H09992
Headlines : "War on Terror"The Growing Crisis Facing NATO In Afghanistan
The whole U.S. and NATO strategy in Afghanistan rested on two false assumptions: The first was that the war was over and that the Taliban and their allies could never seriously revive there.
The second false assumption of U.S. policymakers was that NATO could project any real military power outside the borders of its constituent nations.
[Posted By gaanjah_mama]Republished from Spacewar: Your world at war
The United States handed over primary responsibility for peacekeeping in Afghanistan to NATO. It seemed like a good idea at the time. However, now the policy has fallen apart and presented the alliance with its greatest crisis in a quarter-century. For NATO’s forces in Afghanistan are no longer peacekeepers. They are being forced to defend themselves as warriors. And they lack the numbers, the air power and the logistical support to even defend themselves adequately.
NATO’s peacekeeping role in Afghanistan was supposed to mark a proud milestone for the venerable alliance. Instead of defending the democratic nations of Western Europe from communist aggression as it did so successfully for 40 years through the Cold War, the new, broader and grander NATO was supposed to step out on to the world stage and “export security” to unstable nations that needed it throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.
Posted by gaanjah_mama
"The global village is deteriorating at a rapid pace, and in the children of the world the result is rage." -Romeo Dallaire ____________________________________________________________ Harold: "You're good with people." ...
Okay…While the article itself is well-written from a flowery-bullshit standpoint, it falls on its face right from the start in terms of factual error.
NATO does not deploy “peacekeepers”.
That’s the role of the United Nations. There are explicit chapters regarding the United Nations’ conduct of peacekeeping missions. NATO exists to protect its member-states, and project force when one of those states is threatened. The Taliban harboured terrorists in its state, The U.S. went in, gained NATO support and now the goal is to eliminate the Taliban threat.
The entire effort in Afghanistan from the outset had absolutely NOTHING to do with keeping peace. It was entirely about regime change for a government that harboured terroriest. The mission then melded into securing a nation whose people were terrified and unable to overthrow the previous ultra-conservative government.
Will the Taliban reinvent itself, or oust NATO forces to regain power? I’d be willing to bet the farm that NO, it won’t happen. Taliban attacks against NATO forces are limited to two or three main areas, with relative cooperation from most of the country.
Furthermore, I love the drooling praise of American ordnance delivery and it’s “unerring accuracy”.
This article is painfully inaccurate from the get-go. I have absolutely no problem with opinion pieces but, for fuck’s sake, make the opinion at least appear educated.
Nachtmacher you are missing the entire point of the article.
The whole piece is of course bullshit as you have pointed out but there is one line in there that is meant to deliver a message “And they lack the numbers, the air power and the logistical support to even defend themselves adequately”, so more troops, more munitions, more planes, more everything is needed from the worlds largest military alliance, presently operating outside of its charter, right next door to Iran.
Dddddddooouuble post.