What's new

Afghanistan 'may split up Nato'

Nafees

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
455
Reaction score
0
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has warned the future of Nato is at risk due to differences over Afghanistan and that it may become a two-tier alliance.
Mr Gates said that without more sharing of the burden of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, the willingness of those engaged in combat would disappear.

Most of the fighting in the volatile south of the country is being done by the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands.

His comments came as Germany announced it would send 200 troops to the north.

German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung said the rapid reaction force would be sent to Mazar-e-Sharif in the next few months, but could be deployed to other areas in an emergency.

Last week, the US government sent letters to European states pressing them to send troops to southern Afghanistan.

"I think it would be a very big mistake if we would transfer our responsibility from the north to the south," Mr Jung said in response on Wednesday.

But speaking to a US Senate committee, Mr Gates said he would continue to be a "nag" on the issue at the informal meeting of Nato defence ministers in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, on Thursday.

"I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect peoples' security, and others who are not," he said.

"And I think that it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure, or perhaps even get worse."

Rift

Mr Gates reluctantly agreed recently to send an extra 3,200 US marines to the country, having previously suggested the extra troops should be provided by other countries.

All 26 Nato members have contributed troops to the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), but many US allies, including Germany, France, Spain, Turkey and Italy, have refused to send significant numbers of combat forces to the south.

The decision has created a rift between them and the US, UK, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and Romania, whose troops have borne the brunt of the counter-insurgency fight in recent years.

Canada has been the latest to warn it could pull its contingent of 2,500 troops out of the country unless allies provide reinforcements in Kandahar province.

Mr Gates's comments were echoed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she met UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband in London on Wednesday.

"The alliance is facing a real test here. And it is a test of alliance strength," she said.

Ms Rice added that people needed to understand it was not a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, but a fight against the resurgent Taleban.

Mr Brown earlier told MPs: "What we are looking for... is a determination on the part of all our allies to ensure the burden sharing in Afghanistan is fair."

He said he wanted their commitment in time for the Nato summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, in April.

'Making progress'

The bilateral talks came a day after a London-based think-tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), warned that Afghanistan faced becoming a "failed state" if operations by Nato were unsuccessful.


We are fighting on one of the front lines of terrorism

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,
Nato Secretary General

The IISS report echoed the tone of a number of other studies in the last week, including one from the influential US-based Afghanistan Study Group.

But despite the gloomy predictions, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has insisted that the alliance is making progress.

Mr de Hoop Scheffer said six million children had been enrolled in school, 3,000km of roads had been built and 80% of Afghans now had access to basic healthcare.

He accepted that some big challenges remained, including the adequate training and equipping of the Afghan National Army, but said Nato's mission in the country was one of necessity, not choice.

"We are fighting on one of the front lines of terrorism," he said.

"And the ones who want to spoil Afghanistan's development should not have it their way, because the consequences would not be felt in Afghanistan, but far beyond."

Mr de Hoop Scheffer said his measure of success would be an Afghanistan that did not need the help of the international community, but stressed the wider reconstruction of the country would take generations.

Countries contributing more than 1,000 troops as of December 2007
Canada 1,730
France 1,292
Germany 3,155
Italy 2,358
Netherlands 1,512 Poland 1,141
Turkey 1,219
UK 7,753
US 15,038

Source: ISAF for the numbers of troops

Main source of this thread: BBC News
 

Attachments

  • _44406217_afghan_troops_416.jpg
    _44406217_afghan_troops_416.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 16
.
Afghanistan is a challenge to NATO. America have 15,000 troops with ISAF. We also have another 14,000 as part of OEF CJTF-82 so the number doesn't reflect our current nor projected commitment. Regardless of NATO, we're staying.

My sense is that the American gov't is already preparing to see this issue result in NATO's eventual dissolution. Ms. Rice is correct to emphasize that first, this is a war to which no NATO member should dissemble to their respective citizens. Instead, they must frankly and honestly portray the issues as they actually exist.

While, in many cases, re-construction and anti-narcotics activities can and must be enacted, NATO forces everywhere in Afghanistan must realize that it's their obligation to secure the nation and stand up the Afghani army. This will mean confronting the enemies of Afghanistan within it's borders, regardless of political inclination. Warlords, criminals, taliban- any group that impedes the national progress.

Doing anything less is to lie to their citizens OR confirm the functional inability to perform in any better manner than described by Sec'y Gates.
 
.
Afghanistan had always been a loose federation. The closest comparison could be what Baluchistan was during the Raj. Khan of Kalat being the chief of all the Sardars. Any new king of Afghanistan needed ratification by the Loya Jirga ( Grand Jirga). No doubt the dissenters were dealt with by force.

Govt income mainly came from certain monopolies such as suger, tobacco etc and an agreed tribute paid by the tribal chiefs. All internal matters were dealt with by the local potentates. Moghul rule in India was based on a similar pattern where the king only controlled main cities such as Delhi, Agra and Lahore; with most of the country side handed out as fiefs to various nawabs in return for certain number of troops and a fixed annual tribute. Local law and order being the resposibility of the nawab or the raja ( in case of Hindu states such as in Rajputana)

This pattern was disrupted with the arrival of Soviet troops in 1979. Afghanistan has been in turmoil since. It wont be a bad thing if things revert back to what existed during the time of Zahir Shah. From Pakistan's view point, it does not matter whether Afghanistan is a federation or a loose tribal confederation as long as there is peace and all the refugees can go back to where they came from.
 
.
Now they will be put to test.

NATO will be bogged down to its knees.Afghans have never let any outsider subjugate them.


NATO will also pay the Holy price of letting RAW continue its notorious activities in Balochistan.
 
. .
Afghanistan is a challenge to NATO. America have 15,000 troops with ISAF. We also have another 14,000 as part of OEF CJTF-82 so the number doesn't reflect our current nor projected commitment. Regardless of NATO, we're staying.

My sense is that the American gov't is already preparing to see this issue result in NATO's eventual dissolution. Ms. Rice is correct to emphasize that first, this is a war to which no NATO member should dissemble to their respective citizens. Instead, they must frankly and honestly portray the issues as they actually exist.

While, in many cases, re-construction and anti-narcotics activities can and must be enacted, NATO forces everywhere in Afghanistan must realize that it's their obligation to secure the nation and stand up the Afghani army. This will mean confronting the enemies of Afghanistan within it's borders, regardless of political inclination. Warlords, criminals, taliban- any group that impedes the national progress.

Doing anything less is to lie to their citizens OR confirm the functional inability to perform in any better manner than described by Sec'y Gates.

S-2, don't disagree but was'nt NATO formed as a european alliance + US to fight the Warsaw pact countries in a conventional and thermo-nuclear theatre on european soil where the existence of these nations was under threat.
why are these NATO countries reluctant to commit troops to afghanistan in large numbers because they dont have the backing of their people. these european soldiers don't have the heart for this afghan deployment, whereas the US and UK have a history of deployment and campaigns in many countries. whether they were successful in nation-building is open for discussion.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom