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
'Afghan mission could end NATO'
2007-01-08
Former NATO secretary general Lord Peter Carrington has warned that the current mission in Afghanistan could sound the “death knell” for the organisation. Lord Carrington, who was NATO secretary general from 1984 to 1988, was critical of foreign powers not backing the mission with sufficient troops. He agreed that France and Germany were not “pulling their weight” and said the organisation was “not working”.

Lord Carrington told GMTV’s The Sunday Programme that if the mission in the country did not succeed, questions would be asked about the usefulness of the organisation. Speaking to fellow former foreign secretary Lord David Owen, who suggested the mission could lead to defeat, he said: “Not just defeat, I think it may be the death knell for NATO. I think when you get a situation in which so many countries in NATO are not prepared to join in and those that do join in say ‘We mustn’t fight’...I think this is very dangerous for NATO.

“I think we ought to ask ourselves if this doesn’t work, what on earth is NATO for?” He added: “What happens in Afghanistan is going to have an enormous impact on the future of NATO. Those of us who supported NATO in Afghanistan feel that large parts of it are not really prepared to take any part in it. I think it’s going to cause a great difficulty.”
Posted by:Fred

#11  So, if NATO is to die due to lack of interest and equality, then what of the UN ?
Posted by: wxjames   2007-01-08 19:39  

#10  Why wouldn't Germany and France want NATO to die and replaced by a European Union military alliance? There they would be kings, while in NATO, second rate powers. In addition, they don't want to take a chance that in the near future the Americans will veto military action when Paris is surrounded and under seige.
Posted by: ed   2007-01-08 18:56  

#9  It's almost impossible to continue an alliance created for one purpose when that purpose no longer exists. NATO was created to protect the people of Europe from the Communist threat from Russia and the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. Today, most of the former members of the Warsaw Pact belong to NATO. Today, the people of Western Europe don't believe there's any threat to their continued existence, so they see no reason to fight. While we can (and do) castigate them for being fools, only a VERY hard knock from their islamic invaders will change their minds. In the meantime, the US could use all the help we can get in this fight, and should welcome even temporary alliances against a common foe. Once we bring the threat of militant islam to manageable proportions, we can say what we really think to our fair-weather friends in Europe (and elsewhere - can you say South Korea, Philippines, New Zealand?).
Posted by: Old Patriot   2007-01-08 14:36  

#8  What, no more accordion hunting? How are we going to bag us the bad-guys now?

Thanks for all whining and insults though; much appreciated.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-01-08 14:15  

#7  P2K,

The operative phrase was "NATO is there to keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out."

I agree that we should be rethinking ALL our alliances. We should work on getting out of Nato and the UN and building up relations with Japan, Austrailia & Japan.
Posted by: AlanC   2007-01-08 12:35  

#6  There is no longer a point to NATO. Carrington presupposes there is one. Afghanistan is just a demonstration of the situation.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-08 09:14  

#5  The purpose of NATO was for Americans to die [once again] for Western Europe. The rest was all ritualistic dressing to cover that single fact. When the wall came down, there was no further reason to justify the cost and expense of American hostages being held by a bunch of military welfare queens. Bring the Troops Home Now[tm].
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-01-08 08:45  

#4  NATO is needed more now than ever - but it won't matter if the members in Western Europe continue to ignore the threat within. While Russia may be re-emerging as a threat, the larger concern should be that this time the Gates of Vienna may be attacked from within. Afghanistan IS a reasonable battleground for the defense of NATO against the common foe.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-01-08 07:08  

#3  He agreed that France and Germany were not “pulling their weight” and said the organisation was “not working”.

It simply wouldn't be cricket if the French and the bloody Krauts were not pissing on us, now would it your Lordship? Some things just never change you see.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-01-08 01:02  

#2  ...what on earth is NATO for?”

Pish. That's an easy one: to stop Russian tanks from surging thru the Fulda Gap.
Posted by: SteveS   2007-01-08 00:57  

#1  NATO has been in danger of "ending" since CHARLES "When the People of France = All Europe made Me [AND ONLY ME]their leader..." "I am France ergo I am Europe" DE GAULLE + successors made French nuclear forces independent from NATO = French-read USA command. Iff my memory is correct, twas started after France formally dev its PLUTON nuke missle. NATO survived De Gaulle, the Brit-induced Euro Common Market/ECommunity, the Falklands War, and Clinton's Bosnian campaign, etc , hence can survive this.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-08 00:53  

00:00