February 06, 2008
What's The Point Of NATO, Anyway?
The U.S. and Britain have been fighting an uphill battle to win deeper commitments from NATO allies in Afghanistan. With recent independent reports warning that Afghanistan may be tipping back into failed statehood, and a critical upcoming vote in Canada that could determine that country's ongoing security contributions, NATO member nations are facing a kind of do-or-die moment.
The question at hand is: What is NATO's mission in the 21st century?
NATO was formed during the Cold War to fend off the Soviet threat. It was a mutual security pact, in which an attack on one was to be perceived as an attack on all.
After the 9/11 attacks, it became clear that al-Qaida was now the biggest threat facing the West. With little debate, NATO's mission was updated for the 21st century, and forces were sent to Afghanistan.
More than six years later, the success of NATO's fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida is in dispute. The war in Iraq sapped resources from Afghanistan, and more importantly sapped confidence in the United States' and Britain's leadership roles there. Nations have withdrawn forces over the last several years, and now the fighting -- and dying -- falls disproportionately on the U.S., Britain, the Netherlands and Canada.
Member nations privately blame the U.S. and Britain for being so preoccupied with the war in Iraq -- overwhelmingly unpopular among member nations -- that they delivered a seemingly half-hearted effort in Afghanistan. Washington and 10 Downing Street vehemently deny this is the case.
Without positing it directly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is challenging member nations to remember the point of NATO and step up their contributions. "I do think the alliance is facing a real test here. And it is a test of the alliance's strength," she said at a press conference with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband today.
The latest internal row is over beefing up contributions in the country's violent south, near the Pakistan border. "It is true, and we've made no secret about it, that there are certain allies that are in much more dangerous parts of the country, and we believe very strongly that there ought to be a sharing of that burden through the alliance," Rice told reporters on the plane to London yesterday. She conceded that in 2001, NATO did not foresee that the war in Afghanistan would be the first-ever long-term military operation in its history. "So it's bumpy and there is a lot of maturing that the alliance is having to do to do this," she added.
A dramatic moment came last week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates quietly sent a letter to his German counterpart requesting more troops and helicopters be deployed to southern Afghanistan. The letter, reported to contain harshly worded accusations that Germany and other nations weren't doing their fair share, was greeted with some hostility. An official with Chancellor Angela Merkel's government said the letter was "not really helpful" in U.S.-European relations.
The Germans contend that they lack the equipment requested. "There [are] no used helicopter sellers around the corner where we can say, 'Let's buy it,'" quipped German foreign policy spokesman Eckart von Klaeden, speaking at a forum in Washington.
German officials were openly offended by Gates' letter, and Merkel herself shot down Gates' request. Germany's mandate in Afghanistan allows up to 3,500 troops in the more peaceful north. There are currently around 3,000 German troops in Afghanistan, and in a concession, Berlin announced it would send a small, quick-reaction force to replace 250 departing Norwegian soldiers. But the German unit will be stationed in northern Afghanistan.
"An expansion into the south is out of the question," said Reinhold Robbe, armed forces commissioner for the lower house of Parliament, the New York Times reported. "That is the consensus in all of the parties."
Germany's leaders protest that there is no political will for an intense commitment in Afghanistan. The mission's popularity has also plummeted in Canada, which is debating a plan to withdraw combat troops by February 2009 if member nations don't step up their contributions.
Canada's parliament will debate the country's future in Afghanistan next week, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning that a confidence vote could come by March. That could lead to the nation's third election in four years, the Vancouver Sun reports.
Harper's political opponents are accusing him of politicizing the matter. On Jan. 30, Harper told President Bush Canada would have to end its combat mission in Afghanistan if it did not receive more equipment and aid.
Of the 42,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 16,000 are Americans and about 7,700 are British. DOD said last month it was sending 3,200 Marines there, to bolster a largely Army-driven mission. The Marines will be withdrawn by the end of the year, and Gates sent letters to member nations asking them to pick up the slack as the Marine deployment ends, a Pentagon spokesman said yesterday.
The Marines requested redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan last October, when violence dropped off thanks to the surge strategy. Gates initially rejected the request, saying that the situation in Anbar Province was still too delicate.
Posted at 5:30 PM
Posted to:
Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, Bush Administration, Europe, Germany, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Pakistan, President Bush, Robert Gates, Terrorism, U.K.
Share via
