| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Europe | ||
| Euros in NATO: we will not fight Taliban in Afghanistan - you're on your own | ||
| 2005-09-15 | ||
| NATO and the Euros are worthless. European allies rejected a U.S. suggestion Wednesday that NATO take on counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. Germany, France and Spain made clear they would not allow the 11,000 NATO peacekeepers in the Central Asian nation to become embroiled in the military effort to quell a Taliban-led insurgency. They also opposed talk of merging the NATO mission with a U.S.-led coalition force, although NATO officials said they expected agreement on a proposal to bring the two missions under a single commander.
Rumsfeld said he was satisfied with plans by NATO allies to expand the Afghan peacekeeping mission next year with more European and Canadian troops. He spoke amid speculation about U.S. plans to cut its 18,000-soldier contingent in Afghanistan as the NATO force expands. The New York Times and Washington Post reported the Bush administration was considering a reduction of as much as 20 percent by early 2006. Rumsfeld declined to discuss specifics. "If and when there's any decision to decrease forces, I will announce it," he said.
Along with other nations, Germany and France have sent combat troops to serve with the U.S.-led coalition force since Afghanistan's Taliban regime was toppled after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. But they do not want the separate NATO force involved in that mission, fearing it would undermine peacekeeping and make its soldiers more likely to face attack. "I would not like to expose our soldiers to an additional risk by joining these two mandates together," German Defense Minister Peter Struck said in a radio interview. The issue has been sensitive in Germany, where the Social Democratic government faces parliamentary elections Sunday. Spain's Socialist government, which withdrew troops from Iraq after winning elections last year, also cautioned against linking NATO peacekeepers with the combat operation. "They should coordinate their forces, but I'm not in favor of fusing the two missions," Defense Minister Jose Bono said. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the allies were close to agreement on putting the two forces under a single NATO commander. "There is a shared view among NATO defense ministers that we need a greater synergy between the two missions," de Hoop Scheffer told reporters. Under NATO's planned expansion in Afghanistan next year, the alliance will take over peacekeeping in the southern sector, with Britain taking a lead role, backed by Canada and the Netherlands. U.S. troops will retain responsibility for eastern Afghanistan — considered the most dangerous region — under NATO command. Germany will take a lead role in the north and Italy in the west. | ||
| Posted by:too true |
| #19 The EU is also dead - its intent was at best a confederatist alliance whose only manifest destiny is to be either a glorified, larger Belgium or larger Switzerland. Cut back on international aid, and give every American citizen one helluva tax- or personal rebate - iff Americans and American warriors are gonnas save the Euros from themselves, Western DemoSocialism from itself, and from Osama's Global Islamist/Jihadist State, i.e Faith=God-based Communism and Totalitarianism, then we "Amis" should get the money, besides it being [mostly]our monies to begin with. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-09-16 00:00 |
| #18 I pity Europe. They are a pathetic lot. It's sad that after all we have done they are still a basket case going down further. On the other hand, their problems are their problems. If they don't want to take a stand to make the world a better place it's their loss. Farewell Europe. |
| Posted by: Spomoque Cralet6289 2005-09-15 21:50 |
| #17 Sad. I don't know who said it, but "The only time Europe tends to notice danger is when they are peeking out of the rubble at their new flag". |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-09-15 20:52 |
| #16 2 World Wars and 400,000 dead American is more than enough. Yeah, like two world wars and 400,000 American lives more than enough. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-09-15 15:49 |
| #15 Sounds fair. They stay out of US ops and the US stays out of Europe's Caliphate War. 2 World Wars and 400,000 dead American is more than enough. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-09-15 15:15 |
| #14 I think your onto something there with that legion. It would be nice to grow a big unit that has teh only job to fight and none of the other bullshit. But if they created this unit the LLL would go nuts and call them the SS or something like that. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-09-15 14:45 |
| #13 Time for the US to create a US Foreign Legion along the French model. Offer US citizenship to anyone who serves and we'd have an endless supply of recruits. Close bases and stop subsidizing the Europeans and use the money saved to pay for the whole thing. Light infantry and peacekeepers designed to work independantly but under the US command structure. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-09-15 14:11 |
| #12 What do you call a peacekeeper who's afraid to keep the peace? Perhaps we can just sell Nato to the UN and go it alone. |
| Posted by: Greating Omater1112 2005-09-15 13:46 |
| #11 those who prey on poverty and despair Oh no, the root causes that led 19 Saudis to crash airplanes into building. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-09-15 12:02 |
| #10 But they still have 11,000 troops in the "safer" parts of Afghanistan, doing things that would otherwise take US troops. So Europe's military is the modern equivalent to the WAC. Sounds about right. (And, again, they went into Afghanistan because we invoked the NATO common defense provisions. That they now refuse to fight is repudiation of the NATO treaty.) |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-15 11:31 |
| #9 I'm thinkin' it's time to move all personel out of Eurabia. I know I'm wrong. But, FOAD. |
| Posted by: macofromoc 2005-09-15 11:05 |
| #8 took the words right out of my mouth mcmurray |
| Posted by: Uninetle Hupating2229 2005-09-15 11:01 |
| #7 Just being in Afghanistan is a lot. The US is probably subsidizing a hell of a lot of their operations, just so that there will be boots on the ground in the tamer areas. Another big question mark is the Afghan army itself, and why there is so little obvious attention given to it, compared to the Iraqi army. However, in that situation, my best recommendation would be a massive, one-shot influx of carefully managed small business creation money. The Afghan economy, more than anything else, will keep out those who prey on poverty and despair. At their level of development, which is minimal, we could easily turn them into a sustainable breakbasket, which would satisfy 98% of the population. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-15 10:48 |
| #6 "doing things that would otherwise take US troops." Naturally, they won't be fighting.... |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-09-15 10:22 |
| #5 this was disapointment, and not a good sign about the Euros. But they still have 11,000 troops in the "safer" parts of Afghanistan, doing things that would otherwise take US troops. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-09-15 09:39 |
| #4 NATO is dead. The UN is dead. Get out of both of those organizations and make our own new alliance with Japan, Taiwan, England (if they stay out of the damn EU), Australia, India and Iraq. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-09-15 09:37 |
| #3 Can someone please explain again why we defend these parasites with bases in europe? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-09-15 09:30 |
| #2 Nice to know all their Kyoto talk about "developing nations" is just that - talk. |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2005-09-15 09:24 |
| #1 As expected. Ask Germany again if Merkel takes over. If she says no, then write them off. Someone once posted a bit here about people being in one of three categories: assholes, pussies, and dicks. Using that as a guide, NATO doesn't mean dick, anymore - the majority are aren't. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-09-15 09:06 |