Multinational Effort

Kandahar Air Field or KAF as it is know around here, is the seat of the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan. ISAF is the NATO campaign in Afghanistan. The US is by far the largest contributor to the effort with 67,000 troops in Afghanistan. The next largest group is British with approximately 10,000 troops. From there on down various NATO member countries are contributing anywhere from a few thousand to a few hundred troops. On KAF I have observed troops from Canada, UK, Australia, Belarus, Slovakia, Germany, France, Holland, and Denmark. I am assuming that English is the shared language but I wonder if all troops assigned here need to know English or if just a certain percentage e.g. commanders need to use it? It wouldn't be good if a Slovakian patrol needs to call in air support and does not speak English. Of course that is just one of the problems with coordinating all of these different nations.

Types of uniforms and regulations regarding their wear vary widely. The Belarusians for example have camouflage short and T-shirts that they can wear. I am not sure what good camouflage short will do in an austere environment. Maybe the reason so many Europeans can be found sun-bathing in Speedos on this base is because they are tanning their legs and arms to blend in with the dirt? As a contrast American forces are required to wear uniform sleeves down at all times, no matter what the temperature. In addition to protection from sun it also provides a barrier to chemical/biological weapons. Aside from your work uniform you are authorized to wear official physical training (PT) gear. So even when you are not in camouflage you are identifiable as a member of the Air Force, Army, or Navy. Note, that even when you are not in uniform you must carry your weapon (9mm pistol for officers/senior enlisted and M16 for junior enlisted). The site of someone in PT gear with a weapon takes getting used to. However even more unusual is seeing "off duty" Canadian military personnel because they are allowed to wear whatever they want (i.e. the full range of civilian attire) but they have to carry their weapon with them. I feel bad for them, in addition to having to worry about enemy action they have to worry about matching their outfit to their M16!

There is a clear distinction between the US side of the camp and the European side. Perhaps due to the sheer number of troops it has in the field, the American troops reside in buildings that universally seem non-permanent. The housing for US troops here ranges from tents (14-man to 200-man), to stacked modular container housing, to six room 36-man single story corrugated metal shacks. In contrast, the NATO forces live in brick 2 story barracks that rival upscale college dorm rooms. The NATO gym is virtually indistinguishable for an upscale gym in the US (e.g. Gold's Gym) and is staffed by professional personal trainers while the US gym is basically a large stretched fabric tent with grimy rundown equipment and inadequate ventilation.

Vehicles differ between countries as well. Since most footage of the war involves American forces, the sight of a Humvee or MRAP is common enough. In the US we see less footage of British fighting vehicles for example. While the American strategy is to attach as much armor as possible to a vehicle, the British drive around in barely armored vehicles. Picture classic Land Rovers with the roof cut off and a British trooper manning a heavy gun without any significant armor. A patrol convoy of British troops resembles a scene from the movie Mad Max. Each country that brings its own preferred vehicles also needs to bring mechanics and parts for those vehicles so you can imagine how quickly costs of a deployment can escalate. I mentioned the right side/left side driving and steering wheel problem in an earlier post.

As a closing thought: What interest does a country like Slovakia have in pursuing Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and by extension, how willing is the country to put its soldier's in harm's way?