Editorial: Unwise, unfair limitations

Monday, Oct. 2, 2006 | 7:37 a.m.

NATO's efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan are hindered by countries that insist on restricting how their troops are to be used if sent in with coalition forces.

According to a recent USA Today story, governments use these restrictions to avoid casualties or impose them because of a lack of training and equipment or because they oppose all or parts of a mission. Only six of NATO's 26 nations - including the United States - have no such restrictions on the troops they assign to coalition missions.

In Afghanistan the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban, a militia that was ousted from power in 2001, is regaining strength. NATO plans to increase its coalition troops to 30,000, some 12,500 of which will be Americans. About 20,000 U.S. troops already are fighting there, some of which will remain and operate independent of the NATO effort.

While NATO does not release the details of these restrictions, USA Today reports that a recent Congressional Research Service study notes that German forces, for example, "do not go on extended patrols and do not respond to local security events." Such restrictions lead us to wonder what good some of these forces will be when fighting alongside Americans, Canadians and other troops that operate as needed.

During a NATO meeting in Slovenia last week, USA Today reports, Canadian Lt. Col. Rejean Duchesneau said, "If you sign on to the mission, then you should sign on to the whole package." We agree.

Nations that join NATO operations must be ready and willing to do whatever the mission requires. The United States and five other nations should not be expected to bear the brunt of casualties and economic costs in military efforts that are fought for the common good.