<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/wordpress-mu-1.0" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Afghanistan: US/Canada Push for Greater Participation</title>
	<link>http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/03/10/356/</link>
	<description>American Foreign Policy Analysis in Central Asia</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.0</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Central Asia &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan: Water Peace</title>
		<link>http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/03/10/356/#comment-2425</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/03/10/356/#comment-2425</guid>
					<description>[...] In my short time as the lead writer for this blog, I have written much about NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, as I believe the nation’s stability and effective governance would do much for Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East regions.  On March 10th I discussed NATO troop levels and restrictions.  In light of the ongoing NATO Bucharest Summit, Foreign Policy has created The List: Who’s Left in Afghanistan?, which nicely catalogs individual NATO nation troop levels, restrictions of engagement, and provides an outlook into possible changes to these in the near future.  The report is rather disparaging to the nation’s who either have very low troop levels or major limitations as to what and where their troops can do and go.  The report specifically targets Germany, Austria, and Ireland for consternation. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] In my short time as the lead writer for this blog, I have written much about NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, as I believe the nation’s stability and effective governance would do much for Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East regions.  On March 10th I discussed NATO troop levels and restrictions.  In light of the ongoing NATO Bucharest Summit, Foreign Policy has created The List: Who’s Left in Afghanistan?, which nicely catalogs individual NATO nation troop levels, restrictions of engagement, and provides an outlook into possible changes to these in the near future.  The report is rather disparaging to the nation’s who either have very low troop levels or major limitations as to what and where their troops can do and go.  The report specifically targets Germany, Austria, and Ireland for consternation. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Global Voices Online &#187; Afghanistan: U.S. Pushes for NATO&#8217;s Wider Participation</title>
		<link>http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/03/10/356/#comment-2323</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://centralasia.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/03/10/356/#comment-2323</guid>
					<description>[...] Patrick Frost reports that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked NATO members for greater participation in all aspects of the war in Afghanistan.   Share This [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Patrick Frost reports that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked NATO members for greater participation in all aspects of the war in Afghanistan.   Share This [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
