Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Europe Ignores Obama's Demands for More Troops in Afghanistan
LONDON - Washington had hoped to persuade European allies to contribute more in the wake of the President Barack Obama's election and the announcement this week of the deployment of 17,00 extra American soldiers.
Robert Gates has condemned Nato allies for failing to send more troops to Afghanistan Photo: AP American defense secretary Robert Gates condemned their failure to do so far as "disappointing" with European states promising to deploy no more than just a few hundred extra troops.
Speaking before a meeting of NATO defense ministers in the Polish city of Kraków, Mr Gates said member states must send reinforcements in preparation for the Afghan presidential elections in August.
However in a sign commanders had resigned themselves to receiving few extra combat troops, the NATO chief stressed the need for help in less controversial and safer police training missions.
Jaap de Hopp Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, refrained from calling for more combat troops, explaining that the organization should play a greater role in nation building.
He said: "NATO should give the Afghan authorities an army and police that allow them to take on their responsibilities. The sooner we can finish training the army and police, the sooner the Afghan authorities can take over running their own country."
A resigned Mr Gates conceded that this could be the best America could get from its allies."I guess it will make life easier for those member states that have problems about committing combat troops," he said.
Such a deal would allow European governments to say they are committed to the struggle in Afghanistan but without upsetting public opinion.
Washington has long been frustrated at Europe's lackluster response to repeated American calls for greater assistance.
With public opposition to the Afghan war hardening across Europe, and disquiet in many European capitals over a command structure in Afghanistan that keeps the vast bulk of the 55,000-strong American force separate from NATO, few expect any member to commit significant additional forces.
Poland, which has over 1,000 troops on combat operations in Afghanistan and been a vocal supporter of deployment, also lent its support.
John Hutton, the Defense Secretary, said the UK was considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, but insisted Britain was "playing above our weight" and the onus was on European NATO members to increase their presence. Britain has 8,300 troops in Afghanistan, more than any other European country.
"Our view has always been very clear that Nato needs to do more, the European members of NATO need to do more," he said.
"There needs to be a fairer burden-sharing of responsibilities, particularly in those really hard areas where what we need are combat forces."
He also echoed growing US criticism of Hamid Karzai's government, demanding "change and improvement in Kabul".
"There's no doubt at all that the government in Kabul needs to do more," Mr Hutton said.
"It needs to tackle the problem about corruption, it needs to deal with the problem about drugs which is a poison in Afghan society and making it very difficult for good governance to take hold across the country."
The summit got under way as the Kyrgyzstan parliament voted to close the last remaining US airbase in central Asia.
Some 15,000 American troops and 500 tons of supplies pass through the Manas base each month on the way to and from Afghanistan.
But officials in Kyrgyzstan backed a presidential decree which means the Americans will have to leave within 180 days - after which Russia will take over. Russia recently agreed to give the government more than $2bn (£1.4bn) in aid and loans.
Mr Gates said America would consider paying more rent to continue using a strategic airbase in Kyrgyzstan which is key to its operations.
77 Comments so far
Show AllThe look on Mr. Gates' face is an unhappy neo-con who won't get to kill as many poor brown people this year as he'd hoped for.
What's a neo-con supposed to do for employment if the world puts the brakes on war?
Cy 9:50 Domestic suppression?
Wasnt Robert(Brzezinski)Gates INDICTED for the Iran Contra/REX-84/continuity of government(CoG) affair? Why isnt he in prison next to Oliver Scumbag North?
As I've said before, here and at other sites where I can comment, it's time to beat feet -- to come home, and end this foolish nonsense about dominating the world. Neither we nor anyone else can do it, and the longer we try, the sooner imperial collapse will be not the wolf at the door, but the wolf pack bursting through the door.
Good for you Europe. You trusted us on economic policy and we were instrumental in bringing down the entire world economy. Do not follow us down this insane path of military escalation in Afghanistan. We have not controlled, cast out nor punished those lawless US powers who lead us to destruction based on lies and an unquenchable thirst for power and money. They remain active, still taking every chance to deceive and pillage.
Perhaps if nobody follows the swaggering bully he will look around, find himself alone and back off.
Joe
jclientelle
I would like to suggest to you that Europe and Asia were deeply involved in the economic shenanigans that brought about this disaster. They were hardly led by us into it and the collapse could just as easily started in either place.
The evidence is quite clear that the blame is shared equally by the global economic community.
I'm for leaving Europe to their own devices. I believe its time we stop taking care of them while they insult us and blame us for any thing that goes wrong.
Thomas,
I agree with you that greedy criminals the world over took part in the economic shenanigans you describe in your above comment. Plenty of blame to spread around. But, I am sure you would agree with me that the baby was born in the USA. I believe that was the point Joe was making in his comment.
Good afternoon Mr. Dante
Yep....we gave birth to the little B.....the sub primes, there are a lot of other little goodies from all over the place. Every country seems to have been quite creative.
Good Afternoon to you also Thomas
Hi Thomas - Correction accepted, mostly. In Europe there are stronger regulations that prevent lending money above the ability of the recipient to pay it back. Most of the irresponsible lending originated here, but Europeans merrily went along buying into the bad paper and participating in other forms of closing their eyes when quik profit is involved.
Most of the bleeding of resources on military contracting and invasions are centered here. But the Europeans increasingly elected rightist leaders who snuggled up on the lap of George Bush on foreign policy matters, trade and financial matters.
Sometimes their annoying sense of superiority does blind them to their own weaknesses. For instance while France looked down on our racism and adopted a few of our very talented expatriate African-Americans as their own, they were in denial about how their own attitudes contributed to problems brewing with unemployed and poor second and third generation Algerians, Moroccans and Africans in the suburbs.
But let's be straight about this - we are the source of more than our share of political strongarming, gratuitous violence and armed robbery in order to get and keep control of valuable resources around the world.
Joe
Cannot disagree. I can certainly buy "more than our share", thats a fact, its the America is responsible for the disappearance of Dinosaurs bunch that annoy me...(no You are not one)
I frankly wouldn't trade with France when it comes to any racist problems (Europe per se for that matter), they are going to come a cropper as the Brits say.
Not "Correction", just the suggestion that there was plenty of bad paper originated around the world. Lets see if I can get away with this.....once more America leads the way and the world follows!
A pleasant day to you!
".once more America leads the way and the world follows!"
Thomas they just couldn't help but to jump on the band wagon. Monkey see monkey do..lol
Always!
The members of the soon-to-crumble EU will be needing their troops elsewhere very soon.
With the economic 'perfect storm' growing to apocalyptic proportions, they will need their gun-toting minions to 'keep the peace' in their own streets.
Most of the banks in Europe are just marking time until they have their own Lehman Brothers/Bear Stearns implosion.
Then the party really starts...
I wonder if that's why Bibi Netanyahu is so eager to start a war with Iran?...
Walk in peace.
Get rid of Nato. Once an alliance built to counter the Warsaw pact, it serves NO purpose today.
There is NO reason NATO should be in Afghanistan. It becomes a tool of Imperialism.
GW
"It becomes a tool of Imperialism"
Other than that we are in complete agreement.
HAA HA!
The real issue of Afghanistan & the Taliban, brought to you through CIA meddling in other nation's affairs, is the status of Pakistan.
The influence of radical Islam is spreading like a virus and has been for many years. 911 was undertaken to provide a pretext for intervention in the Muslim world in a vain effort to stop the spread of this virus against which Israel has no immunity.
The world at large also has no immunity to nuclear weapons developed by Pakistan, which is being gradually overtaken by radicalism. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto starkly illustrates the fragile condition of Pakistan's pro-western government.
Bush screwed up big time. Confronting a grass roots cultural development with military force was truly stupid.
But now, Obama has to act to secure the Pakistan nuclear arsenal and that can only be done by neutralizing the Taliban, or so he believes. Western failure in Afghanistan is the failure of the effort to stop the rising political influence of radical Islam. A political problem cannot be solved by military means.
Europe will not help.
The real threat is Israel. It will react violently to the growing influence of the Islamic uprising. It is probably too late to prevent the nightmare of a nuclear holocaust in the ME. This will be Israel's solution.
Crux 11:45 ------ Please do not demonize Islam radical or not. No culture or person is without deffects or positive attributes.
The USA just survived (or almost survived) being ruled by certifiably insane politicians.
Within the USA are extremely radical christian, rascist,and fiscal policy groups.
Iraq was one of the most prosperous, gender equal, secular Muslim nations in the world before the sanctions and the USA's countless attacks.
Every country has immunity from enemies, it is called national integrity. Things like obeying international law and treaties and not being an aggressor.
Please do not demonize Pakistan, I believe the USA has it's share of power seizing assassinations within the USA.
Pakistan has a large educated, active, vocal and passionately democratic electorial base. Proportionately much larger than the USA's activists.
Please do not demonize in general it is the rational for attacks.
The USA, Israel, and North Korea are three countries who have many more nukes than Pakistan and present just as great a danger of use.
Also please do not demonize Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion it was a peaceful,tolerant nation.
Glenn, i would agree that we not demonize anyone. That is what radical fundamentalism of all kinds does and it is just a perpetuation of primitive and reductionist labeling that does not serve the purpose of enlightened thought and decision making.
Yeah, it hopefully is another nail that will prove the rest of the world is sick and tired of the perpetual wars that america loves so much as that is the only way to support the only manufacturing base we have anymore. And by the EU sending a 'token' amount of troops hopefully one day they will just tell america to go screw itself even though our new president wants to not just stay but to escalate the afghan war maybe he will be enough of his own man that one day he will order all troops home. It is insane to think with the economy tanking like it is that we can continue our imperial asperations.
One point, I would hope that if we brought all our troops home that if say that vast afghan army, military or war lords, loaded up all their naval ship and planes and came over here that they might, just might find us a little hard to defeat just as we cannot defeat them. But that could be because in no war since I guess WWII the congressional/military/industrial complex have never intended to win but just sustain and stay. Boy what a great military strategy that is. Is it any wonder that the region of the world that produced the original book on the 'Art of War' is theoretically impossible for the US to beat, especially without carpet bombing the whole of asia with nukes?
So you agree we should withdraw our protection from Europe and let them defend themselves? Close all our European bases?
I think we should realistically define if there are any threats and if so what they may be. Then, in concert with the countries involved, provide appropriate security if requested.
Who is threatening Europe to the extent they might need our help? (This is a serious question). In the past the European oligarchies fought against each other in an endlessly shifting series of alliances. I do not see anyone ready to attack England, Germany or France. It looks to me like threats to European leadership may be coming from their own immigrant or working class populations. In that case, let it be.
Joe
Actually the only real threat to Europe right now is Russia and they aren't much. But that could change quickly. People believe that the period since WW2 is the norm and it has been as long as we have guaranteed it.
What most people don't seem to realize is that though they all have their own armed services, it is our military that protects them. We guarantee their safety.
Personally, I'm more than willing to withdraw it and let them carry their own economic burden for a while.
"It looks to me like threats to European leadership may be coming from their own immigrant or working class populations. In that case, let it be."
I'd say you are correct and a lot faster than they would like.
What is wrong with europe defending themselves? If they rely on the US to defend them from all enemies then the US & EU will most likely be fighting Russia as that would be largest threat there is to the EU. Show me where the muslim countries have the logistics to invade the EU. And the EU, because they have been hit by violent attacks, most of note the UK, Spain and others, but they have taken steps to reduce the chances of attacks. Hell, here we are here in america experiencing the worst terrorist attack of all time and it is committed by our very own home grown financial terrorists. Do I rememeber w declaring it and even someone in the last few weeks saying that the security of the economy is of utmost importance and yet we see the on going effects of the very threat to our economy all around us and it is getting worse but these financial terrorists just keep getting the pass from obama that they got from w & dick. Now it is reported that obama will NOT nationalize banks. He better watch it because he is almost becoming a threat to our country if he doesn't do something about these free wheelling economic terrorists that are destroying the country.
We need to get our country back in order and just like I firmly believe that we can defend our country from our shores I would think the EU can do the same.
NATO . . . Never Allow Total Obedience. Glad to see there's someone around telling Uncle Sam to umphhhh off.
I wouldn't trust Europe yet. Like the Democrats, they'll cave in when you least expect it.
Lots of the suggestions above suggest we should go isolationist. I started wondering if that was what everyone was suggesting or perhaps I'm reading too much or not enough into comments?
It seems to me that everyone suggests or agrees with.....
Withdrawing from NATO
Withdrawing all our military protection from Europe
Close most of our European bases
Close most of our Asian and Middle Eastern bases
Withdraw our military protection from Asia
Refuse to send any of our troops into any other nation at any time unless we are at war (declared war) with them
I also assume we should withdraw our naval protection from any shipping other than our own or cargo's assigned to the United States
Whats the real thinking about this?
More 12:54 ----- I believe one Trident Class submarine can destroy all the major cities in the world.
Any drastic change from world hegemony may look like isolationism to some.
I think around 90% less in military spending would still be plenty to defend the USA.
Where does protection end and domination begin?
And who are we protecting all these countries from?
Russia? Our new ally in Afghanistan?
China who has no desire for territorial expansion except Tibet which we have failed to protect?
I seriously doubt the USA protects anything except the interests of it's plutocracy.
Right exactly. I cringe when I hear about OUR interests being protected abroad when referring to the interests of corporate America.
glenn ford
Be glad you are not in the Urals when China decides she needs that land. Who exactly do you think China is building her military at breakneck speed for?
Europe is safe and peaceful right? Sounds familiar.
You see the world as much more civilized and good willed than I do I guess.
China wants land. But not in the Urals. In Asia.
As for whether Europe is safe and peaceful, that should be for Europeans to decide for themselves.
China's next expansion is into Russia. There is no other area available.
I agree....let the Europeans pay for and organize their own defense. Really works for me.
What China is doing right now, instead of simple territorial expansion, is something (much) more sophisticated. It is taking advantage of the economic crash to buy up various corporations, natural resources corporations for example, in various countries. It is expanding or trying to expand it's economic influence in Africa and the Caribbean too.
There are many more options than simple territorial expansion into Russia.
" China who has no desire for territorial expansion except Tibet which we have failed to protect?"
Talk to any Taiwanese recently?
You have the idea. Also note that China has locked up a long time supply of oil and is currently buying up minerals to support their major expansion of their military.
I believe China and Taiwan are on fairly peaceful terms. I understand China policy is to use economic expansion as in Africa, not territorial( maybe they looked at the failed USA model). Where is everybody getting the claims that it territorily wants to expand here and there?
Pardon? When was there any attempt by the US for territorial gain in Africa? Or perhaps I misunderstand your statement.
I'm not saying that China wants to expand here and there territorially. I agree with you that they are trying to expand their economic influence in various parts of the world, not just Africa.
But, the relationship with Taiwan isn't really peaceful. They block Taiwan internationally at every opportunity they get. Any, no matter how small, recognition of Taiwan as an independent nation, that is an independent nation called Taiwan, is blocked by China. China insists that Taiwan is not Taiwan, but rather "Chinese Taipeh". They have repeatedly threatened to go to war and attack if Taiwan formally declares themselves as separate from mainland China, ie independent.
That is hardly peaceful.
When you say Taiwanese, do you mean the original residents of this island, or the Chinese warlords and their followers who invaded the island when they were driven out of mainland China?
I abhor what China did in Tibet, and what Chiang Kai-shek did in Taiwan. The Chinese are very territorial when it comes to their illusions about the Chinese 'sphere of influence'. It is the arrogance of empire, and the Chinese are old hands at empire.
You know I could say a lot about that Thomas but on this day I have chosen to avoid the wrath of the multitude. I am just not in the mood to duck the rocks that would certainly start flying....However,I certainly would not be in any great hurry at this time to make any sudden changes as suggested by the list you posted. For each item in your list all I can say at this time is....go slowly my friends.... Perhaps adjustments but certainly nothing radical. To answer why would require more typing on a topic than I am willing to do this evening.lol
Dante
I'd be very interested to see what you opinion is on this. So when you are refreshed.....put on your rock helmet and fire away.....
Heck, I just suggested on another strig that perhaps Obama was a bad choice after all and answering a young lady that perhaps she was right that McCain would have been easier to castigate...a little coward called me a traitor to my country, so you are right, the nuts are loose today....perhaps tomorrow. You piqued my curiosity.
LOL Tomorrow indeed. Tonight a couple of cold beers and a good night sleep. My wife is visiting her "kin" folks in Alabama so there will be no beer count.........
".a little coward called me a traitor to my country, so you are right, the nuts are loose today....perhaps tomorrow. You piqued my curiosity."
You just can't win Thomas. Everybody is here)))))))))))))))))))
I would generally go along with much of your list, Thomas. It certainly would free up a lot of revenue to patch things up on the home front, like infrastructure, schools, aid to the new poor hoodwinked by the system and the old poor who have always been there. And why shouldn't the U.S. return to the policies that led it to become the most prosperous nation on earth?
clovis
"And why shouldn't the U.S. return to the policies that led it to become the most prosperous nation on earth?"
Why not indeed? But so far the look of the new administration looks little different. Democratic looting rather than Republican looting.
I agree. It just confirms the old leftist paradigm whereby there is only one party in the U.S., the corporate party, with a right wing, the Repugs, and a "left" wing, the rollover Dems. All that seems to me to have changed is the rhetoric. Let's now see how Obomber deals with Bibi Netanyahu, who, when asked his opinion of the 9/11 attacks on American TV, mere hours after they happened, said: "It's good... Well, it's not good, but it will certainly generate sympathy for Israel."
Great News ------- Gates says a Pakistan style truce may be acceptable in Afghanistan. Pressure Obama NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!
Currently, in reality:
Russia secured Kyrgyzstan, brokered accord between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and navigates the Bosporus, and impacts fuel delivery to Europe. Iran and Russia begin long term goals of energy and trade routes through Caucasus Region. America and Obama democracy shape Afghanistan via El Salvador/Iraq Model.
10 months into the future, Obama Nation declares Afghanistan stable, but warns far from western democratic standards. He uses the bully pulpit to lure young, ambitious, soft policy recruits into Kabul as part of a wide sweeping beautification-democratization program. Builds “America Houses” to foster good tidings. Liberal Academics, for the first time in decades, declare in large numbers what a wonderful idea! Recruitment centers pop up at the most prestigious universities.
In the meantime, Russian brokerd meeting between Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan finalizes negotiations, borders officially open and trade routes flow for the first time since 1993. Russia finalizes contracts on Baku-Bosporus pipeline. SE Europe reduces US influence as Russian resources flow in. Russian technocrats rebound, building fifty year alliance. European fuel needs are met. US continue to foster democratization, unity programs in Afghanistan. By now, Obama is re-elected, but US is no closer to a Green Energy revolution. Carbon credits are used by military to justify expeditions. Peace Corps doubles in size and becomes dominate political tool for US nation building. US continue to build Afghanistan as it is accused of interfering with Central Asian politics. Nothing comes of it.
Ten years later, Kabul is a stable, but corrupt, semi-autocratic county.
Re Afghanistan:
Why exactly have Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Holbrooke decided to forget all of their history classes?
When did they become hysterical?
When, like George W. Bush and John McCain, did they opt for phantoms over reality?
Why don't such people have faith that if they lessened tensions rather than increased them, the chances of major attack upon us would diminish?
Have the Algerian terrorists totally destroyed France? No. Has France totally destroyed Algeria? No.
BOTTLE; when one has zbig and albright as foolreign policy advisers. then this type of manner should be expected. it is still the usual suspects behind the curtain. gates, shillary, holbrooke, and probably dennis ross, and others are part of the package. they just forgot to tell the sheep that before the election. perhaps they will even bring khalilzad back to be the new viceroy of kabul.