Talk:National caveats

Merge proposal

(1) I'm not sure that "national caveat" has achieved the status of term/concept. It's not because it has been used several times by politicians and political scientists that it has become more than a combination of two normal words. (2) Even if it can be considered a term, "national caveat" is (until now) solely used in connection with the current war in Afghanistan. The Riga summit and Joseph Nye's comment were also directly pointed towards that war. Therefore I suggest that this page merges with the 2001 War in Afghanistan article. Sijo Ripa 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

National caveats should be separate

IN response to the previous post, national caveats have been a problem in Kosovo as well as Afghanistan, according to an article from [www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=13085&topicID=31] by James Pardew (deputy assistant secretary general and director of operations in NATO's Operations Division)on 20 June 2006, "NATO's evolving operations,". "The upsurge in violence in Kosovo in March 2004 highlighted both the problem caused by restrictions on the use of forces and the importance of quality intelligence. The rioting effectively took the Alliance by surprise and national caveats hampered the immediate response." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fp21 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Iraq too

Also, caveats are applied in Iraq- from an article written by Major General Rick Lynch and Lieutenant Colonel Phillip D. Janzen, US Army, May 2006, "Looking to the Future: NATO Training Mission-Iraq," US ARMY PROFESSIONAL WRITING COLLECTION, [www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume4/may_2006/5_06_2.html], "National caveats on personnel participating in NATO-led operations are not a new challenge. Lessons learned from operations in the Balkans often emphasize the impact of caveats on that mission. Nations contributing personnel to the NATO Training Mission -Iraq( NTM-I) also apply operational caveats to their force offerings, to include restrictions on the place of duty and length of deployment. Operational impacts from caveats are countless but include restricting force protection troops from securing vehicle convoys. Another case involves limiting personnel to duty in Baghdad's International Zone." fp21

Better to merge into NATO article?

Since the caveats have been invoked in other conflicts, not just in Afghanistan, then would it make sense to merge this into the main Nato article? It might go in the section on membership; details of known caveats could then be placed in the Notes column against the relevant nation? --AndrewHowse 15:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend putting the known ones in this page, and if there is enough, leave it. Not sure about the scope of this -- Granite26 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit

Changed from there to their. Granite26 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)