Can NATO really get 5,000 troops?

Posted By Joshua Keating Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 1:44 PM Share

Referring to the United States's NATO partners, President Obama last night asked, "that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead." A conference will be held in London in January to discuss international contributions to the effort.

NATO Chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen promised 5,000 troops, but it's a little unclear where he's going to get them:

Reacting to Obama's call for more help, a Polish official said the government will likely send 600 combat-ready reinforcements, mainly for patrolling and training, to beef up its existing 2,000-strong contingent.

Albania pledged to increase its 250-member unit by 85 troops, army trainers and medical workers, Prime Minister Sali Berisha said.

Spain's El Pais daily said the defense ministry was considering adding 200 soldiers to its 1,000 contingent. Italy declared it would do its part and Finland confirmed that it had been asked to consider sending more troops and would do so next week. [...]

Britain announced before Obama's speech it is sending 500 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing its numbers there to 10,000.

France and Germany are holding off on any troop decision until an international conference in January, though French President Nicolas Sarkozy has previously pledged that he "won't send an additional soldier."

The other big question is the Netherlands, whose parliament voted for a non-binding resolution in favor of withdrawal when the Dutch mission ends next August. If the Dutch government follows through and pulls out its 2,160 troops, that would more than negate the 1,385 troops already pledged by Britain, Spain, Poland and Albania. Canada has already passed a withdrawal plan for 2011 as well and seems unlikely to add more troops. 

Even in a best-case scenario in which the Dutch keep current troop levels and the countries mentioned are able to follow through through on their commitments, NATO will still need get more than 3,500 troops from the Italians, the Australians, the deeply ambivalent Germans and a hodge-podge of smaller nations, none of whom currently have more than 1,000 troops in the country. 

It doesn't seem too likely. 

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

EXPLORE:EUROPE, AFGHANISTAN, MILITARY
 

HOLLAR01

6:26 PM ET

December 2, 2009

They have the troops

Some numbers to contemplate. The combined size of the European NATO allies' active-duty Armies (not including naval or air forces) is 1.35 million people. Take out Turkey, and it still is about 950,000 people.

Just looking at the numbers, for a continent that has no land-based threats, it would seem like it should be pretty easy to find 5,000 people (about half of 1% of the active duty armies of Europe) to get on a plane and head to Afghanistan.

It begs the question: what's the use of having allies when they refuse even the smallest bit of burden-sharing? Why do they even have an army, then?

This is the size of the Army for each of these NATO countries (according the IISS military balance):

Belgium 14,263
Bulgaria 18,773
Czech 13,375
Denmark 14,240
Estonia 4,700
France 134,000
Germany 160,794
Greece 93,500
Hungary 10,936
Italy 108,000
Latvia 1,526
Lithuania 7,380
Luxembourg 900
Netherlands 21,483
Norway 6,500
Poland 62,762
Portugal 26,700
Romania 43,000
Slovakia 7,297
Slovenia 7,200
Spain 95,600
Turkey 402,000
UK 95,780

I guess you could just sent Estonia's entire army,

 

JPWREL

10:32 AM ET

December 3, 2009

Well, the Brit's actually

Well, the Brit's actually deploy a larger percentage of their superlative army to Afghanistan than does the U.S. Also, not all armies are equal, some are really unprepared by training and logistics for such a mission. If you consider infantry (the core of required Afghanistan forces) the Brit's probably deploy the best-trained troops of any since they have been doing these types of missions for some time and the nature of their army and marines.

On the other hand, why should a country feel obligated to partake in a mission they feel is counter-productive or downright stupid? These countries do not see themselves as mere auxiliaries to America's foreign policy blunders.

 

HP

3:09 PM ET

December 3, 2009

they don't have the troops

Many european countries rely to some degree on a conscript army. Therefore the numbers you cite are highly misleading.

Only professional soldiers are sent to Afghanistan, and the number of professional soldiers in each country is often only a fraction of the total number.

To the person suggesting that Estonia should be induced to send troops in exchange for EU-membership: Estonia became a member of the EU in 2005....

 

GUYVER

9:31 PM ET

December 2, 2009

Bribe Turkey

They would gladly provide more than 5000 soldiers if EU membership was offered in return. That would take the burden off the rest of the EU.

 

RSP

11:37 PM ET

December 2, 2009

"none of whom currently have

"none of whom currently have more than 1,000 troops in the country. "

Incorrect. Italy, for instance, has approx 2800 and has already said it was considering 1000 more. Might want to fact check.

 

JOSHUA KEATING

8:30 AM ET

December 3, 2009

read the whole sentence

read the whole sentence

 

RSP

12:17 AM ET

December 4, 2009

Poor prediction

I did, but maybe this is more accurate from the NYT:

Britain has already pledged 500 more soldiers, while Italy, Poland, Georgia and Slovakia are sending new deployments, from a few dozen to 1,000 — bringing the total NATO commitment of additional forces to as many as 8,000 troops, according to a senior diplomat at NATO headquarters...

 

NAZIA

3:51 AM ET

December 3, 2009

hypocrisy

Why not Europe send these troops and more security personals to US to secure their borders and for internal security threats.Forces are meant to work for their country and secure their people and borders.Sending your troops to other countries lying thousand miles away is sign of oppressions and trespassing and this time countries of civilized world are doing this without any remorse or guilt.

 

JACKIE

9:35 AM ET

December 4, 2009

brawbuy

http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/
Mens Timberland Roll-Top Boots
$150.00 $84.00
Save: 44% off
Timberland Roll-Top Boots menWaterproof leather for comfort, durability and abrasion resistance; Direct-attach, seam-sealed, waterproof construction keep feet dry in any weather ; Padded collar for a comfortable fit around the ankle and help keep out debris ; When rolled down the leather lining is exposed ; Durable laces with Taslan? fibers and rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Footbed and inside of shoe is completely lined with soft, breathable leather ; Non-marking, rubber lug outsole for traction and durability

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More