I know one person who calls this a ‘deliberate sidelining of the Afghan Intervention’ before it was finished in order to pursue the Bush family's private vendetta against Saddam. I am not a politician or foreign policy strategist so Ill leave Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz to outline what is apparently wrong with the picture. Of course the invasion of Iraq was a major distraction in more ways than one, and whatever took NATO this long to move swiftly, only God and George Bush will know.
This will be the first real NATO's test in the post-Soviet era which will allow to establish which of its member states are ready to commit troops to combat and whether those troops can actually fight or merely bear arms and parade.
If my calculations are right, the USA currently provide about half the 35,000 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban militants are stil a force to reckon with. Recently our defense secretary Robert Gates called it ‘unsatisfactory that an alliance with two million service personnel has failed to muster the additional resources it had promised’; I could have told you that buddy. If it turns out that NATO's become largely a coalition of the unwilling, the willing should withdraw from it sometime before later.
You get my drift.
21 comments:
Maybe then troops would have to be taken out of Iraq to make up the numbers.
I suppose if troops are going to give up their lives then it should be for a legal purpose (even if morally questionable in some quarters - not me). No one would agree that the Iraq action is legal.
All only if NATO sanctions it along with UN agreement
The US and UK seem to miss the point in that our NATO "allies" may not be able to afford to send troops to Afghanistan. From a UK perspective I am sure that operations in the country are costing an arm and a leg; hence the UK's decision to scale back operations in Iraq - we clearly cannot sustain both. If we are struggling, how is a smaller NATO country going to be able to fund deployment of troops and equipment?
If you war, you war to win. War is for the purpose of either survival or justice, not to play political games.
The US isn't right to demand others do anything. What they can rightfully do is ask friendly nations to lend support. The problem with the war(s) is politicians aren't really fighting to win against "terrorists", they are fighting for concessions. The Islamic peoples are never going to concede. Its circular, never ending. Soldiers die and no "terrorist" leader goes to trial.
If it's OK for Turkey to send troops into Northern Iraq to flush out the PKK, why isn't it OK for NATO to send troops into Pakistan to flush out al Qaeda and the Taliban?
Afghanistan is a UN problem - why is NATO involved? Why are WE involved?
Where in the North Atlantic and our Treaty Organization is Afghanistan?
It's just another failed state, just one of the many, who made us the international policemen and/or donations breadbasket? We shouldn't be sending them anything at all - least of all our troops at our expense!
...but this failed state has real estate available to pipe oil to the sea ports. This seems to give them privileges and us rights.
There is not much oil in Afghanistan, so other NATO members are asked to send in more troops...Would there be plenty of oil, the DoD would send in as many troops as needed
The main reason for trouble with financing this Afghan war against terrorism (which was expected to be years long and expensive) exists because someone (who was never held responsible for it) started another war elsewhere (more profitable at first sight, now just a painful drain of resources) before this one was finished.
Global problem?NATO was involved in Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attack to US.If it is part of a global problem: terrorism, please redefine the word ‘global’.US ignore the PKK terrorist organization based in Iraq that killed Turkish people. Moreover, accused of supporting PEJAK, sister organization of PKK that's been attacking to Iran.
I suggest US to start negotiations with Taleban & Al-Qaeda and solve this issue with diplomacy as it’s the response of US to the terrorist attacks in Turkey that are organized by PKK based in Iraq.
The NATO alliance is as good as dead having served it's purpose in defending the West from Soviet aggression for over 50 years. That's what it was originally set up to do.
Europe's leaders have lost the will to become involved in any wars outside of their geographical sphere so there's little chance that any additional troops will be forthcoming.
Their lack of will may be cause for regret in the future if the Taliban did return to full power and start to export terrorism.
The US should instead be requesting additional Nato troops to defend the Iraqi population to the north (Kurds) from the incursions of Turkey. After all the Afghanistan situation is due to the Taliban which were the governing party there and as such are fighting against a force of occupation.
In Iraq however the US, who invaded to "liberate" Iraq will now do nothing to protect Iraqs border from Turkish hostility. Unusual that this situation arises after the US's Armenian "genocide" declaration.
I think that all NATO countries should feel responsibility for places worldwide where the situation is close to the military conflicts.
We are supposed to save peace so such a missions are important. I support Polish troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq but they should stay not longer than it is needed. Many countries want peace and stability but they do nothing in that case. They don't understand that it is our common goal.
It is WE rather than the US who should be demanding a proper response from fellow Europeans. Those countries who do not contribute troops should pay the costs.
Either it is Nato or Najibullah. Ever since the British discovered it and ran away from this country the curse has beholden the great powers for more than 100 years.
Failed US foreign and military policies are a reason why the war in Afghanistan is still going on. You cannot blame others if you never chose to listen to them in the first place. As it has already been said so many times. Disengage from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan where the real terrorists were.
Post a Comment