Great, Then I'll Pledge Another Thousand

The Times tells us that NATO has risen to the challenge on Afghanistan [note - they have revised the story and headline since I plucked these excerpts; see UPDATE]:

NATO Pledges 7,000 More Troops for Afghanistan
By MARK LANDLER and STEVEN ERLANGER

BRUSSELS — Responding to American entreaties for more soldiers in Afghanistan, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, announced Friday that the alliance had agreed to contribute a further 7,000 “new forces” to the coalition there following Washington’s decision to commit some 30,000 American reinforcements.

At a news conference, Mr. Rasmussen said the injection of a total of 37,000 American and allied forces into the fight against the Taliban next year would have a “powerful effect” and he pledged that Afghanistan would not be allowed to “fall back into the hands” of what he called terrorists and extremists. “That is not going to happen,” he said.

The Times notes that possibility of fuzzy math starting at paragraph nine:

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 here.

As he announced an additional 7,000 more NATO troops, Mr. Rasmussen said there would be “more to come” but did not say when or which nations would contribute.

Trust but verify.

UPDATE:

The Times has revised the headline to read "NATO Pledges 7,000 Troops, but Avoids Details", which address my main criticism.  Here is the new and improved lead:

NATO Pledges 7,000 Troops, but Avoids Details
By MARK LANDLER

BRUSSELS — After months of anguished debate in the United States over how many new troops to send to Afghanistan, the numbers game switched to Europe on Friday, with NATO announcing it planned to commit an additional 7,000 soldiers to the coalition in Afghanistan.

NATO portrayed the pledge as a powerful vote of support for the American-led effort. But in Europe as in Washington, arithmetic on troops can get fuzzy. Of the 7,000 troops promised by NATO, 1,500 are already in Afghanistan, sent months ago to bolster security during the presidential election.

An undisclosed number of the new troops will steer clear of the fighting because they are barred by their countries from combat operations. And two allies, the Netherlands and Canada, still plan to withdraw nearly 5,000 troops in the next two years, offsetting the infusion.

NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, declined to specify which countries would be sending troops, or when. Nor did Germany and France seem to budge from their reluctance to commit any more soldiers.

Despite all this, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton insisted she was “extremely heartened” by the NATO commitments, which she said would go “a very long way” toward meeting the goals President Obama set out in his strategy for reversing the tide in Afghanistan.

Mrs. Clinton said she expected further pledges from member countries as their leaders navigated domestic political pressures. And she played down suggestions that the 7,000 was less than it seemed.

Comments

[clarice]

The fighting Belgians ?

[narciso]

Well didn't you see that five part on the Flemish menace, on LGF, the Vlaams Belaung, there's an APB right now

[MDr]

OK, but how many will be required to venture beyond the safety of their post(s)?

[matt]

4 Netherlanders and 7 Norwegians is my guess....the Spaniards will throw in enough to make up a soccer team so they can win the trans-Afghanistan Cup.

[Papa Ray]

"OK, but how many will be required to venture beyond the safety of their post(s)?"

Not many.

[Frau Waffenlos]

But will they have weapons?

"OK, but how many will be required to venture beyond the safety of their post(s)?"
Just like our troops in Kosovo.

[bad]

But will they have weapons?

Sure!!

But no ammo...

[daddy]

"There are 3 parts of Gaul of which the Belgae are the most fierce. They are the furthest away from the culture and civilized ways of the Roman Province, and are least often visited by the merchants who bring luxuries which tend to make people soft, also they are nearest to the German's across the Rhine and are continually at war with them."

Julius Caesar "The Conquest of Gaul 52 BC

So I guess they used to be The Fighting Belgians, as least to the most powerful author in world history prior to Obama:)

[Frau Waffenlos]

daaddy, wasn't that before the Belgae started speaking French?

[matt]

Don't most of them speak phlegmish?

Belgium is out of the Afghan equation because they are at war with themselves and too busy eating waffles with mussels....they have a hall pass signed by the Chef de Bureaucracie of the EU in Brussels....

[BR]

Politics aside, Jean-Claude van Damme... hm hm hmmmmmmmm :)