Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please. Of course it was a multi-national mission---it was a NATO operation. Goes without saying.
Bosnia was divided into three areas or sectors, one for Britain, one for France and one for the US. In each one of those sectors, there were other NATO forces and Non-Nato forces as well. (Of course, the US got the ****ist one by the way and had to build a bridge in order to get into Bosnia).
My point was because we had a relatively large number of US troops in Europe, it was cheaper and easier to provide US forces for this NATO mission than sending them from the US. Also, presence equals in many ways influence. The EUFOR has not done too well in Bosnia, has it? Research it and get back to us.
I say that we the USA stop being the worlds policeman of the planet and bring all of our troops home, including Afghanistan.
Incredible statement. Demonstrates a clear lack of historical understanding, judgement on international power politics, and simply the reality of human behavior. A very wise man once said, "Beware those who offer simple solutions for complex problems."
Please. Of course it was a multi-national mission---it was a NATO operation. Goes without saying.
Bosnia was divided into three areas or sectors, one for Britain, one for France and one for the US. In each one of those sectors, there were other NATO forces and Non-Nato forces as well. (Of course, the US got the ****ist one by the way and had to build a bridge in order to get into Bosnia).
My point was because we had a relatively large number of US troops in Europe, it was cheaper and easier to provide US forces for this NATO mission than sending them from the US. Also, presence equals in many ways influence. The EUFOR has not done too well in Bosnia, has it? Research it and get back to us.
EUFOR Althea is a very small peacekeeping force and has by and large been very successful, a lot more successful than the current situation in Iraq and he juries still out on what the future holds in terms of Afghanistan, whilst it should also not be forgotten that a lot of post war US Military ventures and US post war foreign policy has hardly been that successful.
As for the US sending US Forces it makes little difference if you send them from Germany or the US, as any troops sent from Germany would have just been replaced by more troops from the US. Bosnia was basically a UN peacekeeping mission, and the small force that remains is also a peacekeeping force. You are also not the only country to have been given difficult peacekeeping work and EUFOR also works in Africa and other global trouble spots, I also seem to recall British, Danish and Canadian forces serving in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, one of the worst areas in the country and as a result taking heavy casualties.
Lots of countries carry out peacekeeping work but don't feel the need to have thousands of vast bases all over the globe and numerous spy bases. They generally deploy as needed by the UN.
EUFOR Althea is a very small peacekeeping force and has by and large been very successful, a lot more successful than the current situation in Iraq and he juries still out on what the future holds in terms of Afghanistan, whilst it should also not be forgotten that a lot of post war US Military ventures and US post war foreign policy has hardly been that successful. Only because the theat now is much reduced. You are partially correct, we excel in combat, but suck in post war sustainment. Exception: European presence after WWII a long with Japan.
As for the US sending US Forces it makes little difference if you send them from Germany or the US, as any troops sent from Germany would have just been replaced by more troops from the US. You are incorrect. Almost 40% of troops in Germany and Italy that the US sent to the IFOR as part of a NATO operation were NOT replaced by US forces coming from America. Left a big void. There were small packets of specialists (movement control units, some lawyers, some medical units, etc.) but it was less than 1,000.
Bosnia was basically a UN peacekeeping mission, and the small force that remains is also a peacekeeping force. There were several UN missions in the Balkans. The bottom line is they all failed. Thousands of Bosnians were killed while the UNPROFOR stood idle due to poorly crafted rules of engagment and lack of political will. UNPROFOR troops were taken hostage and shown on television! When the Brits and French sent in a real force in mid 1995 after the mass executions, they scared the crap out of the Serbs, but fighing was not over by a long shot. This prompted the development and Execution of Operation Joint Endeavor (IFOR). The UN remains involved, but in a technical fashion as is the EU. The EUFOR is tiny, not like the 62K NATO force that deployed in 1995.
You are also not the only country to have been given difficult peacekeeping work and EUFOR also works in Africa and other global trouble spots, I also seem to recall British, Danish and Canadian forces serving in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, one of the worst areas in the country and as a result taking heavy casualties. AFG operations is NATO. Of course you would see the nations you mentioned. As a sad aside to your comment, US troops have taken the largest number of KIA and WIA of any participating nation.Brits do similar work in the 1950s and 1960s. Recall the IRA?
Lots of countries carry out peacekeeping work but don't feel the need to have thousands of vast bases all over the globe and numerous spy bases. They generally deploy as needed by the UN.
Incorrect and grossly inaccurate. UN forces in general, don't do well. Recall Africa in the 1990s, the Balkans, 1991-1995 (reason NATO had to get involved by the way) and other deployments. They are often laughed at.
I saw this morning on the CBS Morning Show a feature about Ambassador Caroline Kennedy where they mentioned the issue of moving the US military bases within Japan (which the locals are not happy about). Why does the USA maintain military bases in Japan at this point?
To have a place where we can influence events in the Pacific. China is getting more and more powerful and Japan/Phillippines, etc. are increasingly fearful of what they might do. America must remain committed and serve as a force of stability. And Caroline Kennedy is an idiot, as are most of the Kennedy clan.
Unfortunately if appears Bamford is a relic of the 1930s when it comes to foreign policy and national interests. No doubt he and some of the other less informed posters on this thread would concur with the phrase, "Peace in our time."
Incorrect and grossly inaccurate. UN forces in general, don't do well. Recall Africa in the 1990s, the Balkans, 1991-1995 (reason NATO had to get involved by the way) and other deployments. They are often laughed at.
Of course US Forces do so much better - Vietnam, the mess that is Iraq and the mess waiting to happen in relation to Afghanistan. Millions of civilians dead and sectarian violence out of control in Iraq, whilst no weapons of Mass Destruction. 9/11 having nothing to do with Iraq and more to do with Saudi Arabia.
In terns of the UN they do a useful but difficult peacekeeping role that does not usually involve carpet bombing, agent orange or napalm.
The current US-British Defence Agreement is up for renewal later this year, and is now renewed every ten years. The renewal probably would have occurred without too much debate, if three things hadn't occurred.
The first was the Snowden Affair and revelations regarding NSA activities using US bases in the UK such as Menwith Hill, the second is the fact that US bases in Britain have been involved in relaying information in relation to US Drone attacks worldwide and the third is the fact Britain is withdrawing and closing all it's final bases in Europe over the next few years. Many see this as a perfect time to examine, scrutinise and debate the future of Foreign bases in the UK, and levels of accountability to the UK Parliament of US Activities in the UK.
But the withdrawal of British troops from Germany and this year's planned renewal of the US-British defence agreement offer a chance to have a real debate on the US military relationship – and demand some transparency and accountability in the process. There is no case for maintaining foreign military bases to defend the country against a non-existent enemy. They should be closed. Instead of a craven "partnership" with a still powerful, but declining empire, Britain could start to have an independent relationship with the rest of the world.
Of course US Forces do so much better - Vietnam, the mess that is Iraq and the mess waiting to happen in relation to Afghanistan. Millions of civilians dead and sectarian violence out of control in Iraq, whilst no weapons of Mass Destruction, and 9/11 having nothing to do with Iraq and more to do with Saudi Arabia.
In terns of the UN they do a useful but difficult peacekeeping role that does usually involve carpet bombing, agent orange or napalm.
British troops are very good, few would argue. You can be very proud of your increasingly small military force. But beware, sometimes numbers matter.
Vietnam was lost due in large to strategic stupidity in Washington DC and liberal media. Of note, the US never lost a battle, but our nation lost its will to win a limited war. Funny, but once we pulled out, and hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamise were murdered, sent to re-educaiton camps, etc. our liberal press and ignorant congress turned a blind eye. And our college students who dreaded the draft and demanded bring the boys home, instead turned to Disco and self gratification. Were there any protests over what happened to the people of South Vietnam? No--the new "ME" generation did not care.
Invading Iraq is among the stupidest things our politicans ever undertook. The NEOCON idiots abetted by the imperialist SECDEF ensured that anyone speaking the truth was hung out to dry, then hobbled the military's plans and sadly, lied to the nation and world about WMD. Despite a pie in the sky prediction that our troops would be welcome wiht flowers and joy, the insurgency kicked off right after--as many in uniform predicted. Troops did great in Iraq--our politicans did not. And, I hate the lack of accountablity over that.
IN AFG, we need to stay there long term. Recall when we walked out after we help the AFGs kick the Soviets out? We merely set the conditions for radical element to come to power.
"In terns of the UN they do a useful but difficult peacekeeping role that does usually involve carpet bombing, agent orange or napalm.[/quote]" Not sure what you are trying to say here.
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think anyone takes "Europe" seriously as a military power.
But they could be forced to learn how to defend themselves. Which at least would be interesting/fun to watch.
We have been coddling/defending them for so long, we need to give them time to get it together, perhaps a few years, then pull out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
