NATO Chief: No Victory In Afghanistan = Terror Attacks In Europe, USA
Telegraph:
The Nato secretary-general today warned that failure to bring peace to Afghanistan would result in further terror attacks on Western cities, as David Miliband and Condoleezza Rice began a surprise visit to the country.
Speaking ahead of a Nato meeting in Lithuania, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer urged member states to pledge more resources to help train the Afghan army.
“This is the front-line in the fight against terrorism, and what is happening in the Hindu Kush matters, because if terrorism is not dealt with in Afghanistan, the consequences will be felt not just in Afghanistan and the region, but also in London, Brussels, and Amsterdam,” he told the BBC.
There is real frustration in London and Washington at the unwillingness of countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain to deploy troops in the battle-torn south, where forces face a resurgent Taliban.
The issue is expected to dominate discussions at the meeting of Nato foreign ministers this week.
Mr Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, arrived in Afghanistan with Miss Rice, the US Secretary of State, this morning, for a visit aimed at reassuring Afghan president Hamid Karzai that the country remains one of Nato’s key priorities.
They are due to meet senior military and civilian leaders, to discuss how Afghanistan can build up its own forces.
It is also thought they will discuss the appointment of a lead co-ordinator for international civilian and military operations.
Related: Nato At Crossroads
The Nato mission in Afghanistan could fail unless there is greater commitment from member countries, a meeting of the alliance will be told today.
The conference in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, comes amid bitter divisions among the 26 Nato allies over troop commitments, and follows accusations by the US that other countries are not pulling their weight.
The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, making a brief visit to London yesterday, said it was essential that Nato demonstrated its long-term commitment to Afghanistan, adding: “We obviously need to share the burden in the alliance so everybody is contributing.”
Ms Rice admitted that the Afghan mission was proving far harder than anticipated and had evolved from a peacekeeping role into a full-blown counter-insurgency battle. “The alliance is facing a real test here and it is a test of the alliance’s strength,” she said. “But we should not underestimate the transformation that Nato itself has gone through in really learning how to fight this fight.”
Ms Rice said Nato was facing a “real test” because some countries were staying out of more dangerous areas such as the province of Helmand, where British and Canadian forces are fighting a resurgent Taliban.
Newspaper reports in France have suggested that 700 of its paratroopers could be sent to the south. Last week, Belgium agreed to send four F-16 fighter jets to Kandahar. Germany is deploying about 200 troops to a quick-reaction force in the peaceful north.
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 Chief: No Victory In Afghanistan = Terror Attacks In Europe, USA
yeah, who cares, and above all, US don’t care !
February 7th, 2008 at 4:17 amEuro-pussies.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:19 amOn a sad note and from my neck of the woods
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/va_beach/dp-news_localseals_0206feb06,0,7147147.story
Two Navy SEALs killed in Iraq fighting
Two Nathan H. Hardy and Michael E. Koch were highly decorated.
Navy SEALs, both 29 and both with Pennsylvania ties, died in the same action in Iraq on Monday in which a third SEAL was injured.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:43 amI take it the owners of this blog are trying to make a point… you keep posting daily articles about Europe’s reluctance to join the Afghan campaign. Well, it sounds like you’re on the inside of NATO combat exercises and deployment, and hence you know that US and German forces have been brothers in arms for almost 60 years. When a US soldier gets hurt in combat, they fly them out to Landshut or Ramstein. We are constantly in maneouvers together, and share a lot of hardware components in most of our key-equipment - made by German and US engineers.
Here are 2 things you should consider though, as far as Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on extreme Islam is concerned:
a) The GWB administration went over our heads with their decision to enter Iraq. That wasn’t a popular move, and you shouldn’t whine about German popular oppinion being against it. Think of GWB what you like, but he hasn’t got the dilpomatic skills it takes to shore up support among his allies.. even Blair had to pull out and lost his job over his involvement, for lack of public support.
b) The US is making a big fuss over their Mexican border (rightly so). You perceive one such border as a big threat. It’s your ONLY border you gotta be concerned about! The UK has NO borders (unless you consider a Northern Island). Israel’s experience has shown that the only way to protect their people from terrorists was to pull up a big wall, that they now also want to extend to the Egyptian side.
A look on the map however, would show you that Germany shares borders with more countries than any other country on the European continent. We are very fcuking close to Russia, Chechnia and Ukraine — and it is a nightmare to control and counter terrorist movements as well as organized crime activities. Now, we gotta think very carefully about putting ourselves out there if it results in increased terrorist activities and planning against our homeland…
Again, we’re allies, but Bush didn’t pay much interest in our oppinion and now you guys are asking us to join you in a fight that isn’t about your own border security but rather a missionary effort that we haven’t signed off on…
What adds to it, is that you are talking about the first combat deployment by German forces since WWII.
Now, what are we gonna do?? huh? damn.. I’m glad I don’t have to make those decisions..
I love this blog, by the way… good job. Keep it up, and hey — don’t mention the war! alright?!! lol
February 7th, 2008 at 6:19 am[[The GWB administration went over our heads with their decision to enter Iraq. That wasn’t a popular move, and you shouldn’t whine about German popular oppinion being against it. ]]
Problem is, based on what we are now seeing from Germany regarding Afghanistan, you would have NEVER have approved of the liberation of Iraq, Germany is simply too full of lefty pacifists. GWB didnt go over your heads, he simply did the right thing with out you because you couldnt, not his fault.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:45 amCondolences to the families of the Navy SEALs killed…
Talking about the Navy SEALs though, it is my understanding that German special forces (KSK) were always available for the fight against Al’Quaida and Taliban leaders. There was a disagreement on the strategy of fighting terrorism after 9/11 — GWB opted for traditional war, whilest the Germans wanted targetted operations against terrorist leaders instead of traditional combat. Looking at the situation now, wouldn’t you think that may have been better?
February 7th, 2008 at 7:47 amI’m not a NATO expert, but the way I understand it is; it is a military alliance. One member get’s attacked, the other members go to war for them. On September 11, 2001 the United States of America was attacked by an “Islamic” terrorist organization opperating from and in Afganistan with the express concent of the Afghan Taliban government. Time to pay the check. We called for our “allies” to back us up and several did. Some held back. President Bush did not go over Europeans heads by taking on Afghanistan. NATO agreements were envoked but some of our so called “allies” decided to back away from their agreements. The purpose of having a treaty is to give a country the assurance that when the poop hits the fan, your friends have got your back. I guarantee you this, if any other NATO friend had been hit by Osamma Bin Laden with as much bravado and force as the US did on 9/11 and you had called on us as allies to go to war in Afghanistan with you, America would have paid the check (even if Al Gore had been president)!!! In fact we have been paying europe’s check for the past 200 years. There is no better Ally than the Unided States of America. Are we perfect? No. Do we talk alot of smack? Yes. But we’ve got your back. Know that.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:04 amYou got almost all your allies in Afghanistan, because of the referred Nato object: help a nation that has been attacked. (I recall that we are not a Nato member since 1967, though we helped Nato in many designs : Afghanistan since the first project, Kossovo…)
As far as Irak is concerned, there were no averated terrorist threat direcctly evocated at that time there, that was only your administration decision
February 7th, 2008 at 8:24 amBeing in the same bar and guarding the ladies room during a brawl does not exaclty relate to “I’ve got your back Bro”. Thanks for the moral support, but we’re asking for your fists. Victory means something, to either side. In this war, there will be no stalemate. Get your rest though…the russian threat is mounting. We’ll have your back.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:53 amBefore I jump into the fray, I’m sorry to hear about the two NavySEALs that were killed. It’s never good to lose bretheren, no matter what the circumstances.
As for the whole Afghanistan/NATO issue: Yes we (and I strongly state the ‘we’ part) have to win there. As it stands right now the middle east is rampant with problems involving terrorists, trafficking, and various other threats. If NATO were to up stakes and quit the country, it would be a grave mistake, not only security wise, but politically. NATO as it stands is already feeling the strain, and I’m sure that if we continue to watch, it’ll likely start to fall apart no matter what happens. Everyone has a part to play in this particular war, but it is increasingly obvious that many countries are reluctant to put their troops in harms way, and the only reason that Europe stands out is because they have many more countries in close proximity to one another who are reluctant to participate in combat. Even here in Canada (Yeah I’m a Canuck) we’re about to trigger an election over the whole Afghanistan combat issue, because one party wants us in combat, one wants us out but still doing humanitarian aid work, and the third wants us out completely. I would imagine that there’s a similar debate going on in Britain, although I’m sure someone can let me know about that one. The debate does need to be ongoing, because most of the countries involved are democratic. So if they want to vote to keep their troops out of combat, let em. However on the flip side, if you’ve commited to being a part of NATO, and NATO goes to war, you should expect to have your troops put in harms way for a while because you should be sharing the burden as a partner of NATO.
We have to win in Afghanistan as much as the US needs to win in Iraq, because if we don’t, we’re just asking for another kick in the balls. When I get back to Kandahar maybe things will have changed, but somehow I’m doubting it.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:02 amWell, at least the NATO chief is on the right page.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:56 amRojoNixon
Newspaper reports in France have suggested that 700 of its paratroopers could be sent to the south
Being in the same bar and guarding the ladies room during a brawl does not exaclty relate to “I’ve got your back Bro
if you say so then you must have been around too
February 7th, 2008 at 9:58 amThough I would not say that, could be the renseignement services that are also working there, anyway, someone had to stay in Kabul ;
Franchie, don’t pull that “the administration never specifically enunciated a direct terrorist threat” from Iraq BullShit. Sure they did. And what they didn’t say, you should be smart enough to learn on your own.
Don’t penalize them for playing it as best they could for diplomatic purposes, when you know the underlying truth of the matter. You focus on WMD, but they were simply 1 of 23 counts. Saddam’s $10,000 donations to the families of suicide bombers made him the literal definition of a “state sponsor of terror.” We have casus belli enough right there, don’t play fucking coy to preserve your francophile pride, wounded at the dirty stinking corruption plaguing French-Iraqi relations.
p.s. Glad to have the 700 paratroopers
Now send 700 more plz.
p.s.s. @ Deutschlander — So you won’t destroy these fucking jihadists in Afghanistan because you are worried they will destroy you at home? Tsk Tsk. You are supposed to say “Let them come” because, if you didn’t realize, they are already at war with you.
I think you DO realize this, you just prefer to let the battleground remain Afg, and the casualties Americans, instead of in the Vaterland. And that stinks. Fucking coward. You would, and have just explained how exactly you did, sell us out to save your skins. FIGHT, Damn You!!!!!!!!
February 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pmRanger,
they were simply 1 of 23 counts. Saddam’s $10,000 donations to the families of suicide bombers made him the literal definition of a “state sponsor of terror.”
I dunno what real proofs that make you sure that Saddam projected attacks on whatever western countries. I have been reading the all possible net infos, (y comprise the conservative ones)there aren’t any “historical” document : he wasn’t a jihadist, but the lonly laïc leader in the ME ; dictator he was, bloody, machiavelic, he was too ; though, there were many other dictators in world’wide that didn’t disturb your counscienceness ; specifically this one, cause Israel said so ; yes, I know that Israel always had one eye on Irak. in reality Iran was and is still a bigger threat for that country and the rest of the world. May-be be Bagdad recalled them the souvenir of their exil (exodus) in Babylonian times, and that they still have a prescience of Bagdad hostility.
The thing is Saddam was projecting to abandon the dollar as currency, and that would become an exemple for the Opec contries ; isn’t it what is happening though ? and yes, he did threat your big Saudi friend with this, uh, arent the Saudi your bank reserve ?
there was a project in Penthagon (designed a few years before 2001 though) that aimed a 2nd Irak intervention, that came a propos after 9/11.
bizarre, in Capitol DC, the 2002 till mars 2003 official administrative mails vanished, though they should have been kept in the archives for historical purpose.
wounded at the dirty stinking corruption plaguing French-Iraqi relations.
“The Washington Post reported on October 8, 2004, that several French companies have been accused of selling weapons technology to Iraq after the embargo. But the Post noted that “U.S. weapons inspectors found no clear evidence” that French government officials were involved in or aware of those deals, and it is unclear whether reported offers from French companies to Iraq were ever consummated”
here
so, this all is “shit bag” that has been elaborated by your intel propaganda elite ; and the Poles relied it, but ackonoledged later on that that were falsh statments) they did had the smack back by Chirac though ;
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=74954
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_MadeInUSA.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168648,00.html
now, if your saying I am kind of francophile prideness, yes, kinda patriotic I am, what’s wrong with that ? your too !
I am afraid that you were cheated about us, that’s not new, from the last WWII, cause of De Gaulle that didn’t fit yout administration agenda ;
bonus : http://www.112gripes.com/
this booklet was given to the GIs after that the Americans headsquaters acknowledged that there were a real problem with the soldiers and the french population that started to anger at the anarchist behaviour of the troops
and I really wish that we get better in understanding each other as nations, we are of the same roots !
semper or peace
February 8th, 2008 at 4:11 amfranchie, aka Marie-Claude
Ranger,
anyhow,wounded at the dirty stinking corruption plaguing French-Iraqi relations.
you perfectly know that was untrue, digg the honest sources, (I keep a few in “favoris” in case)
February 8th, 2008 at 4:22 amFOX News host Sean Hannity condemned France and other “so-called allies” of America for providing weapons to Iraq prior to the U.S.-led invasion of that country in 2003. On the February 23 edition of FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes, in an attempt to impugn European nations’ motives for opposing the war Hannity said to guest and fellow FOX News host Oliver North: “[Y]ou were there in Iraq. You saw weapons with French labels on them.” North responded affirmatively.
This attack is misleading. French companies did sell weapons to Iraq prior to the 1990 embargo, during the Iran-Iraq War — as did the United States and many other nations. But no credible evidence exists that French government approved weapons sales to Iraq after the United Nations Security Council imposed the arms embargo, and very little evidence exists that French companies conducted such sales in secret. President Jacques Chirac has denied that France violated the embargo.
Hannity’s mention of “weapons with French labels on them” apparently referred to French Roland missiles, which “U.S. troops and journalists have seen … at some [Iraqi] weapons sites,” according to an October 5, 2003, Associated Press report. But the AP also noted that while Poland initially reported that the French missiles were produced in 2003, the Polish government quickly recognized that the report was “incorrect.” France stopped exporting Roland missiles in 1986 and stopped producing them completely in 1993, according to the French Foreign Ministry.
International human rights organization Amnesty International has documented that both French and U.S. companies supplied weapons technology to Iraq prior to the 1991 Gulf War:
Before the 1991 Gulf War, at least 20 countries were accused of involvement in building up the technological basis for different Iraqi weapons programs, in particular the chemical weapons program. In December 2002, the Iraqi government submitted a 12,000-page dossier to the UN [United Nations] naming companies from the UK, France, Russia, the USA and China as suppliers of weapons technology to Iraq. … The dossier claims that 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons including nuclear and rocket technology and that some “50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US”. … Although most of the trade ended in 1991 at the outbreak of the Gulf War, Russia, China and reportedly Portugal traded arms with Iraq after 1991 in breach of UN resolutions.
A December 30, 2002, report in The Washington Post further chronicled America’s role in providing Iraq with weapons technology prior to the arms embargo: “The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.” The Post also documented that the U.S. provided “billions of dollars of credits” to supply the Iraqi war effort, according to former National Security Council official Howard Teicher, and that upon gaining entrance into Iraq following the Gulf War, U.N. weapons inspectors “compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.”
The Washington Post reported on October 8, 2004, that several French companies have been accused of selling weapons technology to Iraq after the embargo. But the Post noted that “U.S. weapons inspectors found no clear evidence” that French government officials were involved in or aware of those deals, and it is unclear whether reported offers from French companies to Iraq were ever consummated.
On May 16, 2003, the New York Times documented several other reports alleging that France had sold weapons to Iraq after the embargo — each of which “France has challenged”:
– In September [2002] The New York Times reported that Iraq in 1998 had ordered or purchased from France or Germany precision switches that could be used to detonate nuclear bombs. A French response noted that the switches had been presented as spare parts for medical equipment (as the Times noted), and that French authorities had immediately barred the sale.
– A March [2003] report in The Washington Times reporting that during the previous several months two French companies had sold Iraq spare parts for fighter jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. The account cited American intelligence officials. The companies and the French Foreign Ministry denied the charge.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:08 amrendez-vous on “my soup”, I’ll give your something to eat
February 8th, 2008 at 5:23 am