What's floating around is an idea about getting British, Canadian and Dutch troops fighting in southern Afghanistan out of NATO's ISAF structure and directly under American command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
From the Washington Post:
"Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.
"Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute," McNeill said. "I can't amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can't move as quickly as I want to," McNeill said.
McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve -- an idea that he said merits consideration.
"I think it should enter into the dialogue" with NATO, McNeill said."
From the Washington Post:
"Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.
"Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute," McNeill said. "I can't amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can't move as quickly as I want to," McNeill said.
McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve -- an idea that he said merits consideration.
"I think it should enter into the dialogue" with NATO, McNeill said."
I think somebody should tell McNeill that we're not about to become America's Foreign Legion so that it can maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
5 comments:
There seems to be two conflicting visions as to how a post cold war NATO should be reorganized in
play here.
One vision sees NATO as an alliance for helping broken countries to rebuild themselves, by
providing security and assistance for reconstruction efforts. This was the vision which Jean
Chrétien's government, along with others such as Germany and France signed on for in Afghanistan.
The other vision sees a future NATO as a league of American client states, providing auxiliary
troops for service in America's colonial wars. With the exception of Canada, which would have
been there had Harper been Prime Minister at the time, the NATO countries holding this view have
all participated in the American war to reconstitute Iraq as an American protectorate.
No matter which version prevails in Afghanistan it is highly unlikely to end well for NATO. Of
the hundred or so such wars in the past two centuries, in only three have the foreign occupiers
emerged victorious. Unfortunately, the American/NATO occupation has much more in common with the
Soviet Union's disastrous occupation than with the Boer War or the Malay and Philippine
insurrections.
Doz
I think NATO sort of stumbled into Kosovo and has been staggering about ever since. The grander, global role some see for the alliance was never well thought out, clearly defined or put through a consensus effort. NATO membership doesn't dictate participation in these international efforts and, hence, it's become something of an "alliance of the willing" which is hardly an alliance at all.
I think the alliance members need to sit down and define what NATO is and isn't going to be and how member states will deal with their obligation.s
Lord, help us. Harper and co. are gonna love this -- a reincarnated General Jack D. Ripper who can think of a use for them.
The sad thing is that with NATO being poorly adapted in nation building, this may be needed to win the so-called War on Terror in Afghanistan.
Would Harper be bold enough to support the "Go Big or Go Home" attitude. May box Dion in further. However, it may be the most viable solution if Canada wants to stay in Kandahar until 2011.
I think Afghanistan has dragged on too long for the "Go Big" option to be politically viable any longer. We ought to have addressed that point not later than three years ago when it might have done some good.
If we are to salvage Afghanistan at this point, we'll have to consider starting all over again. That means running the bandits out of the central government and defanging the warlords to lift the Afghan people out of the fundamentalist feudalism that besets them.
Anyone ready to take on the Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara and Turkmen militias? Who is going to oust Karzai? Who then will replace him?
Wheels spinning within wheels.
Post a Comment