Gates Tells NATO Allies To Grow A Pair
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the top U.S. commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan yesterday issued a blunt assessment of the alliance’s shortcomings in that country, arguing that the unwillingness of some member states to risk combat casualties is threatening NATO’s future and undermining the prosecution of the Afghan war.
“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 people’s security, and others who are not,” Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “It puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps get even worse.”
American and other NATO officials are sparring over force levels, missions and strategy as violence in Afghanistan has reached its highest levels since the U.S.-led invasion and overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Although coalition forces have defeated the Taliban in many tactical engagements, analysts say NATO remains in a “strategic stalemate” because of lagging reconstruction and governance efforts. The disputes have pitted Washington against its European partners in a manner rarely seen since the end of the Cold War, casting doubts on the credibility and purpose of the alliance.
Gates, who departs today for a two-day meeting with NATO defense ministers in Lithuania, said he will urge European countries to loosen the “caveats” they place on their troops — rules limiting where they can be deployed or whether they can engage in battle — and to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.
Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.
“Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute,” McNeill said. “I can’t amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can’t move as quickly as I want to,” McNeill said.
McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve — an idea that he said merits consideration.
“I think it should enter into the dialogue” with NATO, McNeill said. The roughly 27,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan are concentrated near the eastern border with Pakistan and make up the bulk of the approximately 55,000 foreign troops in the country. McNeill attributed much of the increased violence to the stepped-up military operations.
Read the full Washington Post article here.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
NATO, what a joke! That organization collapsed when the Soviets gave in. Now that the Russian juggernaut isn’t threatening to crush Western Europe under it’s tank treads they don’t see the need to commit to anything. Yet again it’s up to America to keep the bad guys in check with our blood and treasure and with the way things look that might not even be possible much longer when the weak and indecisive take up in the White House. Welcome to the fall of Western civilization brothers and sisters!
Brian
February 6th, 2008 at 10:21 pmNATO will be useful when they finally realize they are being overrun by Muslim immigrants who want to kill them. So far, it hasn’t been a problem because there has not been a serious incident. Although, there were the Madrid and London train bombings but all that did was make Spain and England more likely to appease them. Wait till they start daily car bombs, maybe a few chemical attacks, or nuke a city. Then they might want to do the whole alliance thing. But they won’t do that until they are provoked.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:47 pmThe US cleaned up the German mess after WWII, then rebuilt, fed, protected and pumped up the EUro economy for the last 60 years. And now they won’t help fight. Many sell weapons to our enemies.
Euros, you know who you are.
The Hell with you.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:00 amit’s evident that the Nato countries, (except you) are waiting for :
1- the next Nato meeting (I think next spring) that aims to redefine its goals, its organisation, its subventions…
2- The EU Nations know perfectly that Bush is “over”, from November there will be a new president, a new administration, new objectives… so they are not engaging more costs of persons and money in a policy that might be over at the end of this year.
3- Seems that Afghanistan doesn’t want Nato troops, but more help to form their own army
4- The conflict seems more located at the Pakistan borders ; in anycase Pakistan is the real reserve of jihadists, then, why not invadind or bombing Pakistan…
February 7th, 2008 at 2:50 am@ franchie - point 2
“The EU Nations know perfectly that Bush is “over”, from November there will be a new president, a new administration, new objectives… so they are not engaging more costs of persons and money in a policy that might be over at the end of this year.”
You admit that europe follows America, that europe is not able to lead on this
The founders of America left europe over 200 years ago because we tired of your oppressive socialist selfish elitist society
February 7th, 2008 at 4:49 amYou admit that europe follows America, that europe is not able to lead on this
not exactly what I ment
Nato was an american creation that purpose was to contain the communists in their land of URSS and make sure that they won’t invade and mess the new created capitalist EU market ;
now that geopolitic is different, the Nato goals must be redefined, who should lead this organisation, wether it’s EU (if Nato is aimed to protect EU) wether it’s US (if it is to protect the US interests); I don’t think you care much of the EU protection anymore that it is obvious that EU has become a capitalist marcket
February 7th, 2008 at 5:10 amfranchie, you are mistaken. NATO was created by Western European states and the U.S. in 1949 as a military alliance to protect Western democracies. It had absolutely nothing to do with the EU, which by the way is a protectionist European trade organization in direct competition with “Le Grand Large”.
Why would America want to protect its primary economic competitor? D’abord il faut penser, et puis parler, mon ami.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pmahah, Tom, tu as raison ; it’s also right that we don’t use much the expression western european states nowadays ; EU is the commun sense for almost everybody, except for the educated policy specialist as you seem to be
anyway, I tend to write “ya see what I min” like an universal understanding ; I have learnt with the direct discussions here that that’sn’t evident at all
primary economic competitor
that’s true for the highest technologies, that you are spying, hehe, in case we would have better scores in selling them to the new born democratised muslin countries
that’s also true for the agricultural goods, that are as well sponserised in the both parts of the pond
…
the rest is minor competiotion,
uh, I forgot, your sportmen (à bicyclette) alike Amstrong, sponsorised by viagra, that we don’t need here of course, vin rouge is still ok
February 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm