| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan/South Asia |
| NATO pacifists under fire over Afghanistan |
| 2005-09-18 |
| Nato officials fear that the "pacifism" of several European governments is undermining attempts by the American-led coalition in Afghanistan to hunt down the Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden and the remnants of his al-Qaeda terrorist network. Washington is keen for other Nato countries to take a stronger role in Operation Enduring Freedom, the bitter campaign being waged against al-Qaeda and the Taliban on the Afghan/Pakistan border. But Nato officials say the transatlantic alliance is being prevented from taking a more active role in the fight against militant Islamic groups because of the concerns of several European governments about incurring casualties. "Nato is being hampered by the pacifism of a number of member states," a senior official, who asked not to be named, told The Sunday Telegraph. "Countries like Germany and Spain are just not prepared to put their soldiers in a position where they might get killed. They are happy to sign up for peacekeeping operations, but they are not prepared to deploy their troops on the front line. They are deeply averse to the notion of their soldiers coming home in body bags." Last week, as Afghanistan prepared for its parliamentary elections, which take place today, Britain announced that it was sending an extra 5,000 troops to Afghanistan to assist the coalition in the military campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The deployment is part of Nato's plan to expand its control in the turbulent areas to the south, where Taliban fighters have refused to surrender following the war of 2001 and are waging a vicious insurgency campaign against United States troops. So far this year, more than 50 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan - the highest number since the military campaign to overthrow the Taliban in 2001. There are currently two separate military missions in Afghanistan: 18,000 American troops are involved almost exclusively in waging the war against al-Qaeda in the south, while 11,000 Nato soldiers are involved in peacekeeping in other parts of the country. By persuading Nato to deploy further south, Washington was hoping to induce its European allies to commit military resources to fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The British force is to be deployed in the lawless Helmand province, where its first task will be to assist with the programme, spearheaded by the British government, to destroy Afghanistan's billion-dollar illegal heroin trade. But as most of the heroin traffickers have close links with the Taliban, it is inevitable that the new British contingent will find itself in the front line of the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Last week John Reid, the Defence Secretary, made it clear that the new British contingent - which will include 1,000 paratroops, backed by Apache attack helicopters - will be expected to confront the Taliban, and called for closer co-operation between the Nato and US forces. "I think we would achieve more with the two missions coming closer together than we would if we were off doing our own things," said Dr Reid. Mounting tensions between Washington and Europe over Nato policy in Afghanistan came to a head at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Bonn last week, when Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sarcastically remarked that it would be "nice if Nato developed counter-terrorist capabilities" - in other words, prepared to tackle the Taliban. France, Spain and Germany insisted that Nato's peacekeeping operation should be kept separate from the US military campaign in the south. Spain's defence minister, José Bono MartÃÂnez, said: "These missions must remain separate with separate chains of command. The only thing they have in common is that they are in the same country." Peter Struck, the German defence minister, said: "I would not like to expose our soldiers to more danger by linking these two mandates together." The reluctance of Europe to put troops at risk in Afghanistan threatens to cause a serious rift in the Nato alliance. "The whole point of Nato is to defend the West from attack," said a senior Bush administration official. "Al-Qaeda poses a threat to the whole of the West, not just the US. It is unfair to expect American soldiers to do all the dirty work. We don't like our soldiers coming back in body bags either, but we don't have any choice. This is war, and in war you have to make painful sacrifices." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #14 NATO was created to keep the Russian bear from gobbling the rest of Western Europe. It worked well. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, however, its reason for existence disappeared, and so did the unity of purpose required to face the threat. It's obsolete. It needs to be abolished. Unfortunately, there's "nothing so permanent as a temporary government agency". It works with International alliances, as well. There are many good people in Europe. I've met several thousand of them. There are a preponderence of people who believe their own propaganda, however, and ALL of them want a free ride. Also, Europe has a ton of internal problems they've ignored for 30 years, and it's catching up with them. They made decisions in the 1970's and 1980's that they're finding they can't pay for now, can't undo, and can't live with. Expect to see HUGE internal turmoil, similar to the 1920's, throughout Europe in the next ten years. This time, however, they're going to have to solve their own problems - we're busy. We DO have some staunch allies, especially Britain and Australia. I believe the Japanese want to be equally as strong, but their own constitution limits their role. Canada and New Zealand - two nations that USED to be staunch allies - have followed the European model, and are in terminal decline. Remember the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times..."? Well, we're there. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-09-18 16:35 |
| #13 Your source for that is ??? Informal survey of friends and family in Poland, and online forums (like gazeta.pl). There are three things at work here: 1) anti-semitism is strong in Poland; you won't find someone who is anti-Jew and pro-American at the same time 2) disillusionment with capitalism; there are a lot of people (even those who are relatively well-off) who claim they had it better under communism; capitalism of course, is synonymous with America 3) simply put, there are those who say Poland's place is in Europe (the EU, specifically) and that entails mimicking the behemoths France & Germany |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-09-18 16:20 |
| #12 It's the domestic hyphen lobbies, just like Greece and Israel. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-09-18 13:41 |
| #11 R: That would be a mistake. Poland is 50% rabidly anti-American (probably much higher). I don't doubt it. Poland pulled its troops out for precisely that reason. Don't get me wrong. They like our wealth. They like our technology. But that's not the same as actually liking Americans. Poles are not as bad as the Indians. But they're not the bosom buddies boosters would have you believe (any more than India is). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-18 13:23 |
| #10 What this article shows is that 1) Europeans are more concerned about image than about security. 2) They really aren't interested in the US capturing the Taliban and prosecuting the 9/11 terrorists. If they were, they would be aggressively helping us capture Osama and the rest of the 9/11 criminals in Afghanistan today through unified and principled NATO action. No, somehow, 9/11 put the world right for them. Iraq was a very convenient cover for European pacifism and anti-Americanism for a while, but their cowardly betrayal of a faithful ally who has pulled them out of the fire more than once is revealed in this refusal. So here's my own American twist on the oft-repeated Euro phrase that they don't dislike our people, just our president and his policies: "I don't dislike Europe, just its peoples and their lack of basic decency." |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-09-18 12:17 |
| #9 The US should pull out of NATO. Then the Euros could rename it the Pacifist Treaty Organization (PTO). PTO troops could then go to troubled places (only if accessible via commercial airlines) and offer group hugs. PTO force working hours would be restricted to seven hours a day on weekdays including a two and a half hour lunch break. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-09-18 11:47 |
| #8 Germany France and Spain also have large amounts of rabidly anti-American population. The US should absolutely STOP giving a shit what everyone else thinks anyway. Anything you do will be deeply unpopular. Who gives a shit about the hearts and minds, just get the job done. Just remember: Australia is your ally and there are many people here who will go to war for you. We remember you were there for us in WW2. We don't forget. |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-09-18 08:44 |
| #7 Your source for that is ??? |
| Posted by: Omerens Omaigum2983 2005-09-18 06:14 |
| #6 Form a new alliance with countries like Poland That would be a mistake. Poland is 50% rabidly anti-American (probably much higher). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-09-18 02:19 |
| #5 Guess they didn't want to dirty up their shiny new HQ building with all those icky war plans and muddy boots... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-09-18 01:44 |
| #4 Screw it let these selfish socialist fools defend themselves. Get us the hell out of NATO. It's a useless waste of time and the Germans are the biggest and most useless cowards of the bunch. Led by the leaders of all teh German political parties. Get us out of NATIO now. Germany can watch it's own 6 and pay for it. If countries want to be our friends and allies they can do it outside of NATO.They can also pay for it themselves. We have a War gonig and refugees in our own country to take care of. Acting to screw the US means you are not our allies. Get over it grow up and get us out of NATO. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-09-18 01:27 |
| #3 Form a new alliance with countries like Poland and the other former Eastern European states that have stepped up to the plate. Not only would inviting them vastly increase good relations with them, but these countries are eager to show they are in the fight against terror. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2005-09-18 01:21 |
| #2 France Germany and Spain. Get us out of NATO now. France doesn't even have a say in NATO as thay cuit and ran already once before. France should know when to keep quiet. The German are back stabbing bastard who can rot in hell. Spain is full of little girls who run it's socialist government. They all can and are going to hell in a hand basket. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-09-18 00:56 |
| #1 Cowardice. Betrayal. No other words suffice. Just as with the UN, NATO is dead. What remains are the death throes and petulant excuses. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-09-18 00:56 |