NAY-TO: A waste of space?

[Lazer-Hound]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5341654.stm

If only the Anglo-Saxons and, to be fair, the Dutch, are prepared to get stuck into your actual fighting, is there any point in continuing with NATO?

[BellEndBob]

Clever words from Ms Rice. In other words, the inevitable defeat that is coming in Afghanistan can now be blamed, conveniently, on the Europeans.
As to the original question, yes, NATO is a complete and utter waste of space.

[TheInquisitor]

Unsurprisingly, they're not keen on leaving 'KAIA Napa' holiday camp...

[SASless]

Clever words from Ms Rice. In other words, the inevitable defeat that is coming in Afghanistan can now be blamed, conveniently, on the Europeans.
As to the original question, yes, NATO is a complete and utter waste of space.


Now how on Earth can you construe that from Rice's statement?

She acknowledged the truth when she said we cannot leave the place in an unsettled state. There are 18,000 NATO Troops and 21,000 US troops there.

What makes you think this is doomed to failure?

The NATO Commander describes his forces as being successful but also says he needs more forces to be able to complete the mission sooner than will happen now.

Perhaps we overlook the contribution the Afghani forces are making as well. Afterall it was Afghani forces in conjuntion with Coalition SF forces and air power that bore the brunt of fighting in defeating the Taliban and continue to do today.

[Phil_R]

Hi,

I'm sure this is down to some sort of administrative issue, but as far as I was aware the US was part of NATO, so why the differentiation between "US tropps" and "NATO troops"?

Phil

[Mr C Hinecap]

I've worked in a NATO HQ. I now have issues with many of the nations I 'worked' with. I do, however, believe in NATO and other such larger organisations. It brings together nations and elevates the less capable with the efforts of the more capable and willing. It can certainly be bloody hard work and at times appear fruitless, but I remain a supporter of the aims and cooperation it brings.

[BellEndBob]

SASless.

I admire your patriotism, honestly, no jibe intended.

I disagree with your reasoning and your real belief that the USA is right and will win in the Middle East (based on other threads as well). The bombs and rockets approach will not succeed in the long term. The UK General is a little grand in his assertion that 'we' are winning as he is only responsible for a relatively small area when you look at the whole country.

A lot of what you say is based on the premise that the 9/11 attacks were attacks on the free world. You are entitled to your opinion. I think the attacks on 9/11 were attacks on the USA, period. Terrorist attacks in other parts of the world over the years have rarely been classed as attacks on the free world by the USA.

I disagree with the current USA foreign policy. You said on another thread that a 'few' saw Bush as the problem. I think I am right in saying that 50% of your fellow countrymen disagree with him as well, that is equivalent, more or less, to the whole population of the UK. Feelings over here are similar. Blair is on his way out and his legacy will be seen as a miserable and failed foreign policy (IMHO).

I am a serviceman and I have been in both Afghanistan and Iraq so I am hardly in the Left Wing encampment, or an armchair expert, but I do think we are on a hiding to nothing.

These are my personal feelings and I do not intend to get into any lengthy discussions/arguments on this forum. Only time will tell.

Until then I only hope that all the service personnel from every country get the support they need to complete their missions. Very close to my heart as I am back their in the not too distant future.

[ExJAFAD]

Hi,

I'm sure this is down to some sort of administrative issue, but as far as I was aware the US was part of NATO, so why the differentiation between "US tropps" and "NATO troops"?

Phil

When you work for NATO you are technically detatched from your home unit and loaned to NATO to do with what they want. So the US soldiers in country at the mo are deployed and ran by the US not under NATO control.

Conversely the brits are under NATO control ultimately.

[SASless]

BEB,

The poll numbers you quoted are not indicative of the situation.

Lets start with the idea that almost 50% of the voters wanted the opponent to win and not Bush. Those same people hold a 31% approval rating for the Congress and a 27% approval rating for the Media in the USA. Bush's approval numbers vary widely when different specific topics are measured.

In general, Bush and the Republicans are seen as being the better choice in issues regarding the War on Terrorism and National Security issues.

The 911 attacks may have been only on the USA....and for the sake of argument will accept that. In that case we will have to accept the multiple bombing attacks in London were directed only at the UK, the Bali attacks only at Australia, the Madrid bombings only at the Spanish, the attacks against the Russians were only aimed at them. The Saudi's have had several attacks against them as well.

Even if we use that logic....considering the common source of the attacks...Al Qaeda....then have not we all a common enemy?

Yes, foreign policy may be causing some resistance and for sure our presence in Saudi, Iraq, and Afghanistan promotes some problems.

We cannot reject reality and consider it soley our presence or questionable foreign policies that are the "root" cause.

A large part of the World lives under autocratic governments operating along religious concepts that blend government and religion into one and thus constitute a totalitarian form of government. Those in power within those governments and nations must feel threatened by the growth in democratic secular governments.

If one believes in the concept of "freedom" then it would appear to me that there is a conflict inherent in the clash the two concepts of government present to each other.

I personally believe the chance to enjoy the fruits of personal freedom will in time bring an end to Islamic governments and governments run by Monarchs in the traditional way.

Just look at the UK as the proof....you may have a Royal family but they sure do not run the government.

[Tombstone]

The 911 attacks may have been only on the USA....and for the sake of argument will accept that. In that case we will have to accept the multiple bombing attacks in London were directed only at the UK, the Bali attacks only at Australia, the Madrid bombings only at the Spanish, the attacks against the Russians were only aimed at them. The Saudi's have had several attacks against them as well..

IMHO, 9/11 was aimed solely at the US Administration. Subsequent attacks on the UK, Oz and Madrid were as a result of those countries taking sides with the USA AFTER 9/11.

Had the UK & others stayed out of the situation, I don't think they would have been hit by AQ sympathisers.

With the current level of forces in theatre, we are going to lose too many people in Iraq & Afghanistan for relatively little gain.

We can't win in Afghanistan, it's their back yard and they will keep us at bay for as long as we are there, unless we flood the country with a huge multi national force with credible ROE.

Unfortunately, Bush wanted Saddam on a plate and as a result, he never took Afghanistan seriously. Had the initial campaign been followed through with a continued level of commitment, I think we might have been looking at a different picture right now. :ugh:

[SASless]

Tombstone....are you saying it was the American Government in general or the Bush Administration that was the target?

If Bush....then why did the planning for 911 take place before he was even a candidate? The WTC was bombed in 1993 by AQ terrorists.

[Tombstone]

I was talking about the American government in general. Clinton & Bush administrations have both been targeted.

[The Swinging Monkey]

NATO does NOT work, ever, in cases like this.

If there is the slightest chance that someone may get killed, just take a look at the countries that suddenly say 'sorry, we're not playing, we're going to sit this one out!'

It happened in GW1 when I was with NATO AWACS out of GK. What an utter farce that was. Some crew m,embers not taking part etc. Indeed, from what I recall, it wasn't much better during Bosnia and Kosovo. Some countries will only play 'NATO' only when it suits them.

Of course it's a different story when the likelihood of death or injury has gone. take a look at how they all come out of the woodwork then, and crow about how much they are supporting NATO.

It's time to stop messing about with NATO and concentrate on alliances with those countries who we can rely upon, namely the Clogs and Americans!

Kind regards to all In Iraq and Afghanistan
TSM

[Not_a_boffin]

NATO worked because a WarPac standing army, sitting within 100 miles pointed at you, trained & equipped to capture the Channel ports is a bit difficult to ignore. Unfortunately, AQT doesn't seem to have the same immediacy.

Couple that with European disquiet (rightly or wrongly) about Bush's foreign policies and the perception that it's all dubyas fault and if he'd just leave them alone, everybody would live happily ever after and it's no surprise. Look at Lebanon - the French put at best a battalion into the force, on condition they get command, what would they ask for where there's real fighting?

IMHO we still need NATO if only for the SoPs and the integration benefits/working relationships built up over the years. However - if we need to act, best do it in the coalition of the willing.

The real issues (if we ever get the extra inf) are the lack of progress in reconstruction and the lack of policy on the opium issue. We don't seem to have a scooby as to what to do to remove the opium industry - or if we should. Worse, the DfID seems intent on sending the UK surplus of outreach counsellors and wimmins rights officers slap band sod into the Pashtu culture, rather than do something useful, like sort water supplies, roads, bridges, power supplies.

Unless someone gets a grip on these issues, we ARE going to lose and the immense courage and sacrifices made by all who have served in the Stan will be for naught. You can't make a carrot & stick policy work without deploying the carrot occasionally......

[Mmmmnice]

SASless - "unsettled state".........is that a direct quote from Ms Rice, or one of your own? Either way it's beautifully understated. I hope it's not still 'unsettled' when I go back there.......or I might have to get another job!!

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Afghanistan is starting to have some uncomfortable parallels with Vietnam emerge. Troops are operating from firebases which come increasingly under siege and seem to be outposts merely being defended rather than bases of operations. Patrolling but not dominating and holding ground, measuring success by body counts and relying on overwhelming firepower solely for success. Whatever happened to the hearts and minds plan for re-construction?
I’m about as onside as you can get but even I’m starting to question the wisdom of carrying on there. All this crap about bringing democracy and freedom is just that crap. Most of the western world, beyond spinning politicians couldn’t give a toss, me included.
5 Years on we’re worse off than when we started. Admit it’s a bit of a mess and get the hell out. We had our chance and blew it.

[Lazer-Hound]

Poland has stepped into the breach:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5344596.stm

Well done Warsaw, but what do we do until February?

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Poland are defiinately one of the more reliable partners along with Canada and the Netherlands. The rest of Europe are really not worth the time of day to be honest....

[phil gollin]

People, whether pro or anti NATO or Afghanistan intervention SEEM to be forgetting what NATO was meant to be doing in Afghanistan.

The original (and supposedly still) NATO mission was assistance with re-establishing the Afghan nation - it was NOT the fighting of Taliban and AQ insurgents - that was MEANT to be the US mission.

The NATO countries signed up for what was meant to be a beefed-up peace-keeping mission, NOT an anti-insurgent mission.

For some reason (people have assigned both pure and devious reasons to it) it was decided to extend the mission into an area which had not had foreign troops in it and surprise, surprise there was a reaction form the insurgents.

The NATO countries are basically saying "that's not we signed up for - it's YOUR problem America, YOU were meant to tackle the insurgents" - strangely enough this part of the NATO countries conversations are not being reported.

The real problem is that the expansion into a new area wasn't thought through properly, not that some NATO countries aren't stupid enough to give other people a blank cheque to use their troops.

A question, who made that decision and why aren't "they" putting their troops where their mouths are ?

[anotherthing]

SASLESS

I truly believe that Ms Rice, the US Administration and The Blairites are totally deluding themselves.

As is anyone who believes the cr*p they are spouting about Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was patently obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size that Iraq was going to descend into a civil war, and that Afghanistan is not 'winnable' by any conventional means of thinking.

But then again, the US administration seems to have a way of bending reality - they have just been taken to task for massaging facts about Irans nuclear aspirations.

It is the ordinary service person that suffers as a result of these duplicitous lies - how any serving member of the armed forces cannot recognise this and be hacked off by it is beyond me.

[MarkD]

Vortex

Hopefully your comments about Canada's commitment (political not military) will continue after the Royal 22nd go over soon - the media are dying for Quebec to revolt if the Van Doos take casualties.

Apparently Canada has asked Australia if they have any more to send but it's understandable given their existing stretch if the answer is no.

Meanwhile Rwanda Dallaire is trying to get disengagement from Afstan to go into Darfur where Khartoum have made it clear western troops aren't wanted... :ugh: :{

[SASless]

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/popeeffigy_700x405.jpg

If a speech can get this reaction....imagine what the presence of armed forces in the neighborhood can evoke from Religious Zealots.

Did anyone think the NATO troops would not have to fight? Was the mission merely keeping two sides apart or protecting and supporting the one side from the other?

You naysayers need to re-examine your facts and base your arguments upon reality and things as they are.....not as you wish them to be.

Perhaps, the next civil war in the UK will be between the Muslims and Infidels instead of Paddies and the English.

[anotherthing]

religious zealots or power hungry oil zealots i.e. Bush Administration... so who's worse??


Civil was between the paddies and the Brits? Get your facts correct - it was never a war, it was terrorist action - supported with a lot of money from the US, and a lot of US politicians urging the UK to be restrained - how does that marry with the restraint shown by the Bush Administration??

OK AQ commited a horrendous atrocity on 9/11, but what makes 3000 deaths any more justification than the few hundred caused by the 'paddies' as you so incorrectly call them.

[SASless]

Iraq provides what....3-6% of US oil imports....yeppers...had to go steal that oil didn't we? The latest find in the Gulf of Mexico will make up 15% of our needs at the current rate. I would suggest China will be the oil pirate that the USA is accused of being if their economy continues to grow at its current rate. Until 1990 or so they exported oil and now import 45% of their oil which is a much higher percentage than the amount imported by the USA.

But then do not let facts get into the way of a good argument.

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1157660900.php

[anotherthing]

The latest find in the Gulf of Mexico will make up 15% of our needs at the current rate


I assume thats the latest find that wasn't known about fully when the US began this crusade in Eyeraq. If human rights are the agenda (and they are high on the justification list for the war), why is Saudi Arabia (amongst other US/UK allies) not on the invasion list?? It has one of the worst human rights records around... oh, I forgot... it would not suit us to invade them.

As for the reaction from the Popes speech and your quote If a speech can get this reaction....imagine what the presence of armed forces in the neighborhood can evoke from Religious Zealots.

So they are a hot blooded race - what would your reaction be if foreign armed forces were in your neighbourhood?

The arrogance of the western world is breathtaking, especially Bush and Blair. Considering that a huge amount of the (mainly black) victims of hurricane Katrina are still waiting to pick up there lives due to a lack of coordinated help (in the most powerful nation in the world), I think that any moral posturing by Bush et al is shown to be merely that, posturing

[TheInquisitor]

Does that mean that you wouldn't bleat if we DID invade Saudi Arabia?

[SASless]

AT...perhaps one overlooks the Afghanistan government desires our presence there until they can fully control their own security?

The Katrina thing has you confused I suggest. FEMA is not and has never been supposed to "rebuild" after disasters. That falls to the local governments and individuals. Absolutely correct the massive amount of money spent by the Federal government was wasted, complicated to obtain, and in a lot of instances was targetting the wrong priorities.

Compare Mississippi to New Orleans and one can easily see the difference in the pace of recovery and capability of the local governments.

Katrina and its sister storm destroyed an area the size of the entire UK....how well do you think the British Government would cope with a calamity of that scale?

The last time I checked....hurricanes and natural disasters do not choose victims by race, colour, creed, nor religion. Senators, Representatives, and even a governor was made homeless by the storm along with a lot of other people.

Don't play the Race Card unless you want some dealt back to you....as in why does the UK have home grown Suicide Bombers and no other Western country does including the United States? Pershaps you should get your own house in order before you point fingers at us.

[Maple 01]

why does the UK have home grown Suicide Bombers and no other Western country does including the United States?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46640

sorry, you were saying.........?

Or perhaps a non suicide type?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/dawning_1.html

And lost that moment although nobody knew it yet was the innocence of America. Homegrown terrorism had arrived with a vengeance, and the terrorist was the kid next door. And he was cruising away from the carnage down Interstate 35.
I'm reluctant to visit Oklahoma......

[anotherthing]

Inquisitor

i am not bleating - I am not a bleeding heart liberal... I, along with a lot of others, am getting increasingly incensed that our armed forces are being thrown into situations that they should not be involved in. Ill advised campaigns by willy waving political leaders, leading to the deaths of servicemen and women.

SASLESS

No confusion regarding Katrina - you are correct - local government is responsible for the rebuilding of the services etc.
However, you have an administration which is constantly putting its nose into other peoples business and imposing its will on them - why is this same administration so unable to sort out ineffectual local governements at home??

Yes Katrina did affect an area the size of the UK - but to then ask how we would have coped with that scenarion is laughable - if the whole of America had been devastated then your question would have some credence.

As for home grown suicide bombers - I assume you forget the likes of WACO etc... or because that was not a Muslim issue, do you not regard that as a form of terrorism? As we come to expect, we get double standards from the USA, understandable from the politicians, but worrying when serving members of armed forces swallow it

[ORAC]

Just as a question, who exactly were the suicide bombers at Oklahoma and Waco? I must have missed that bit.....

[Maple 01]

The Link is above ORAC

[SASless]

The only "bombers" at Waco were the FBI....Tim McVeigh lit the fuse and hightailed it out of town.

If you want a case study on how "not" to handle a search and arrest procedure, read the report on Waco. The ATF bungled what should have been a fairly simple thing. Then along comes the FBI and makes matters worse.

The image of Bradley's, Tank Retrievers, and Huey's flying around the compound with the FBI's flag flying.....does not suggest a very bright management of the FBI. The same government (Clinton/Reno) also sent an Imigration SWAT team (wow...that is a concept for you!)into a residence to retrieve young Elien at gunpoint from his relatives so he could be returned to Cuba.

We ignore the millions of Mexicans and others that illegally cross the border but send a SWAT team in to send a Cuban back to Castro.....go figure that one out!

Note that same government did sweet fanny adams about Terrorists who were killing Americans both in the USA and outside the country.

[Zoom]

SASless
You are constantly bleeting on PPRuNe about why nobody respects you and yours and how everyone is picking on you all of the time. Well it's because you make daft statements like this so stridently...

.....why does the UK have home grown Suicide Bombers and no other Western country does including the United States? Pershaps you should get your own house in order before you point fingers at us.

...and then don't apologise when you have been proven absolutely wrong. So go on - apologise to those on this thread whom you've just insulted and maybe you will earn a little respect from the rest.

[SASless]

Zoom....

Set forth the details of a US Born individual who wore a suicide vest or drove a car bomb and carried out a terrorist attack.

The kid in Oklahoma was not proved to be a "suicide bomber" in the definition of the UK Tube bombers. He had a history of mental illness and an infatuation with explosives. Neither the FBI or any police organization described him as being linked to any terrorist group, cell, or extremist organization.

The FBI investigation disproved any connection to a Muslim organization of any kind.

Two minutes of effort with Google will demonstrate that to those that wish to believe it.

You folks in the UK do not wish to admit to yourselves that you have a major problem on your hands. Muslims in our country find it much easier to assimilate and prosper than they do in the UK. The highest concentration of Muslims in the USA is said to be in Detroit, Michigan. How many terrorist attacks have taken place there or have been perpetrated by homegrown second generation Muslims in this country as compared to the UK.

You cannot deny the facts....you have been hit and would have been again except for some very excellent police work.

That does not mean our time is not coming....hopefully our police will be able to do as good a job as yours in preventing those attacks.

If you check the posts you will find that I care less what other folks think about me, us, or the country. I have said we should do what is in our best interests and if other folks get a case of the ass over then just plain too bad for them.

What I don't care for is the hypocritical, sanctimonius attitude displayed by some that have no basis in fact or reason. When it comes to bleating and crying, look to so many of the posts that appear here whining about having to leave the Mess, Ceremonial duties, and apply their chosen trade in a hostile area. When they raised their hands....took the oath....they knew full well they might very likely be called upon to serve in hostile places. To cry about it seems a bit over the top to me.

The beauty of this anonymous forum is they can do so without risk....for they certainly would not do so in front of their Commanders. If they are geniune in their feelings, they should take a moral stand and resign.

[Zoom]

SASless
Will research and provide required answeres as soon as I have 2 minutes free to Google. Have this for starters: www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

But I take great exception to your statement that we in the UK will not admit that we have a major problem on our hands. We know d*mned well that we do and I think that most of us are shocked at how swiftly this 'home-grown' terrorism has appeared from nothing. I live 15 miles from Leicester, which appears to be one of the main breeding grounds and that frightens and embarrasses me. (Although not so much that it would stop me going shopping there with the Mrs Zoom and the Zoomettes.)

[brickhistory]

One would think I could learn to refrain, but apparently not:

I believe SASless is saying that thus far, none of our homegrown terrorists have been suiciders.

Reading his posts, he doesn't say we didn't have indigenous (sp?) extremists including ones that have done harm, but thus far none have been willing to voluntarily go up with the 'boom.'


Damn those French!!! :}

[Reach]

Perhaps, the next civil war in the UK will be between the Muslims and Infidels instead of Paddies and the English

Pretty ignorant comment, even by your standards, SASless.

The last UK civil war was between the Royalists and Parliamentarians, many years before the US was born.

As for the next....the Brits have found that good old fashioned police work has proved far more effective than secret CIA prisons, torture and invasions. Perhaps the US could learn something?

[SASless]

Reach,

Just applying the "civil war" standard as being applied to Iraq today. Our own War Between the States involved two governments, two armys, two navys, within a single country thus being quite different to the definition some use today in arguing about Iraq.

It would seem my "ignorant" posts really hinge upon varying definitions in arguments being made here.

You might consider under American law, the concept of Posse Comitatus, bans the military from being used for law enforcement inside the country. We also have very restrictive laws about the transfer of intelligence information to law enforcement agencies. Add in the scope of geography, the sheer number of indepenent agencies involved and the effort to "organize" the counter-terror effort gets very awkward.

We wish we had the flexibility the British do in dealing with the threat as a pure criminal event. I am sure MI5, MI6, Special Branch, the SAS bunch, all are better at swapping intel than are our side.

There have been changes since 911 but we have a long way to go yet. The FBI was way behind the curve regarding computers and linguists as a result of Louie Freed and that has hurt us too.

[Reach]

I wonder if anyone who has actually been to Iraq and Northern Ireland would agree with you?

[West Coast]

"religious zealots or power hungry oil zealots i.e. Bush Administration... so who's worse??"

What an idiotic statement. I would love to see a salient argument about how living under Bush is as bad or worse for the average citizen as living under some religious zealot. I won't hold my breath for anything other than school yard level reply.


"the Brits have found that good old fashioned police work has proved far more effective than secret CIA prisons, torture and invasions. Perhaps the US could learn something?"

Reach, we ALL can learn more, so what ever point you try to make is minimal. The Brits lost a lot of good folks in the subways recently, so I imagine they also believe Intel could have been better. I'm against what Bush is doing in gitmo and similar, but my disapproval doesn't mean there hasn't been effective information gleaned from the guests of the state in those places. Does it?

Should you have factual info otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

[Reach]

so what ever point you try to make is minimal

The response to terrorism is vital - disgree with me, but don't kiss it off as minimal.

The Brits went after their subway bombers using the civil criminal justice system, caught those reponsible (except the suicide bombers obviously), tried them in a court of law and put them behind bars. Seems to have worked out a lot better than launching two wars, engaging in torture, creating a legal and moral mess at Gitmo, and still, more than 5 years on, failing to bring to justice the man responsible for 9/11.

But your right about the other idiotic statement. I'd bet the poster would rather spend Saturday night in NYC than Tehran. (I'm spending my Saturday night flying to Afghanistan so I'm gonna have to sign off - night y'all)

[West Coast]

Not kissing off any response to terrorism, just your effort to score points.

"Seems to have worked out a lot better than launching two wars"

Argue Iraq and I'll have a harder time, but not Afghanistan. AQ,OBL and their hosts the Taliban started that war when the planes hit the buildings, you say as much later in your diatribe. In addition, the Brits for the most part didn't have to leave Londonstan to apprehend those responsible for the follow up attack.