Why is NATO policing Afganistan?

[fitzov]

Wiki source

On 16 April 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO?s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date.

On July 31, 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Great Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a U.S.-led anti-terror coalition. The mission is considered the most dangerous and challenging in the Western alliance's 57-year history.

Ok, so this is good for US troops because they are being relieved, but will the alliance hold the course until NATO is no longer required? What is the mission there now other than police action?

 

[IrateLeaf]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Wiki source

On 16 April 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO?s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date.

On July 31, 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Great Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a U.S.-led anti-terror coalition. The mission is considered the most dangerous and challenging in the Western alliance's 57-year history.

Ok, so this is good for US troops because they are being relieved, but will the alliance hold the course until NATO is no longer required? What is the mission there now other than police action?

Does it really matter?

 

[fitzov]

I guess not. I just thought I'd post something other than the usual obtuse subject matter.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Wiki source

On 16 April 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO?s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date.

On July 31, 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Great Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a U.S.-led anti-terror coalition. The mission is considered the most dangerous and challenging in the Western alliance's 57-year history.

Ok, so this is good for US troops because they are being relieved, but will the alliance hold the course until NATO is no longer required? What is the mission there now other than police action?

The Taliban has been attempting to reorganize and take control back recently. Efforts are focused on rooting out suspected leaders and breaking up cells.

 

[Todd33]

NATO is needed because we cut and run into Iraq. The Talaban is making a come back now, mission accomplished?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Todd33
NATO is needed because we cut and run into Iraq. The Talaban is making a come back now, mission accomplished?

That's why we advocate doing the same thing in Iraq.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Todd33
NATO is needed because we cut and run into Iraq. The Talaban is making a come back now, mission accomplished?

That's why we advocate doing the same thing in Iraq.

Who is "we", link? As always you hit reply and type before thinking (at least I hope that didn't include any thinking).

 

[OFFascist]

NATO is assisting in Afghanistan because the United States, a NATO member, was attacked on September 11th.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
NATO is assisting in Afghanistan because the United States, a NATO member, was attacked on September 11th.

Is NATO in Iraq too?

 

[walkur]

Is NATO in Iraq too?

No, Iraq did not attack a NATO member afaik

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: walkur

Is NATO in Iraq too?

No, Iraq did not attack a NATO member afaik

oh yeah, I forgot.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
NATO is assisting in Afghanistan because the United States, a NATO member, was attacked on September 11th.

Wrong. NATO is in Iraq because member states decided to do so. No nation has declared war on the US, and NATO agreements requires a nation to be attacked by another nation in order to require all the members to respond.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: OFFascist
NATO is assisting in Afghanistan because the United States, a NATO member, was attacked on September 11th.

Wrong. NATO is in Iraq because member states decided to do so. No nation has declared war on the US, and NATO agreements requires a nation to be attacked by another nation in order to require all the members to respond.

I believe that NATO invoked the article which states that any member state which is attacked is considered an attack against the group for the 9/11 attacks.

The expansion of the activities and geographical reach of NATO grew even further as an outcome of the September 11th attacks. These caused as a response the provisional invocation (on September 12) of the collective security of NATO's charter ? Article 5 which states that any attack on a member state will be considered an attack against the entire group of members. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. [4] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included the first two examples of military action taken in response to an invocation of Article 5: Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: OFFascist
NATO is assisting in Afghanistan because the United States, a NATO member, was attacked on September 11th.

Wrong. NATO is in Iraq because member states decided to do so. No nation has declared war on the US, and NATO agreements requires a nation to be attacked by another nation in order to require all the members to respond.

I believe that NATO invoked the article which states that any member state which is attacked is considered an attack against the group for the 9/11 attacks.

The expansion of the activities and geographical reach of NATO grew even further as an outcome of the September 11th attacks. These caused as a response the provisional invocation (on September 12) of the collective security of NATO's charter ? Article 5 which states that any attack on a member state will be considered an attack against the entire group of members. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. [4] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included the first two examples of military action taken in response to an invocation of Article 5: Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour.

Yup, you are right, but that was retro-active. The US wanted a coalition to go to afghanistan for obvious diplomatic reasons and inquired at NATO about the possibility of legitimate intervention un Article 5. All the countries wanted to support the demand and pledged military assistance before the invocation was determined to be rightful, so eventually they declared the 9/11 attacks eligible under the charter's regulations.

It was because it would give more exposure to the threat of terrorism as a new way to wage war. Nato could have got involved even without that confirmation of article 5, like it did in Serbia in the late '90s. But in this way of course it was written for years to come that a nation was not the only actor capable of "declaring war" thus helping in perspective nations fighting a so called "war on terror" and semantically changing the meaning of the word "terrorism".