01 April 2010

US 'Buying' Coalition Partners in Afghanistan?

The US is handing out a lot of aid to nations willing to contribute forces to the fight in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon is pouring millions of dollars into equipment and training for its smaller partner nations in the Afghanistan war, a new effort that could encourage some countries not to abandon the increasingly unpopular conflict.
The money comes from a $350 million Pentagon program designed to improve the counterterrorism operations of U.S. allies.
While the funding cannot be openly used as an enticement for NATO nations to either send troops to Afghanistan or keep them in the country, the budding initiative sends the message that those who commit to the counterinsurgency fight could be rewarded.
The U.S. is committing more troops to Afghanistan to beat back a stubborn Taliban-led insurgency — and watching in dismay as allies, including Canada and the Netherlands, look to pull troops out of the 8-year-old war or remove them from combat duties.
Roughly 87,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan now, and about 100,000 are expected to be in place by late summer.
The number of allied troops is a bit more than 40,000 and could dip as nations begin bowing to political pressures. The Obama administration has been pressing allies to increase the number of troops, both for combat and for training Afghan security forces.
Defense officials tell The Associated Press that the initial aid package aimed at six small countries — Georgia, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — is about $50 million and will be distributed almost equally among them. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the details have not been announced.Those six countries account for fewer than 1,300 troops in Afghanistan. Most of the money will buy equipment for those forces, the defense officials said, but troops will also receive critical instruction on how to detect and counter roadside bombs as well as other training.


Much like the earlier FCS story, that's a lot of buck for a questionable amount of bang...

By: Brant

No comments: