Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US warns of 'implosion' of Nato alliance in Afghanistan (Independent)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:54 PM
Original message
US warns of 'implosion' of Nato alliance in Afghanistan (Independent)
By Mary Dejevsky in Munich
Monday, 11 February 2008

The US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, appealed directly to Europeans yesterday to support the war in Afghanistan, warning that violence and terrorism would increase if Nato was defeated there.

Mr Gates said that the transatlantic alliance was under such stress over operations in Afghanistan that it risked imploding. Speaking in Munich to an audience that included presidents, foreign and defence ministers of many EU countries, Mr Gates acknowledged serious shortcomings in Nato operations in Afghanistan.

This was because the alliance was not working properly together to share the burden, he said.

"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security," he said. "We must not – we cannot – become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would in effect destroy the alliance."

Mr Gates's words took to a new, and far more acute, level arguments that have become ever sharper in recent months and culminated at an ill-tempered Nato summit in Lithuania last week. While the disputes at the Vilnius summit remained mostly behind closed doors, however, Mr Gates brought them loudly into the open at Munich.
***
more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/us-warns-of-implosion-of-nato-alliance-in-afghanistan-780697.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Amazing
That lil' ol' thing called diplomacy might have helped prevent a situation like this.

But...we don't need anybody I guess.

Except for the coalition of the schilling.
But even that appears to be faltering
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. And the taliban have just entered the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. BIDEN!!!! He knew it was going to happen. Fuck this administration! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. Europeans see what America cannot (Eric Margolis)
Europeans see what America cannot

By ERIC MARGOLIS, TORONTO SUN


At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.

The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost.

To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.

While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops -- yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the U.S. and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army.


snip

A primary reason for Gates' recent call for U.S. troops to begin attacking pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen inside Pakistan is due to their growing attacks on allied supply lines to Afghanistan.

As this column has reported, over 70% of U.S./NATO supplies come in by truck through Pakistan's tribal belt known as FATA, including all of their oil and gas. Attacks by pro-Taliban tribesmen against these vulnerable supply lines are jeopardizing western military operations inside Afghanistan.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/02/10/4838323-sun.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smith_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. This is an issue here in Germany right now.
Germans no longer want to be aiding the screwed up foreign politics of the USA. They view the NATO as a defense pact, not as a "we help USA invade for oil" pact. The German government is split about it though. The left wants total withdrawal from Afghanistan, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lies Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. Summary
We broke NATO by going it alone into Iraq.. now if you don't kowtow to our wishes you'll destroy NATO.

Joseph Heller would be impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. Excellent Op/Ed Piece Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. One point with which I have to disagree
From your link:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) - is the world’s most powerful military alliance. Yet it is facing failure, if not actual defeat, in Afghanistan. Why?

The answer is simple. The Afghan war was misconceived from the very start. It was decided in rage and haste by Washington, without proper thought or planning, in response to Al Qaida’ssoldier September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.(emphasis added /JC)


The fact is Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk two days before the 9/11/2001 "surprise" attack which, conveniently for Bush and the neocons, supplied a timely excuse for launching the war. Presumably if Bush had been given war plans on 7/11/2001 those plans would have been the result of probably at least several months of work by the Pentagon's war planners.


FLASH 34: Bush Given Invasion Plan Two Days Before 9/11 (Updated 4/3/03; see end)

In the context of misleading statements from White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice about the degree of US foreknowledge of the 9/11 events, MSNBC.com/news has revealed that detailed plans for the US retaliation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban reached the White House for Bush's signature on September 9, two days before the attacks.

In the words of MSNBC

`President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

`The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a "game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the Earth," one of the sources told NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski.

`The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.' In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf," Miklaszewski said.'

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qf911.html




The truth about the “good war” is to be found in compelling evidence that the 2001 invasion, widely supported in the west as a justifiable response to the 11 September attacks, was actually planned two months prior to 9/11 and that the most pressing problem for Washington was not the Taliban’s links with Osama Bin Laden, but the prospect of the Taliban mullahs losing control of Afghanistan to less reliable mujahedin factions, led by warlords who had been funded and armed by the CIA to fight America’s proxy war against the Soviet occupiers in the 1980s. Known as the Northern Alliance, these mujahedin had been largely a creation of Washington, which believed the “jihadi card” could be used to bring down the Soviet Union. The Taliban were a product of this and, during the Clinton years, they were admired for their “discipline”. Or, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “ are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history”.

The “moment in history” was a secret memorandum of understanding the mullahs had signed with the Clinton administration on the pipeline deal. However, by the late 1990s, the Northern Alliance had encroached further and further on territory controlled by the Taliban, whom, as a result, were deemed in Washington to lack the “stability” required of such an important client. It was the consistency of this client relationship that had been a prerequisite of US support, regardless of the Taliban’s aversion to human rights. (Asked about this, a state department briefer had predicted that “the Taliban will develop like the Saudis did”, with a pro-American economy, no democracy and “lots of sharia law”, which meant the legalised persecution of women. “We can live with that,” he said.)

By early 2001, convinced it was the presence of Osama Bin Laden that was souring their relationship with Washington, the Taliban tried to get rid of him. Under a deal negotiated by the leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamic parties, Bin Laden was to be held under house arrest in Peshawar. A tribunal of clerics would then hear evidence against him and decide whether to try him or hand him over to the Americans. Whether or not this would have happened, Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf vetoed the plan. According to the then Pakistani foreign minister, Niaz Naik, a senior US diplomat told him on 21 July 2001 that it had been decided to dispense with the Taliban “under a carpet of bombs”.

Acclaimed as the first “victory” in the “war on terror”, the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 and its ripple effect caused the deaths of thousands of civilians who, even more than Iraqis, remain invisible to western eyes. The family of Gulam Rasul is typical. It was 7.45am on 21 October. The headmaster of a school in the town of Khair Khana, Rasul had just finished eating breakfast with his family and had walked outside to chat to a neighbour. Inside the house were his wife, Shiekra, his four sons, aged three to ten, his brother and his wife, his sister and her husband. He looked up to see an aircraft weaving in the sky, then his house exploded in a fireball behind him. Nine people died in this attack by a US F-16 dropping a 500lb bomb. The only survivor was his nine-year-old son, Ahmad Bilal. “Most of the people killed in this war are not Taliban; they are innocents,” Gulam Rasul told me. “Was the killing of my family a mistake? No, it was not. They fly their planes and look down on us, the mere Afghan people, who have no planes, and they bomb us for our birthright, and with all contempt.”

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=470



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Thanks for those links! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. You're welcome. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Good points...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreatCaesarsGhost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. bush is looking for a scapegoat
he's going to blame his failure on NATO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. I heard this discussed yesterday on Ian Masters' Background Briefings radio show
Ian Masters has one of the most informative radio shows on the air and is broadcast on Pacifica Radio (the same as Democracy Now). Yesterday, he had Seymour Hersh on his show and, in addition, he had an expert on Afghanistan (can't remember her name) who suggested that the narco State that is Afghanistan involves Karzai and his brothers, along with the provincial governors that Karzai has picked. They're supposedly all making a tidy sum from the drug trade. The expert also said that it would take about 150,000 combat troops to have a chance to pacify the country and that there are only about 20,000 combat troops now, among the approximately 40,000 military personnel in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
12.  US$2 billion natural gas pipeline project..
It's about Oil & Natural Gas. The Afghan people are disposable & being disposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Re. Karzai and the Afghan narco state.
If you haven't seen it yet, here is story first published in England's Sunday Mail written by the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray. Mr. Murray discusses the booming trade in opium and heroin carried on by warlords connected to the new Afghan government, who are also, in effect, being protected by British and NATO troops.


Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time
By CRAIG MURRAY

SNIP

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons – especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance – to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

President Karzai is a good man. He has never had an opponent killed, which may not sound like much but is highly unusual in this region and possibly unique in an Afghan leader. But nobody really believes he is running the country. He asked America to stop its recent bombing campaign in the south because it was leading to an increase in support for the Taliban. The United States simply ignored him. Above all, he has no control at all over the warlords among his ministers and governors, each of whom runs his own kingdom and whose primary concern is self-enrichment through heroin.

My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=469983&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC