2007, Bulgaria plans to send 200 more soldiers;
  • Canada, 2500, 44 have died;
  • Czech Republic, 100, this force is to rise to 150 when Czech forces assume control of Kabul Airport;
  • Denmark, 389, three have died;
  • Estonia, 79, Estonia plans to increase this force to 120;
  • France, 1700, French forces are deployed in Kabul, nine French soldiers have been killed since the start of the mission;
  • Germany, 3000, German forces are deployed in the north, 18 German soldiers have died since the start of the mission, the German mandate does not allow German troops to be used in the south and east in fighting against the Taliban insurgency;
  • Greece, 171;
  • Hungary, 159;
  • Iceland, 20;
  • Italy, 1800, nine have died during the mission;
  • Latvia, nine;
  • Lithuania, 115;
  • Luxembourg, 10;
  • Netherlands, 1907, Netherlands forces have been deployed in various missions including some operations in the south, four soldiers have died;
  • Norway, 450, one has died;
  • Poland 100, Poland plans to send an additional 1200 troops;
  • Portugal, 156, one has died;
  • Romania, 72, four have died, Romania plans to send an additional battalion;
  • Slovakia, 57;
  • Slovenia, 49;
  • Spain, 800, 18 died in a helicopter crash in 2005, 62 died in a plane crash in Turkey in 2003 en route to Spain, one other soldier was killed;
  • Turkey, 825;
  • United Kingdom, 5,800, 44 have died;
  • United States, 12,000 under NATO command, an additional 8,000 under American command, 296 Americans have died during the mission.

In addition to these official NATO forces, there are small units from so-called Partner Nations, including Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Finland, Macedonia, Ireland, Sweden (the largest of these with 220 soldiers, two of whom have been killed); and Switzerland.

There are also 120 Australian soldiers, one of whom has died and 50 soldiers from New Zealand. The Afghan National Army is involved in the fight, deploying 28,600 troops and there are as well 30,200 Afghan policemen.

While this is a long list of countries participating in the mission, a quick glance reveals how uneven the levels of engagement have actually been. In terms of the numbers of troops deployed, and particularly the number of participating soldiers killed, the efforts have varied enormously, with only a few assuming the main weight of the fighting.

As of December 30, 2006, there had been 455 coalition deaths in Afghanistan: United States, 296; Canada, 44; United Kingdom, 44; Spain, 19; Germany, 18; France, nine; Italy, nine; Netherlands, four; Romania, four; Denmark, three; Sweden, two; Australia, one; Norway, one; Portugal, one. (Of significant note as well were the 62 Spanish soldiers killed outside Afghanistan in a plane crash in Turkey in 2003.)

In absolute numbers, the United States dominates the list. Looked at it more closely, it is significant that the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom accounted for nearly 84 per cent of personnel killed. Looking at the whole list, including the U.S. and the UK, in terms of the size of the populations of the countries participating, Canada has suffered the most casualties.

Other important NATO countries, including Germany, France and Italy, respectively with 18, nine, and nine killed are involved in the mission, but are much less fully engaged than the U.S., Canada and the UK whose forces have done most of the fighting.

Because of strong political opposition at home to participation in the Afghan war, and the view of the governments in Berlin, Paris and Rome that the mission will be long and unrewarding, these NATO countries have mostly kept their forces in the safer regions of the north and have placed restrictions on their forces operating in zones of conflict. Some of their forces are not even permitted to go on patrols at night.

At a NATO summit in Latvia in November 2006, the issue of the disproportionate involvement in combat, by some countries as compared with others, came to a head. Under pressure from the Americans and the British, a few allies agreed to ease restrictions on the use of their troops in missions against the insurgents.

Those agreeing to do so included the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and Luxembourg. Far more important, however, were the decisions of France, Germany, Italy and Spain to allow their forces to be deployed in combat situations only in emergencies. In plain language, this meant these large NATO countries refused to shift their positions in any meaningful way.

Explaining the decision, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi told journalists that “this has been our clear position from the beginning.” He added: “That also goes for the French President, the German Chancellor, and the Spanish.”

Cynicism has surrounded the Afghanistan mission from the very beginning. The Bush administration launched the invasion of the country for broad geo-political reasons at a time when the key members of the administration had already made up their minds that the place they really wanted a military showdown was in Iraq. The British have also seen the Afghan theatre as secondary to that in Iraq.

From the British, at least, there has been some willingness to speak plainly about the conflict — British officers have warned publicly that the war is not being won — while in the U.S. the conflict has been so wrapped in ideological bunting that little reality has shone through.

Among Canada’s other NATO allies in Afghanistan, doubt has been pervasive. The continental European countries have sent forces to Afghanistan but have ensured that casualties remain relatively low. Public opinion would not allow them to do otherwise. These countries entered the conflict under overwhelming pressure from Washington. They are there largely to show that they are loyal members of the western alliance. When it comes to doing serious fighting against the insurgency, they have not done it, nor will they in the future.

Were Canada to withdraw from the mission, it would not jeopardize Canada’s relationship with most other NATO countries, since for most of our allies involvement in Afghanistan has been no more than pro forma.