Losing in Afganistan!?!?

Numbers of ISAF forces in Afghanistan taken from http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf
Actual numbers vary daily due to new deployments, casualties, etc.


Albania – 140
Australia – 1090
Austria – 3
Azerbaijan – 90
Belgium – 510
Bosnia & Herzegovina – 2
Bulgaria – 470
Canada – 2800
Croatia – 295
Czech Republic – 340
Denmark – 700
Estonia – 150
Finland – 110
France – 3160
Georgia – 1
Germany – 4050
Greece – 145
Hungary – 310
Iceland – 8
Ireland – 7
Italy – 2795
Jordan – 7
Latvia – 165
Lithuania – 200
Luxemburg – 9
Netherlands – 1770
New Zealand – 160
Norway – 485
Poland – 2000
Portugal – 90
Romania – 1025
Singapore – 8
Slovakia – 230
Slovenia – 80
Spain – 780
Sweden – 430
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – 165
Turkey – 730
Ukraine – 10
U.A.E. – 25
UK – 9000
USA – 29950

As of July 2009 the Afghan National Army numbers 91900

 

I think the Spanish total is double that...Some of the figures will not allow for the temporary increase due to the elections recently that nato nations pushed more troops into including UK on a temporary basis? Italy have a thousand more than that according to their own govt scources, but as I say they will all supposedly be withdrawing the guys sent in to cover the elections.

 

Please get the information Before you state this. I'm having a thought for the 10 Italian casualties (they have about 3000 men) of last week . I also have relatives fighting in Afghan and they took another two casualties two weeks ago (their units joined as early as 2002)

Thanks for setting the figures straight Mike.

 

Thanks for the figures Mike,and salute.Urqh I was never in doubt that we fight our corner I.E. Helmand but it was not support in that I quite meant, I was getting at the overall worldwide commitment and looking at Mike's figures it has to be said some countries are seriously lacking Spain for one Georgia (1) bet he's lonely, and I know the scandinavian contribuition has on occasion been a vital one having read of the Danish involvement in the 3 Para book but what will it take for larger commitment in which ever part of the AFGHANISTAN PIE THAT COUTRY CHOOSES.

 

Those were the numbers given on the ISAF. I believe there should also be troops from many of the same countries who are not a part of the ISAF forces. I am still looking for those figures.

 

Skip its not wtids fault really....We see only what our national contingent is up to over here...Some of us obviously have other means and interested more and see other nations roles and actions in daily reports on military sites...But Brit media is Im afraid pretty nationalistic on this and to all intents and purposes its us and yanks, with some Canadians...Im sure wtid knows different. The French are doing their bit as much as anyone..It ill beholds Bris stirring politicians feeding press with stories meant to take othere things off the papers etc that they dont want on...We even got a story last week that Brit holiday makers are in danger at Brit sea side due to lack of helicopters due to crews needed and fitters etc for Helmand resulting in our sea side bathers not having the same cover in rescue helicopter force as last year...and some idiot politician comes on local news and blames the Dutch...and others for not supporting Brit troops with helicopters....thereby forcing us to support our own troops....Are they reading what they are saying....I think not....There is a lot of misinformed folk in UK im afraid....Wtid is not guilty here...Its bigger than that.

 

WOAH! Skipper I said for example, and asked the question of figures that Mike supplied. I also in a previous post on the forum posed the question as to casulties of other countries as news in the UK FOCUSES ON OUR SO FAR 217 DEAD IN AFGHANISTAN.No insult was meant and if you read what I wrote properly you will see that.Also the Uk and USA do bear the main brunt so my other question seemed more than fair.

 

Not doubting your site mate, just know that since July to September there was an influx of troops on a temp basis purely for elections...I dont know the figures. But they are being gradually reduced again.

 

The British Mod site puts the current figures a5 38000 Nato led troops in addition to US troops and includes UK troops. Currently Nato led troops outnumber US troops but not for much longer.

It doesnt though break down the 38000 none US nato led troops into nationalities.

 

But figures dont tell the tale. Nato forces elsewhere are obviously doing their job. Spainish troops had a fight and a half this month with Taliban killing 13 at least in a ferocious fight not reported in most UK media. It was not long ago as Skip says that French and Italian troops suffered losses too.

The medias and politicians need to stop stirring the mud here.

 

wtid, I missed the request for the casualties. I found this little chart on icasualties.org



In addition to the numbers from Spain, 62 more soldiers were killed when there plane crashed in Turkey. Those troops were on there way home, but were lost as a result of the war none-the-less.

 

no problem wtid45, I just wanted to point out that many countries take part in the coalition and take casualties. Nobody ever mentions the Germans for instance whereas they are over 4000. It is doing justice to those to serve by mentionning their effort. This is why I appreciated Mike's post. Also the population of a country should be taken into account. This brings Holland to a large contribution too.

 

Skipper I was well aware of the many countries who had forces deployed in Afghanistan but less aware of thier casualties due to as Urqh rightly said are media, and unless the net or sites such as these bring these matters to light we are always likely to have the confused or different points of view we have but I still stand by what I said, are there countries who can do more or do nothing at all.

 

IMO those overall figures are awfully low to do the job, we are talking about someting like 4 WW2 divisions including rear area troops here, the Germans and Italians had a lot more troops in Yougo in WW2 and could only control the towns, I don't think modern weapons and airpower change things that much as they basically add to the "denial" not the "control" capability and better C3i is not likely to make that much difference.
With those numbers "search&destroy" tactics are the only possible strategy and against a porous border and a strongly motived enemy that brings out very bad memories.

 

your right tos..9000 brits does not equate to infantry. the actual inf part of brits is a few bns. on rotation. not nearly enough. this is the misnomer my gvt gets away with.

 

How is it that years ago our great allied nations destroyed a Nazi Empire, defeated the Japanese war machine, faught in the continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe through land, sea, and air and did that in only 6 years..

We have been in war for 7 years in one country with bunch of nations fighting against an enemy with no tanks or armoured vehicles, no air force or Navy. No advanced weapons other than the odd Bazooka and road side bombs. No airplanes, no tomahawks or cruise missles, no fancy Radar systems. No large number of troops available that our great nations have..

How is it possible that we are losing Afganistan..

We have the best troops.. we just need a Patton, Eisenhower or Monty to lead them!

And the world leaders to show the terrorists who's boss..
So they can scare the pants off the countries that harbour and support the terrorists.

This whole being diplomatic stuff doesn't seem to be working.. Our leaders need to take a more agressive approach on this problem...

Perhaps a Yalta conference should get the ball rolling!
hehe

 

i just like to clarify when i meant by "we", I mean "we" the countries with troops deployed in Afghanistan.


One last thing... in ww2 Germany was the enemy... Now the Germans are on our side
so how can we be losing !!

 

Afganistan is no easy nut to crack, never has been. When the locals aren't fighting invaders, they take a break and fight each other.