NATO to Urge end to Combat Opt-Out

[ORAC]

Can´t see it having a chance to be agreed, any more than the request for more helicopters was last time.

The Times: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2473486,00.html)Nato urges end of right to opt out of Afghanistan combat

Germany, France, Spain and Italy will come under pressure this week to surrender the “red cards” that allow them to keep their troops away from the most dangerous areas of operations in Afghanistan.

The issue of national caveats, under which Nato governments can opt out of certain operations when they choose, is expected to dominate the alliance heads of government summit, in the Latvian capital, Riga, which starts tomorrow.

Some senior diplomats and military officials say that the credibility of the alliance in its most important mission overseas is at stake. About 90 per cent of the casualties suffered by troops serving with Nato’s International Security Assistance Force have involved just four countries: the US, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands.

An American soldier and 55 insurgents were killed over the weekend in a clash with Taleban fighters in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan.

Alliance sources said yesterday that there remained considerable resentment over the negative response by certain member states to appeals for more troops during Operation Medusa, in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, in the summer. It was a mainly Canadian mission but it involved troops from the US, Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark.

Germany, France, Spain and Italy have troops in Afghanistan but in peaceful areas. Alliance sources said that Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato Secretary-General, was determined to persuade all members that troops of whatever nationality and wherever they might be based in Afghanistan should be ready to go to the help of others “in extremis”.

[airborne_artist]

Germany, France, Spain and Italy will come under pressure this week to surrender the “red cards”

I'd have said that the cards they are waving are yellow, not red :=

[The Swinging Monkey]

Does anyone else agree with me that NATO is little more than a force in name only?
Certainly, as far as the 'air war' is concerned, it didn't work during GW1, it didn't work during Bosnia, it didn't work during Kosavo, ity didn't work during Afghanistan and it didn't work during GW2. Clkearly it isn't working now either.
has it ever worked as advertised?? I don't think it has!
Kind regards to all
TSM

[Minorite invisible]

The US, and the UK (and the Dutch) engaged in what the UN called an illegal invasion of Iraq. I think everyone now admits that the Iraq invasion was done under false pretences. Most other countries balked at the very idea of joining.

Afghanistan was a different matter. The Taliban government hosted and protected the alleged perpetrators of 9/11 so everyone agreed at the time that the US had the right to defend itself and to engage the Afghan regime when it became clear that they would continue to protect Ben Laden and Co. Many countries eagerly pitched in. No one condemned. Some more countries were preparing to help, but something unexpected happened.
The US began to threaten Iraq and President Bush began to systematically and repeatedly mention Al Quaeda, 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences. The ploy may have fooled Fox News and the American people into associating Iraq with 9/11 but most countries balked at such nonsense, some openly like Germany, France and Russia, others hypocritically like Canada, not by lesser conviction, but by fear of US reprisals. But everyone balked. Well almost everyone. Except countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu and a couple other countries of that nature, those that always vote on the US side at all UN General Assembly votes.

To try to give the big bad dog a bone in the hope of not getting bitten, some countries like Canada and Germany eventually decided to send a few troops to Afghanistan, because, after all that was a just conflict, a UN sanctioned one, one that had an honourable origin, and also because the dog was very menacing and there just was no way of getting rid of him (“you are either with us or against us” etc)

All this does not change the reality: from the point of view of most of the World, not just the Muslim World, NATO's main allies in Afghanistan, namely the US and the UK, are the bad guys in Iraq. And that makes them bad guys too. And that is why they keep away. (The US and the UK are of course not worst than those that plant bombs in markets and kill hundreds, but they created, with their stupid and illegal war the conditions that made all that anarchy possible in Iraq and must bear the blame for it) Of course Canada turned its coat after Harpers’ conservative government came to power and is now eager to hunt down Taliban and bomb villages too. The problem with other NATO troops is that they don’t want to seem like they keep such bad company. Its hard to fight for a just cause when you do it alongside others who are seen as the bully in another conflict.

A bit like Finland who during WWII was just fighting off a Soviet invasion but on whom some of the Allies (the UK) declared war because Finland accepted help from the Nazis to defend itself. They fought a just cause but kept bad company.

Maybe it would be best if the US and the UK packed up and left Afghanistan and left the other NATO countries deal with the problem alone. I think there would be less players on the sidelines.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

It's interesting and informative to hear a Canadian view on this; particularly as it is a country that can be least accused of shirking responsibility. I also recall a feeling of unease when Bush started making noises about disarming Iraq. At that point he never made direct mention of WMD. The immediate thought was, what right do we have to disarm a sovereign nation without the UN asking for it. I rather hoped that keeping company with the US on that course of action, even after the WMD claims had been discredited but they were going forward anyway, we would restrain the US from some of its least desirable excesses. Alas, I was totally wrong. We've had no discernible influence on the planning and conduct of the Campaign and that has remained the case since. The words "yo Blair" still ring in my ears.

Let's face it, our Government chose to put our hands in the mangle. As far as Iraq is concerned, why should the Germans, French or any other dissenters compromise their moral position to help us out? That said, there are certain countries who volunteered to take part in the beginning but, due to internal conflict, soon extracted themselves; and they know who they are. NATO doesn't need further internal tensions above that it already has.

The 'Stan, on the other hand, is a different matter as Minorite invisible explained. There was a UN will to neutralise the Taliban and we now have responsibility for losing the momentum there, to fill the vacuum and make good the damage. That is where we should expect NATO reinforcement. It also needs the American element to be reined in. They may own the ball and the coats that mark the goal mouth but they can't be allowed to dictate the rules nor the conduct of the game.

[mossie_uk]

I served in a NATO post during the Cold War and discovered the only saving grace we had was that the Warsaw Pact was even more disorganised than we were, it seems to me not much has changed.

[Wyler]

NATO is nothing more than a beuracracy, a true 'Paper Tiger', plain and simple. Like others, I have worked directly with other NATO nations and it is a bit of a joke. Disorganised and disinterested, apart from filling in the claims forms that is.

Even if it were a credible outfit why the hell should it join in with what's going on in Iraq? The basis of NATO was mutual defence, an attack on one was an attack on all. Nothing about joining in with the USA on a Bush Family bombing spree of the Middle East.

Afghanistan? Internationally backed but dreadfully executed. We have lost. I don't see why we should criticise other nations for staying out of a rigged fight.

[Tombstone]

Afghanistan? Internationally backed but dreadfully executed. We have lost. I don't see why we should criticise other nations for staying out of a rigged fight.

I think we have every right to criticise NATO for it's role in Afghanistan. NATO will take all of the credit for any work done out there without the chaps on the mainland (Netherlands aside) lifting a finger.

It is a disgrace, these countries receive large amounts of funding from the NATO coffers & should be held to account by way of actually doing something in theatre that contributes towards the commanders intent.

The conflict is not lost however, it will be if NATO carries on with the attitude it currently displays.

[ORAC]

A very interesting editorial from the Pakistani point of view in the Daily Times. Which would seem to indicate they do not see NATO as the bad guys - and that they also wish NATO members could get over Iraq and get their act together in Afghanistan..... Will NATO clean up its act? (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C27%5Cstory_27-11-2006_pg3_1)

[brickhistory]

MI,

Without turning, hopefully, this thread into Jet Blast material, a few questions if I may:

1) So, the fact that a majority of those voting brought in Harper & Co. is somehow the US's fault?

2) That Canada, a sovereign nation, decided to send troops to Afghanistan is the US's fault? Other nations chose not to, thus standing up to the 'man.'

3) That some NATO member nations, voting to send troops to Afghanistan, should be asked to actually fight is extraordinary?

[Minorite invisible]

MI,
Without turning, hopefully, this thread into Jet Blast material, a few questions if I may:
1) So, the fact that a majority of those voting brought in Harper & Co. is somehow the US's fault?
2) That Canada, a sovereign nation, decided to send troops to Afghanistan is the US's fault? Other nations chose not to, thus standing up to the 'man.'
3) That some NATO member nations, voting to send troops to Afghanistan, should be asked to actually fight is extraordinary?

I am sorry, but I re-read my post backwards, upside down and inverted in the mirror. I even attempted to record it and listen to the recording backwards. I still don’t see how any of the things that you mention in #1 and #2 are even remotely implied in my post and have no idea how you came up with that.
So for #1 and #2, the replies are no and no.

As for #3, what I said is that if there had not been the Iraqi "detour", which eliminated any credibility the US may have had to zero, and made most people questions their real motives for going in Iraq (everyone has their own theory but all question the "official" version), I think that most countries, including the reluctant NATO members in Afghanistan, would have a more positive and engaged attitude towards the Afghan mission. Maybe they just think operations should be run in a different manner and don’t like the way the US leads the show and pulls the strings in the background and does objectionable things (like lobbing Maverick missiles into Pakistani villages across the border from the Canadian area).

[brickhistory]

Then I misunderstood your post, thank you for the clarification.