| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Gates - Afghan row may make NATO two-tiered alliance |
| 2008-02-06 |
| By Kristin Roberts WASHINGTON (Rooters) - NATO risks a split between countries that are willing to fight and those that are not because some European states refuse to send more troops to Afghanistan, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday. "I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security and others who are not," the Pentagon chief said. "And I think that it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps even get worse," he told a congressional committee. The United States is trying to persuade its allies to do more fighting in Afghanistan, where attacks by Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have soared in the last two years. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reinforced the message on a visit to London, where she noted that only a small number of NATO nations had troops in the most dangerous areas. "We believe very strongly that there ought to be a sharing of that burden throughout the (NATO) alliance," she said. Rice said governments needed to be truthful with their people and tell them what was needed to fight Islamist Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, which re-emerged as a dangerous force after being ousted from power by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. "Our populations need to understand that this is not a peacekeeping mission. It's a counter-insurgency fight," Rice told a news conference with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Most of the fighting against the Taliban in the south of the country is shouldered by Canada, Britain, the United States and the Netherlands. They all want others to contribute more. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told parliament on Wednesday he wanted NATO allies at a summit in Bucharest in April to commit to a fair sharing of the task. SHARING THE AFGHAN BURDEN "We have 15 percent of the troops in Afghanistan ... We need a proper burden sharing not only in terms of personnel but also in terms of helicopters and other equipment," he said. Britain announced a rotation of its troops in Afghanistan but said their numbers -- around 7,700 -- would remain about the same. Brown said Britain planned to send new helicopters and other equipment in the next few months. U.S. officials have criticized Germany for its unwillingness to send trainers into Afghanistan's restive south. Under its parliamentary mandate Germany can send only 3,500 soldiers to the less dangerous north as part of the 42,000-strong NATO mission. Berlin again rejected mounting pressure on Wednesday to put its troops in the south and said it would send additional forces only to the north. Gates, who will attend a NATO defense ministers meeting in Lithuania this week followed by a security conference in Munich, said he would again press NATO members on the this. "I ... once again will become a nag on the issue," he said. Rice's London visit was partly to smooth ruffled feathers over a recent remark by Gates in which he questioned the preparedness of some NATO members for counter-insurgency in southern Afghanistan. The United States has 29,000 troops in Afghanistan, about half of them attached to NATO's 40,000-strong force. Washington plans to send another 3,200 Marines to the war zone in March and April. NATO's top commander in Afghanistan said on Wednesday his force would be "minimalist" even if he received more troops. "There's no question that it's an under-resourced force," U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill told reporters at the Pentagon. Under U.S. counter-insurgency doctrine, McNeill said, there should be some 400,000 security personnel -- foreign and Afghan -- to fight the Taliban and other insurgents. McNeill said he did not expect NATO to provide anything like the 400,000 figure but said the West had to step up efforts to train Afghan forces, especially the police. Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak backed the call for more foreign troops. "For the transitional period there is a requirement for more troops," he said on a visit to Estonia. "The cause was that the threat is much higher than anticipated in 2001," he said. The United Nations said on Wednesday that Afghanistan, the world's biggest opium producer, is set for another bumper crop this year, giving a windfall for the Taliban who tax farmers. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #5 Danielle: There is absolutely ZERO poppy eradication in Helmand District. In fact there has been substantial growth in production. Also, most Heroin for the Euro market is produced in border towns. It is of the utmost urgency that we crush the drug industry. The only this stopping us is: Karzai's Pashto nationalism. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-02-06 19:03 |
| #4 This is a good time to remember people why NATO intervened. The 9-11 attacks were blamed on Taliban/al-Qaeda and the US invoked collective security provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty, and attacked Pashto-Afghanistan. People need to understand why NATO's current indulgence of the drug trade, all but rewards the remnants of the 9-11 groups. Pashtos and Waziris are pocketing billions of dollars from the heroin industry. And much of this is going to Taliban/al-Qaeda. The terrorist's annual Spring offensives have been tossed aside the past 2 years. Karzai back-stabbing has put steel in their backs. Now that they are flush with cash, they could surprise us with weapons and tactics. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-02-06 18:59 |
| #3 "Our populations need to understand that this is not a peacekeeping mission. It's a counter-insurgency fight," I think the problem is we are fighting two different insurgents--NATO believes the US and their poppy-fighting policies are the bad guys and they want to keep the free flow of drugs coming! |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-02-06 16:25 |
| #2 Wasn't this already obvious by September 1990? |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 16:04 |
| #1 a two-tiered alliance in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security and others who are not I hate to quibble over semantics with a Ph.D., but is the word alliance really used properly in that sentence? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-02-06 14:41 |