Canadian defence minister slams NATO

[CV32]

From ARES

 

Canadian Def. Minister Slams NATO

Posted by Paul McLeary at 2/17/2009 10:54 AM CST

 

It looks like the United States isn’t the only NATO member getting frustrated with the way its allies are conducting themselves in Afghanistan.

 

Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay—whose troops are in the thick of the fight in Kandahar, having lost 108 troops in the war thus far—recently called out the rest of the alliance, giving voice to his frustrations in a speech in London:

 

"Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context…If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?"

 

Canada currently deploys about 2,800 troops in southeast Afghanistan, one of the most violent parts of the country, and it sounds like the Ottawa government is growing tired of shouldering so much of the load while German and French troops in quieter parts of the country aren’t doing any real fighting—or much of anything, really.

 

According to the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. MacKay went on to say that the American “re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan -- with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy -- has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance,” leading other members of NATO to simply think, “it's OK, the Americans will handle it.”

 

While McKay might justifiably be growing frustrated with the Europeans, it’s not like there isn’t light at the end of the tunnel for Canadian forces—Canada has announced plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by 2011, a move that would blow a huge hole in coalition efforts to pacify one of the most critical areas of the country. And if the fight in 2011 looks anything like it does now, or even if we see some improvement, that hole will certainly fester, no matter how much fighting and capacity building the Canadians are currently doing.

 

[CV32: Those Canadians ... always calling it like they see it! ]

[TEPonta]

From ARES

 

Canadian Def. Minister Slams NATO

Posted by Paul McLeary at 2/17/2009 10:54 AM CST

 

It looks like the United States isn’t the only NATO member getting frustrated with the way its allies are conducting themselves in Afghanistan.

 

Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay—whose troops are in the thick of the fight in Kandahar, having lost 108 troops in the war thus far—recently called out the rest of the alliance, giving voice to his frustrations in a speech in London:

 

"Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context…If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?"

 

Canada currently deploys about 2,800 troops in southeast Afghanistan, one of the most violent parts of the country, and it sounds like the Ottawa government is growing tired of shouldering so much of the load while German and French troops in quieter parts of the country aren’t doing any real fighting—or much of anything, really.

 

According to the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. MacKay went on to say that the American “re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan -- with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy -- has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance,” leading other members of NATO to simply think, “it's OK, the Americans will handle it.”

 

While McKay might justifiably be growing frustrated with the Europeans, it’s not like there isn’t light at the end of the tunnel for Canadian forces—Canada has announced plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by 2011, a move that would blow a huge hole in coalition efforts to pacify one of the most critical areas of the country. And if the fight in 2011 looks anything like it does now, or even if we see some improvement, that hole will certainly fester, no matter how much fighting and capacity building the Canadians are currently doing.

 

[CV32: Those Canadians ... always calling it like they see it! ]

 

I couldn't agree more with your statement, Brad.

 

Hey, Warhorse! What's your take on this one?

 

Buddha

[Akula]

From ARES

 

Canadian Def. Minister Slams NATO

Posted by Paul McLeary at 2/17/2009 10:54 AM CST

 

It looks like the United States isn’t the only NATO member getting frustrated with the way its allies are conducting themselves in Afghanistan.

 

Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay—whose troops are in the thick of the fight in Kandahar, having lost 108 troops in the war thus far—recently called out the rest of the alliance, giving voice to his frustrations in a speech in London:

 

"Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context…If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?"

 

Canada currently deploys about 2,800 troops in southeast Afghanistan, one of the most violent parts of the country, and it sounds like the Ottawa government is growing tired of shouldering so much of the load while German and French troops in quieter parts of the country aren’t doing any real fighting—or much of anything, really.

 

According to the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. MacKay went on to say that the American “re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan -- with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy -- has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance,” leading other members of NATO to simply think, “it's OK, the Americans will handle it.”

 

While McKay might justifiably be growing frustrated with the Europeans, it’s not like there isn’t light at the end of the tunnel for Canadian forces—Canada has announced plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by 2011, a move that would blow a huge hole in coalition efforts to pacify one of the most critical areas of the country. And if the fight in 2011 looks anything like it does now, or even if we see some improvement, that hole will certainly fester, no matter how much fighting and capacity building the Canadians are currently doing.

 

[CV32: Those Canadians ... always calling it like they see it! ]

 

I couldn't agree more with your statement, Brad.

 

Hey, Warhorse! What's your take on this one?

 

Buddha

 

Honestly, it's about time someone called it exactly what it is. Bravo to Mr. Mackay for not being afraid to speak his mind.

[noxious]

As much as I'm not a fan of our current Canuck administration (wasn't a fan of the previous one, or the one before, or the one before that, all the way back to my birth in 1970 ), I have to say that as time goes by, I have more and more respect for Mr McKay as Minister of Defense.

That's all (and that is the shiniest endorsement you'll ever see me give a Conservative, errh, make that any federal politician in this day and age )

 

From ARES

 

Canadian Def. Minister Slams NATO

Posted by Paul McLeary at 2/17/2009 10:54 AM CST

 

It looks like the United States isn’t the only NATO member getting frustrated with the way its allies are conducting themselves in Afghanistan.

 

Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay—whose troops are in the thick of the fight in Kandahar, having lost 108 troops in the war thus far—recently called out the rest of the alliance, giving voice to his frustrations in a speech in London:

 

"Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context…If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?"

 

Canada currently deploys about 2,800 troops in southeast Afghanistan, one of the most violent parts of the country, and it sounds like the Ottawa government is growing tired of shouldering so much of the load while German and French troops in quieter parts of the country aren’t doing any real fighting—or much of anything, really.

 

According to the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. MacKay went on to say that the American “re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan -- with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy -- has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance,” leading other members of NATO to simply think, “it's OK, the Americans will handle it.”

 

While McKay might justifiably be growing frustrated with the Europeans, it’s not like there isn’t light at the end of the tunnel for Canadian forces—Canada has announced plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by 2011, a move that would blow a huge hole in coalition efforts to pacify one of the most critical areas of the country. And if the fight in 2011 looks anything like it does now, or even if we see some improvement, that hole will certainly fester, no matter how much fighting and capacity building the Canadians are currently doing.

 

[CV32: Those Canadians ... always calling it like they see it! ]

[CV32]

From Army Times

 

Gates not hopeful for new NATO troops

By Anne Gearan - The Associated Press

Posted : Thursday Feb 19, 2009 7:19:41 EST

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday the change in U.S. administrations offers fresh traction for his argument that NATO allies must shoulder more of the load in Afghanistan, and an opportunity to repair ties with Russia.

 

The stalemated Afghan war is the dominant theme as Gates, the only holdover from the Republican administration of George W. Bush, makes his first overseas trip since President Barack Obama took office last month. Gates will see fellow NATO defense ministers in Poland, where he will ask sometimes reluctant European governments to send additional troops to Afghanistan at least for short stints ahead of national elections this summer.

 

On Tuesday, Obama pledged 17,000 new U.S. forces for Afghanistan over the coming months to address what he called a deteriorating situation.

 

“It is a new administration and the administration is prepared, as the president’s decision made clear yesterday ... to make additional commitments to Afghanistan,” Gates told reporters traveling with him. “But there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well.”

 

The era of good feeling that Obama carries globally could also smooth the way to a better partnership with Russia on Afghanistan and other issues, Gates suggested, although he said Moscow is “trying to have it both ways” by undermining U.S. efforts to hang onto a strategic air base that resupplies troops in Afghanistan.

 

Russia remains opposed to U.S. plans to station missiles and radar near its borders in Europe, but both nations have made overtures to ease the tension since Obama’s inauguration.

 

“I am hopeful that with a new start that maybe there are some opportunities with the Russians that we can pursue,” Gates said.

 

Although Obama replaced a president widely disliked in Europe, Gates suggested that the new president wouldn’t make a serious run at an issue that vexed his predecessor: How to get NATO to commit larger numbers of combat forces and send them where they are most needed in Afghanistan.

 

Gates has largely given up hope that NATO countries, many with strong anti-war constituencies at home, will ever be willing to greatly expand the current NATO force in Afghanistan.

 

“I think the likelihood of getting the allies to commit significant numbers of additional troops is not very great,” he said.

 

Gates is focusing instead on asking NATO allies for emergency help this spring and summer to counter militants and improve security for the election. After that, Gates said, NATO allies can expand nonmilitary participation for the long term. As examples he suggested more police training and work to improve the Afghan government and fight drugs.

 

“I hope that it may be easier for our allies to do that than significant troop increases, especially for the longer term,” Gates said.

[Warhorse64]

Hey, Warhorse! What's your take on this one?

 

Buddha

 

 

Oddly enough, although I can thoroughly sympathize with MacKay's frustration, I think he is being a bit hard on NATO. NATO was designed and built to counter an all-out Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Conquering a distant foreign land to counter the depredations of a few suicidal lunatics is an entirely different kettle of fish, especially when quite a few of the lunatics' relatives vote in our elections! With Western Europe accustomed for the last two generations to having America do all the heavy lifting on the security front, it's probably just not reasonable to expect them to do any more than they already are, however unfair that may be in the abstract ...

[CV32]

Oddly enough, although I can thoroughly sympathize with MacKay's frustration, I think he is being a bit hard on NATO. NATO was designed and built to counter an all-out Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Conquering a distant foreign land to counter the depredations of a few suicidal lunatics is an entirely different kettle of fish, especially when quite a few of the lunatics' relatives vote in our elections! With Western Europe accustomed for the last two generations to having America do all the heavy lifting on the security front, it's probably just not reasonable to expect them to do any more than they already are, however unfair that may be in the abstract ...

 

I can appreciate what you're saying, Warhorse, but at the same time, its been nearly 20 years since the Cold War ended. The last "sorta conventional" war that NATO fought was during Operation Allied Force in Serbia/Kosovo in 1999.

 

More importantly, though, its not as if NATO hasn't been involved in Afghanistan until now. Its been involved in the operation in one way or another since the get-go in October 2001. I'm reminded of what the "official" line was then:

 

""[it is a] new kind of struggle that we have to win. These terrorists are not 10 ft tall. They are not insuperable. They are not unvanquishable. But we are. And we certainly will win." -NATO Secretary General George Robertson.

 

Valiant words that sounded like a pretty strong commitment. The problem is that the follow-up just hasn't been nearly as impressive.

 

And don't get me wrong. I know Afghanistan is no beach picnic. We just saw the 20th anniversary of the Russians having departed the place, a few days ago, and they can tell a few stories of just how nasty. But if NATO is committed to the operation, then it really needs to be committed, and not just pay lip service to the job that needs to be done.