Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Headline as slogan | Main | Early morning music »

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Failed NATO Allies

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates is frustrated with lack of commitment from some European members of the NATO alliance in Afghanistan.

Most of the fighting against the Taliban has been carried out by the British, American, Canadian and Dutch forces and the rest of the members like Italy, Germany and France have done nothing or little when it comes to actual combat. It's indeed frustrating!

Posted by Winston on December 13, 2007 in International Affairs, Military | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fa384718833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Failed NATO Allies:

Comments

Meanwhile, the European Union and China (!) are 'upset' that the US won't go along with their enviro-world rule.I listened to some halter topped 'delegate' in Bali call Canada, Saudi Arabia and Japan 'US minions' for not kowtowing to environmental alarmists. I'm sure everything comes down to power and influence. The US has it, and the others want it. Boo Hoo. (Typical BBC reporting had absolutely no objectivity. Its apparantly a foregone conclusion that every thing 'they 'come up with is valid and worthy of support.)

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-12-13 9:13:39 PM


"US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates is frustrated with lack of commitment from some European members of the NATO alliance in Afghanistan."

Oh really ??
Personaly, I'm frustrated with the lack of commitment from the US in Afghanistan. The ones who are dying because they are buddy-buddy with Pakistan is us, Canadians. F-- this Neo-con administration.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-12-13 10:19:23 PM


Could it be possible that the "bad allies" realize that building up the so far quieter Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek etc areas in the north is a better long term plan than chasing around the south after the Pashtun Taliban? Certainly the Northern Alliance sees no advantage in occupying the south or east. They understand perfectly well that the Pashtuns won't accept rule by outsiders. The majority of Afghans who reportedly support the central government don't appear to be in any rush fight for their country so why should the Germans or the French.

We know from the Stein & Lang book on Canada in Khandahar that we're there because of exaggerated worries about a backlash from the US for non involvement and Hillier's desire for "glory" so why are we whining about the Europeans taking a more sensible view of the situation.

But don't worry I expect the Europeans to eventually throw in some more token forces to placate the US rather than any notion that they are making a worthwhile contribution and this will provide cover for the Canadian battle group (the "combat" mission)to stay on until at least 2010.

Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-12-14 5:29:30 AM


>Certainly the Northern Alliance sees no advantage in occupying the south or east. They understand perfectly well that the Pashtuns won't accept rule by outsiders."
Fred T. Ward | 14-Dec-07 5:29:30 AM

Hamid Karzai is from Popalzai tribe of the Pashtun people in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan. Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban, is also from the Kandahar region. The majority ethnic group in Afghanistan is Pashtun.

This is a war of attrition being fought in Afghanistan and the Taliban won't think they have anyone else to beat in the attrition game if the other NATO allies don't stand up and fight.

Building up the minority Northern Alliance ethnic groups isn't enough.
It is too easy for the Taliban to destroy what has been painstakingly built.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-14 7:02:53 AM


Speller: If the non Pashtun Afghans can't be built up then how do we leave, why would we stay? Better yet, if there is no Afghan solution how do you convince anyone else to go south (although I think the war is slowly encompassing the whole country)?

Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-12-14 8:39:33 AM


The Europeans are great at pointing out other countries faults to cover their own colossal failures.
These are the same people that brought us two world wars, the Bosnian war the problems with there now former colonies in Asia and the middle east, etc. So by all means make up more excuses as to why they shouldn't get more involved, hell if history has taught us anything its how successful European indifference has been in the past.

Posted by: missing link | 2007-12-14 10:30:00 AM


The Europeans are great at pointing out other countries faults to cover their own colossal failures.
These are the same people that brought us two world wars, the Bosnian war the problems with there now former colonies in Asia and the middle east, etc. So by all means make up more excuses as to why they shouldn't get more involved, hell if history has taught us anything its how successful European indifference has been in the past.

Posted by: missing link | 2007-12-14 10:31:17 AM


I'm amazed that the Taliban haven't capitalized on this weakness in their opponents. If they really wanted to win, they'd attack areas where these less-willing NATO countries have troops. That might further reduce the will to fight in those countries.

Of course that assumes that they can move up there. It seems that the US, British, Dutch, Australian and Canadian troops have them pinned down in the south. If only we could go for that knock-out blow and end this once and for all.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-12-14 10:47:32 AM


>"If the non Pashtun Afghans can't be built up then how do we leave, why would we stay? Better yet, if there is no Afghan solution how do you convince anyone else to go south (although I think the war is slowly encompassing the whole country)?
Fred T. Ward | 14-Dec-07 8:39:33 AM

I didn't say the non-Pashtun areas shouldn't be built up.

I think it's time the NATO forces in the north switched positions with the forces in the south who have done all the fighting.
Give the combat forces a break by taking part in rebuilding the north, clearing it of Soviet mines, and let the rested NATO forces that have, until now, not been fighting, hunt the Taliban and al-Qa'eda.

That should give the Taliban the idea that because fresh NATO forces are available, the attrition isn't going to end until the Taliban are tired of dying by the hundreds and sue for peace.


President Hamid Karzai has already stated that the Afghan Taliban can surrender without repercussions, except for Mullah Omar.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-12-14 2:07:08 PM


Marc said

"Oh really ??
Personaly, I'm frustrated with the lack of commitment from the US in Afghanistan. The ones who are dying because they are buddy-buddy with Pakistan is us, Canadians. F-- this Neo-con administration."

That has to be one of the absolutely stupidest statements I've ever read here. Marc, you know full well that I don't normally throw out such insults but in this case, you deserve it.

You know full well that the United States is pulling more than its full share in protecting Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc. Where is Canada in Iraq, for example?

If that isn't good enough for you, the United States pays more per capita than any Canadian to keep the United Nations going.

I could keep going with examples of how the US is pulling more than its fair share in any number of endeavours whereas Canada and Europe are far behind.

Let's leave you with one final example. It was the US that did most of the heavy lifting and DYING in AFGHANISTAN after 911 to begin with. If it weren't for US transportation, Canadian soldiers would have had to swim there...but I know they would have done it...bless their hearts.

You are a nit wit.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-12-14 5:28:39 PM


h2o ~

The only reason Mark cares is because the Van Dooz are there now. When the soldiers were from Edmonton, he could care less.

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-14 5:32:08 PM


obc,
He doesn't even care about the Van Dooz except where he can use them as political fodder.

Such callous indifference to the ultimate sacrifice by Canadian and American soldiers is simply disgraceful.

He can't seriously believe the US hasn't already pulled its fair share in Afghanistan. Even if it hadn't already, I would excuse them for their sacrifice in blood and treasure elsewhere not to mention their contribution in military hardware, intelligence, logistics, etc., etc., etc., etc. in other areas besides troop strength.

I suggest if he is truly appalled by underperformance in ANY and ALL of these areas, he limit his criticism to EUROPE!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-12-14 5:45:03 PM


h20 ~

But Europe is comprised of mainly socialist paradises - akin to what he hopes an independent Quebec will become.

Ergo, no criticisms for them. Typical anti-American sentiments from a Leftoid.

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-14 6:04:09 PM


obc,

I see your point. However, there are still millions of dissenters in Europe yearning for guidance in overturning the Lefty 'tards before they drive the entire here over the cliffs.

I would like to save them...if for no other reason then a need to transport them here to stave off the idiotic leftist virus incubating in our political sphere.

Marc. Stop! before it's too late!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-12-14 6:13:48 PM


h2o ~

The only salvation for Europe are the eastern nations - newly freed from the Communist yoke. They will reject socialism for obvious reasons.

The western nations, sadly, are lost to Eurabia. What few decent people still there are already emigrating in dribs & drabs to North America, Australia, New Zealand, & Israel.

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-14 6:30:07 PM


obc

I don't share your belief that Eastern Europe will reject socialism.

Their brief lapse into capitalism has been awkward to say the least. I don't think the general population understands democracy. The ruling class has simply switched from government to organized crime.

In a couple of years they'll likely be back in the same boat.

Posted by: dp | 2007-12-14 6:46:05 PM


dp ~

Maybe a few like Bulgaria, but the Czechs will not, for example, nor will the Poles.

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-14 6:50:37 PM


obc

You're right that they will probably stick with democracy, but they'll always have left-leaning governments.

What about Russia? They will always hold most of the cards, and they have a poor grip on democracy.

Posted by: dp | 2007-12-14 6:56:46 PM


Russia is a lost cause - especially with KGB Putin in charge. I suspect they always will be, even after he is eventually ousted.

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-14 7:07:46 PM


After the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the fiasco of our involvement in Yugoslavia-Bosnia, I thought we should just close down NATO and quit pretending (i.e. that we had allies).

The contribution of troops from several European nations into Afghanistan was VERY encouraging from my view, but after the terrorism driven debacle-change to Leftist government in Spain after that superb leader, Mr. Aznar, to a creepy Communist, the Europeans started to reduce or drop out of Afghanistan one by one.

Sarkozy in France is the only bright spot now.

It is disheartening to listen to the drivel from the European press regarding their views of the War on Terrorism.

I listen to BBC America regularly just to stay fully informed about what those who TRULY HATE America have to say (as their creepy "reporters" and "Reporterettes" sort of pretend to be on scene in America, sort of "among us" as they just obviously so hate our guts).

If I ever ran into any of the BBC reporters on the street I tell them to get out of my country and be "cool" somewhere else.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-14 7:08:34 PM


Actually the new Spanish government nearly doubled the size of Spain's contribution to ISAF.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-12-14 7:27:45 PM


Mr. Pike -

Thanks for that news regarding Spain (I should look up what in Hell "ISAF" means, but I'll be optimistic and assume it is/was Spanish troops in Afghanistan or Iraq.

My recollection was that the whole deal with the Madrid subway bombing was a threat from Al Quaeda against the Spanish people that Spain must remove its troops from (helping America in anything that would hinder Al Quaeda) where ever they then had about 1,500 soldiers, or else!

And then the Spanish people voted against "or else" and brought everybody's favorites, the Communists, into power based on the Communist Spanish candidate's promise to bring all their troops home (or where ever Al Quaeda told them to send them).

So evidently I was wrong as ZP explains that everything in Europe is turning out swell from America's view (since Islamo-Fascist terrorism only happens in lower Manhattan)! ; - )

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-14 7:55:19 PM


Eurabia is America's greatest ally! (sarcasm)

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-14 7:57:10 PM


There seems to be a concept of a "knock out" blow to be struck against Al Quaeda (Terrorist Islam) and then everybody (except America) can come home.

I don't see this as even a remote possibility.

Islam has to go OUT of the "government" business and learn to stick entirely with the screwed up "religion" (of peace) business. That isn't even going to begin until there are some actually functioning governments standing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at least some of the other Hellish places where Islam runs the show.

The process should take about ten or twenty years before it smooths out and gets sort of reliable.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-12-14 8:23:04 PM


ISAF = International Security and Assistance Force, the NATO Mission in Afghanistan.

When the new Spanish government came to power, they withdrew their troops from Iraq but increased their commitment to Afghanistan.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-12-14 9:38:18 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.