Troop increase paper of the cracks in NATO

The decision by a handful of NATO member to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan for a "limited period" falls well short of the necessary increase that is needed in troop numbers and serves to highlight that most of our so called European allies are as spineless as ever.

The false idea prevalent amongst our European allies that letting Afghanistan return to being a training camp for terrorists, and that "smaller" European countries who opt out of supporting NATO (the likes of Belgium) is hopelessly naive. The sad fact is though that there are many people in the country too who think that we can simply withdraw from Afghanistan and that the deaths will stop. True, the death of soldiers might stop, but we could soon replace this in far higher numbers withe death on the streets of the UK.

Whilst NATO leaders hail the agreement to send a few hundred soldiers for a few weeks to Afghanistan it does beg the question as to what difference this will make when they go home after their short six week stint.

The end of NATO ?

There is an interesting article in the LA Times which highlights the impotence and failings of NATO and points out that aside from Britain, the US and Canada, great swathes of NATO's members are lettin NATO fail in its mission in Afghanistan.

The article points out that ;

"U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates warns that NATO risks becoming a "two-tier" alliance, one tier consisting of members willing to carry their fair share of the load, the second tier consisting of free riders. His warning comes too late. The two-tier arrangement already exists, with the great majority of member states content to occupy the lower tier. "

It seems to me that NATO is more akin to a club for states wanting to either assume a place at the top table fo discussion, but who bring nothing to the party or countries who want to assert their independence from Russia.

"NATO is no longer a fighting organization. Keeping the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out no longer demands the sort of exertion that was required half a century ago. If the alliance retains any value, it is as an institution for consolidating European integration and prosperity. No amount of browbeating by the United States is going to change that.

The Bush administration is kidding itself if it expects Europeans to save the day in Afghanistan. To think of NATO as a great alliance makes about as much sense as thinking of Pittsburgh as the Steel City or of Detroit as the car capital of the world. It's sheer nostalgia.

It's time to jettison the capital letters: NATO has become nato."

In 1982 the USA had an important choice to make when the Falklands war started. They could have stood to one side and potnetially allowed a NATO ally to fail (Britain), but realising that NATO and the US itself would also be the loser, the US backed Britain. IN many ways now the NATO members are at a cross roads, with a choice about whether Afghanistan is allowed to fall in to the hands of foreign terrorists, after all, the Taliban are referred to as Arabs or Pakistani's by Afghans, they are not Afghans), and whether NATO is going to have any credibility in the future.

Sadly too many NATO members are there for the free lunches at conferences.g

Consistent as ever : Our NATO European allies let us down again

Another 1400 UK troops are going to Afghanistan, and more requests for help from our European NATO allies to support operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan go unanswered.

France and Germany refuse to let their troops in Afghanistan operate in any dangerous areas whilst requests for more helicopter support have fallen on deaf ears. Some nations feel they can sit tight and that terrorism will pass them by. On a day when three French people died at the hands of Saudi terrorists, it is clear that this is no policy at all.

I said it in September HERE, and I'll say it again, with a few notable exceptions, our European "allies" are spineless.