The point of the article is to cast doubt on the necessity of NATO in a post-COld War world. We can argue about the 'end of the Cold War' later, but for now, check out the rundown on the numbers of troops in Afghanistan, and what's been promised for the surge.
Afghanistan has become increasingly important to NATO. Special envoy Richard Holbrooke says Afghanistan is "the ultimate test" for the alliance.
Secretary Hillary Clinton would have us believe NATO has passed the test. She announced in December that she had won NATO commitments for another 7,000 troops for Afghanistan. She said, "I am just extremely heartened by the level of positive response we've received," and explained: "This is a significant commitment by our" alliance partners.
Yet 1,500 of the supposed extra personnel are already on station and simply won't be withdrawn while 900 (from non-NATO member Georgia) were promised before the Obama administration decided to increase troop levels. Many of the new troops detachments are small (80 from Macedonia, 85 from Albania) and are from nations that refuse to let their soldiers fight; thousands of the new personnel will be deployed to train Afghan forces rather than battle Taliban insurgents.
After the international conference held in London in late January, Paris announced that it would add no more combat troops. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner explained: "We don't want to send more troops to fight."
Germany offered only 850 -- 500 directly and another 350 as part of a "flexible reserve" for periodic deployment -- about a third of what Washington hoped for. Romania promised 600.
Unfortunately, Canada and the Netherlands plan to withdraw their roughly 5,000 troops over the next two years, effectively wiping out most of the European "surge." The British government is likely to rethink its participation in the Afghan mission after the coming election. The Royal United Services Institute has proposed "a radical scaling back" of Britain's contribution.
Observes Daniel Korski of the European Council on Foreign Relations, "Every nation fibs a little, and when you aggregate all the small fibs, it's hard not to come up with a big fib."
As a result, NATO is rife with recriminations. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini charged that "some European countries," such as France, were shirking their responsibilities. A British official complained: "Frankly, France's current deployment is too small for a country with that big an army." Toby Archer of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, noted: "Particular ire was aimed at Germany and France and the word 'cowardice' crept into the public debate."
In any case, while the Aussies, British, Canadians, Danes, and Dutch are noteworthy for their combat efforts, most of the allied contributions are limited in geography and restricted by national "caveats," making them of only modest security value to the mission. Yet nation-building in Afghanistan is diverting European resources from the defense of Europe.
By: Brant
Posts
2 comments:
In fairness, it should perhaps be noted that of the 1,602 coalition casualties in Afghanistan (as of 28 January), 634 or almost 40% of them are non-American. That's a not inconsequential contribution.
Moreover, a number of NATO members have troops allocated to UN PKO missions where the US traditionally doesn't participate, notably Italy (2,451), France (1,610), and Spain (1,092)... plus the Europeans supply the overwhelming bulk of the 12,000 or so troops for KFOR and EUFOR in the Balkans. It is far less dangerous than Afghanistan, but not necessarily any less important.
I'm not advocating one point of view over another. I'm just putting options for discussion on the table.
I will point out that in the Balkans, there were European "peacekeepers" on the ground that let things like Srebrenica happen, and it wasn't until the US showed up in '95 that real peace negotiations got underway.
Post a Comment