Gates: NATO's Survival At Stake In Afghanistan

AP:

Survival of the NATO alliance, a cornerstone of American security policy for six decades, is at stake in the debate over how the United States and Europe should share the burden of fighting Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT

"We must not -- we cannot -- become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not," Gates told the Munich Conference on Security Policy, where Afghanistan was a central topic.

"Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would effectively destroy the alliance," he added.

Read the whole story: AP

Comments

[iratior]

The idea behind NATO. which was very well explained in a 1959 edition of My Weekly Reader (and which, unfortunately, Secretary Gates appears never to have read) is that if one of the member countries is attacked, the others come to its defense. As I see it, "defense" is a key word here; it doesn't say that aid wiil be given for a member country's conquests or aggrandizements. In the case of the Bush administration's so-called "War on Terror", this puts or should put Europeans in a dilemma. Were it not for what amounts, in effect, to the Bush administration's conquest of Iraq, there would be more than enough American troops to go after its enemies, the Taliban and Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan. To what extent does NATO help of the U.S. in Afghanistan enable conquest in Iraq? It doesn't often make the news, but the Bush administration's conduct in Iraq has been outrageous from the get-go. Sergei Ivanov's comment that some states seek to exploit anti-terrorist activities for economic and/or political gains was the politest of understatements. The Bush administration's conduct in Afghanistan also involves many things quite peripheral to defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The war on drugs there is an example. If NATO actually does not survive, it will be because of the Bush adminisitration's arrogance, not any failure on the part of Europeans.

[FogBelter]

You mean to say that the Bush Administration has managed to destroy NATO as well?

These guys have the ant-Midas touch.

Everything they touch turns to shit.

[ceasenake]

Those NATO draftees and mincing fairies are about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

We would be doing ourselves a huge favor by getting out of NATO - especially defunding that bloody abortion and letting the Euro-prancers deal with their own huge and growing Muslim underclass problems before we get sucked into it.

[Whistleblower]

After the Cold War ended NATO had no real point, so the US had to reinvent it. It's been a source of mischief ever since. So I must say I don't take Gates threat that NATO's future is at stake all that seriously. Shut it down and bring the troops home. I got a feeling the rest of the world can get along just fine without them.

[nippersdad]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! How can something be, at the same time, pricelessly funny and stunningly pathetic? The NATO Alliance's SURVIVAL is at stake? No, yet another huge chunk of American prestige abroad, perhaps, as we steadily become more and more irrelevant. Gee, where have I heard that word before? Could it have been about "Old Europe" and the U.N.?

The line about the Russian diplomat throwing our funding and training of the Mujahadeen in our faces and Gates' pathetic foot in mouth response about invading sovereign nations was pretty wonderful too in a sad, sad sort of way. I smell hot Russian schadenfreude. The Bushies have nowhere to rhetorically turn anymore.

When are "conservatives" going to learn that what goes around comes around? Hopefully before they kill off the golden goose whose eggs they have been stuffing in their faces all of these years. I mourn for my country, but at least I can still recognize that which is funny when I see it.

[RogerHWerner]

Actually, I thought Gates' response to the Russian was dead on. The Russians can complain all they want about our funding of their Afghan opponents but if they hadn't of invaded the country in the first place as a means of establishing a warm water port near the Persian Gulf, we wouldn't have supported bin Laden. In 1980, it would have been prescient to predict bin Laden's metamorphosis.

And I think Gates has a very real point that NATO cannot survive as a two tiered alliance. No one questioned the Europeans willingness to put troops in harms way when their national borders were at risk from Warsaw Pact. If NATO is to have any relevance in a Post USSR geopolitical world then the alliance needs to either fully embrace its mission or agree on once that is called back. When Afghanistan was invaded, it was with the blessing of NATO because the perception was that the Taliban was hiding bin Laden who admitted to 9/11...thi­s was an attack on a NATO power and NATO allies were obliged to support the invasion to oust the Taliban as a result.

Gates is the only person in this administration with one shred of international credibility. He doesn't need the job of Defense Secretary and he left a rather sweet deal in academia; I'm sure he could return to academia without breaking a sweat. Gates is doing his best to salvage a truly awful situation that he inherited from a man who should be on trial for his criminality. If Gates was smart, he'd bail and go back to academia.

[raptor]

"but if they hadn't of invaded the country in the first place as a means of establishing a warm water port near the Persian Gulf".
Do you have some proof of this?

[nippersdad]

Hello Roger:

Thank you for a well reasoned response; I disagree, but appreciate your viewpoint.

1. It would have been difficult for Russia to gain a warm water port through the invasion of Afhanistan ALONE, because it has no coast. It probably had much more to do with proposed oil pipelines through its' territory and a fear for its' own territorial integrity.

2. It is not a matter of our having supported Bin Laden in the eighties so much as it is a matter of our having supported Saudi Arabia and their Wahabi faith since the end of the First World War. It is not Bin Laden per se, but his faith, and our perceived interests in their oil reserves, which are the radicalizing elements in the middle east today. It was us who gave them their big opportunit­y...in Afghanistan in the eighties.

3.
A. The invasion of Europe by the Warsaw Pact has little comparative relevance to twenty Wahabists flying planes into New York Skyscrapers. Our sovereignty was never in question.
B. The Taliban had no real control over its' territory; much like Pakistan in Waziristan. They really were in no position to hide anyone. Tribal societies loosely held together by commonalities in religious belief does not a responsible modern state make. Modern militarist states are what the NATO pact was formed to defend against, not preventing the Pres. of the U.S. from being embarrassed by his own stupidity.

4. The Gates points that you make are, to a degree, valid. However, he is not going to prove his independence or retain his credibility by attempting to validate our "crook in chief's" every syllable. Even though he made a great show of independence when he took the job, his performance has not borne that out. He is in a bad spot, but he will not improve it by appearing to be just another in a long line of Bush cronies. You are right, he needs to bail now while he still has some degree of self respect.

[loki]

invading Iraq on false PRETENSE, and now Afghanistan

[loki]

Jesus Christ, this is the same crap Bushovicks pulled pre Iraq at the UN. Saying the UN was over. The UN was useless, and more. It didnt work then. We could use help in Afghanistan to try and clean up Bushes cluster Fluck when he pulled out of there to pursue his dream of oil and power in the middle east by invading Iraq on false presences, and now Afghanistan is going to pay for Bush's asinine actions just like we in America are. Bush needs the UN more than ever now, and calling them names and making retarded , school yard childish remarks sure wont sway them to our side. But hey, this is Neo Con Nazi rethuglican way. If you cant get what you want right away, have a tantrum, blame everyone for your screw ups, and call them names. Or, if you have the power, just invade them.
After 911 the UN would have gone to the end of the earth with the US to seek justice. Now, were lucky they allow us into the lobby. The same with the rest of the word. And with our economic power now all based on borrowed money, we are basically a big , slow dying pile of dung when it comes to the US government. Some of our people and our country still have greatness, but its being overshadowed by the growing amount of inbred genes that seem to have done more to dumb down America to levels lower than that of George W Bush himself.

[gunnerbear]

The US can rightly ask other NATO members to commit more of their forces to the fight in Afghanistan.

However, Secretary Gates must realise that a fair proportion of the members of NATO would find it politically unacceptable to commit to such a course of action. In order words, NATO memebers, already quite cool on the idea of any extension in the conflict in the region, firmly believe that if more Non-US NATO assets are deployed there will be a subsequent reduction in US forces in the country and that the non-US NATO members will be left fighting a war that they were 'dragged in to'.

Of course in some NATO capitals, notably Paris and Berlin, there is also a strong chain of thought that believes if the US is able to scale down its presence in Afghanistan these resources will then be used in Iraq and may even embolden a US President into thinking that a pre-emptive strike on Iran is also possible.

It appears that cold logic of the non-US (and to extent non-UK) members is that (a) so long as the US has to support a presence in two countries, it may well lack the appetite for more unilateral action that NATO (& the UN) would then have to deal with and (b) this stretch of resources may well force the US to 'revise' it's foreign policy and build bridges with other 'big hitters' such as China and Russia.

[francoise]

Unfortunately, Americans have lost their credibility worldwide.

Unfortunately, Americans have lost the support of foreign public opinions.

It is sad, because America used to be considered as the nation of liberty, democracy, and justice.

Then bush became president, started an illegal war in Iraq, and was reelected.

And foreigners, who know about all the atrocities and destruction made during this illegal war based on lies, and who know that moreover this war has created more instability and more terrorism than anything could have, just don't want to play the American game any longer.

I'm sorry to have to realize that, because of the war in Iraq, because of the American opposition to Kyoto Protocol, many foreigners don't consider America as an ally and rejoice in opposing Americans.

[Ides]

Gates is a dumbass. Now he's treating NATO the same way Rumsfeld treated the United Nations, as a political and military arm of the United States. The Imperial Auxiliary, as it were. I stand with Germany in saying, "Go screw yourself."

Damn Aggies. Build the bonfire higher, Gates, that'll show 'em.

[drauz]

I'm still trying to get my head around this "Afghanistan is part of the North Atlantic sphere" geography thing. Seems to me NATO succeeded in its Cold War mission, & now the US can't take Yes for an answer.

[watchingthings]

If Europe won't help and NATO goes down the tubes....w­hat's there to stop Russia and China to put together a force to fill in the gap? When that alliance yells JUMP!....d­o we say how high...Oh master? Russia and China have proved that they can work together when they put together that show of force last summer. It was the biggest armada ever assembled. Europeans need to do some thinking on this....ho­w will it hurt us if NATO is no longer there as a deterrent?

[francoise]

Although I don't agree with the lack of individual freedom, with the corruption, and the police nations that China and Russia are, I honestly consider them as less threatening on an international stage as the US have been for the last bush years.

And what I'm not sure of, is whether it's bush's America which is dangerous, or rather America.

Because posters on HuffPo are smart and cultured people. But they're not the average American who loves his Tom Clancy books and his Rambo movies, and who thinks that having guns and kicking asses is more valuable than trying to organize healthcare for all.

[watchingthings]

Nato gives a united millitary front. It's alot easier to dismantle something then try putting it back together..­...case in point....I­raqi armed forces....­bonehead rumsfeld had it dismantled and now Petreaus is trying to put it back together again. If only a few key people were replaced in the military from the beginning.­...we wouldn't be talking about this now, would we?

[TXfemmom]

Oh give it up guys. We have had troops and overwhelming expenditures in Europe since WWII. We spend more on our NATO troops and bases TO PROTECT EUROPE, than the Europeans do themselves, when one adds all their expenditures in money and troop numbers. That has to end, if they are unwilling or unable to do meaningful Afghan work.

Like it or not, Afghanistan needs to be done, and it isn't pretty. Some of the European countries won't permit their troops to leave their bases because they may have to fight. What are they doing there if they are either unwilling or unable to fight?

We have to face the fact that we shouldn't spend the money to keep our troops in Europe, manning all those NATO facilities, if the Europeans will not help us in Afghanistan. We must not permit Afghanistan to fail, and they did sponsor and assist the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Many Afghans have thrown in with our presence and they sincerely want improvement, and we need to do it.

Iraq is now a civil war which isn't going to be settled until the disparate groups, especially the Shites, know we're leaving and they have to make the tough political decisions or else.

Afghanistan, on the other hand needs us to be there and we need to be there. If the Europeans will not assist us there, then we need to stop spending BILLIONS to keep the number of bases we have in Europe. Axe back to the minimum we need to accomodate a rapid deployment of our troops and pull the rest back to the United States and then concentrate on rapid deployment situations with the EUROPEANS actually having to put in the funds and efforts to protect themselves. We can no longer afford those expenditures abroad for unwilling or incapable allies.

[francoise]

TXfemmon,

We french have no American bases on our soil, don't spend much money on our military, and we don't feel much threatened.

In fact I feel a lot more safe when in France than when in the US, but this might have something to do with the crime rates, yours being next to 6, ours being next to 1.5.

You might be interested in learning that the Italians protested so much against the extension of the American base in their country that it had to be cancelled.

But then I suppose you'll consider Italians as morons since they protested so much against a visit of the Pope in the University of Roma that the visit had to be cancelled.

We have faith in education and diplomacy to solve problems. We don't value brute force and war as the best solutions. We don't need your bases and your illegal wars.

[ftprairiedog]

Francoise and TX. America has bases all over the world to shorten the distance the military has to travel to kill third world people. You want peace for your country and its people? Get About a dozen nuclear bombs and a good delivery system. And I believe you can live in peace.

[watchingthings]

France is considering sending troops to help the Canadians in Kandahar. There....t­hey will take on the Taliban head-on as the Canadians are doing now. Canada asked for a thousand more and France, so far is talking in the range of 700.

[gakabani]

NATO, like the Soviet Union, will collapse in its own contradiction and ill perceived motives for the occupation of Afghanistan.
Democracies, ala Bush, are simple dreams of idiotic-ignorant, people that do not understand the lessons of history.
The British have forgotten such lesson and now they are repeating the same mistakes.
Bush will go into history as the first 21st century maniac that lead American to an abyss.

Lesson to remember, Democracy is not only choosing a candidate, it is transparency and knowledge. We have become a pathetic nation of ignorant people.

[RTIII]

...Add one more to the list:

IMPEACH GATES!

-sigh-