You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan/South Asia
U.S. Seeking Plan for NATO Taking Over Afghan Forces
2004-10-13
It's time to do that now. The country's relatively pacified and they've had their election. We can move on to the next problem, while maintaining a force to hunt for al-Qaeda. Looks like Bush has an exit strategy in mind...
... and he'll be blamed for it too ...
Posted by:Fred

#7  Nato is effective at SOME things. In afghanistan its done a decent job patrolling Kabul, and a couple of other places. Its NOT effective at aggressive actions in the mountains against the Taliban

Fine, then let's keep 1,000 or so special forces in the mountains and the border regions to the south. The bigger point is that the really labor-intensive tasks-- like policing Kabul and other cities-- should be done by NATO, allowing us to move thousands of troops elsewhere.
Posted by: lex   2004-10-13 4:28:28 PM  

#6  NATO was designed to engage in military operations in EUROPE. And the North Atlantic. NOT to engage in counter insurgency ops several thousand miles from Europe. That theyve done as well as they have in Afghanistan is a good thing. Maybe they need to refocus. Saying here, take this NOW, or we get out is shortsighted in the extreme.

BTW, its JUST what the French want. They want Euro interventions overseas to be under the EU, NOT Nato. To reduce US influence. UK isnt keen on that approach. If we are wise, we will continue to discourage that, and support Nato.

As for being able to return if the Taliban does, thats not a good idea. There are folks in Afghanistan whove taken risks for us. If the Taliban takes control of an Afghan city for one week, alot of our friends will pay with their lives. When we come back we may find some reluctance to help us.

Things should be pretty tame by 2006? I hope so, but like Rummy says, war is by its nature unpredictable.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-10-13 9:29:10 AM  

#5  If NATO cannot engage in military operations other than being heavy policemen, we should get out. By the 2005-2006 time frame, things should be pretty tame. If the Taliban & Co. return, we can too. Time for the Euros to share the burden here or show their true colors.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-10-13 9:22:28 AM  

#4  NATO is ineffective is not a binary thing, Mrs D. Nato is effective at SOME things. In afghanistan its done a decent job patrolling Kabul, and a couple of other places. Its NOT effective at aggressive actions in the mountains against the Taliban. At least not AFAIK. I dont think its worth it taking risks in Afghanistan to try to prove some point about NATO.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-10-13 9:15:03 AM  

#3  LH, If it goes south, it's NATO's fault. If NATO's ineffective, replace it with bi-lateral agreements with alies and let France and the rest join China and turn Muslim. That seems like motivation to NATO to get it right.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-10-13 9:07:04 AM  

#2  This is a well conceived strategy to keep NATO's skin in the game, so they don't go limp or cut and run -- their first instinct.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-10-13 8:59:38 AM  

#1  "RELATIVELY" pacified. While the election went off well, Im not sure that things are quiet in the rural areas of the Pashtun provinces. This sounds a tad premature, even if its a smart way to push the Euros to relieve overstretch.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-10-13 8:58:09 AM  

00:00