Why NATO is Dead Wrong

I am not a warmonger. I hate war. I did not support the Viet Nam War, nor the Iraq War. I wish diplomacy would work and I think it can in some instances and should be tried whenever and wherever possible. But on the issue of sending troops to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda NATO is simply and completely wrong. 5000 more "troops" just ain't going to cut it. That's not support, no matter how Obama spins it.

Terrorism as practiced by the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not an American problem. The United States is not and never will be the sole target. The Taliban and Al Qaeda wish to eradicate the West and Western Civilization and that includes Europe and many many other countries around the world. There have been bombings traced to Al Qaeda in Spain, England, France, Italy and India, Bali, and Indonesia, to name a few. There will be more.

We made the huge mistake of supporting the Taliban against the Russians in the 1980s, just as we made the mistake of supporting Saddam Hussein for years. We have made many mistakes like that. We went into Afghanistan right after September 11 and then made the further mistake of dropping the ball and turning our attention to Iraq. We knew that then and we know that now. Had we asked for assistance in 2001 in wiping out Al Qaeda things might be very different. But we did not and now we are paying the price. We have lost our credibility. For that we can thank the past administration.

And Europe and NATO are "punishing" us by refusing to come to our aid. Rather than seeing it is their own best interest to join with us to eradicate the power of Al Qaeda--a gang of terrorists whose sole purpose is to strap bombs to themselves and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people--they are going to sit back and let us police the world once again.

The war on terror will not be won by sending in hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into rocky, mountainous, unfamiliar terrain that the Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers know like the backs of their hands. It will not be won by forcing our young men and women to give up their lives for a cause than cannot be won by conventional means. This is not a conventional battle; it is not a war like any we have ever seen. We are not doing this to "save" the Afghani people so that they can pass laws we do not approve of or live a lifestyle that makes us cringe. We are fighting terrorism pure and simple. We are dismantling the Taliban and Al Qaeda, amoral power systems with no regard for human life; that see nothing wrong with strapping bombs onto the bodies of young men and young women and sending them into crowded places, buses, airplanes, and detonating them for the glory of their G-d, who, is not a G-d that would ever ask such a horrific thing.

We must have a concerted effort against the Taliban and Al Qaeda by all parties concerned, by specialist troops from all NATO countries who realize that as long as terrorists are allowed to run rampant bombs will go off unexpectedly in countries all around the globe and people will be killed for the glory of an Allah who does not want that glory.

The Americans, the French, and the British have some of the best trained secret forces in the world. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no rules of engagement, so why should we? Thus this war must be fought completely differently from the way it is now.

Forget about the way we fought the Viet Nam war. That didn't work then and it won't work now. Think about this instead: Hundred of small groups of warriors living like the Taliban in the mountains, while large numbers of trained SEAL teams are stationed elsewhere. Each group has its different orders: the SEALs take out Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders, the mountain warrior divisions take out the soldiers. My husband, a SEAL- trained Special Forces soldier during Viet Nam has outlined this particular plan to me and convinced me that it is the only one that would work. I am sure he would be happy to give the Pentagon the dirty details.

If this sounds ruthless, remember our enemy and his ruthlessness.

The second part of the equation is to show our strength against others who might wish to become "involved," in this war on terror: countries like Pakistan or Iran. By amassing hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers along those countries' borders--as a show of solidarity and strength. Once we have broken the back of the terrorists, perhaps then some real diplomacy can begin. And perhaps we can really work with Pakistan and India and Iran and even Iraq and Afghanistan in truly constructive ways.

This is not to say that there will never be terrorism. There will always be people willing to kill themselves and others for a cause: be it their particular god or their particular cause or their particular country. But if the world shows a an equal willingness to band together against evil before it gets to the point it did in World War II then maybe we will actually be able to stop something before it gets so out of hand that millions, hundreds of millions, are dead and dying. Too many people sat on their hands while Hitler rolled through Europe. America finally came to the rescue. We were late, too, but we did come through.

NATO is very very foolish not to see that their best interests lie in coming on board now; it's already late for them, but not too late. Our strategy needs to change and somehow we need to convince them to join us in destroying the power base of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda before things get even uglier. Who knows what the terrorists are planning even at this moment? Or where?

Follow Lisa Solod Warren on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lisaswarren

Comments

[arvay]

RE: your husband's concept of SEAL teams winning the "war."

I'm not a military expert, but on the face of it this sounds more like a movie than a realistic plan.

From what I've read, there are two ways to combat and insurgency like this.

One, the Brits in Malaya, required maybe ten years of patient, multi-layered techniques -- bribery, some co-option, helping local people -- no quick victories, just a slow wearing down of the opposition by giving the local population a sense of security. Limited combat, and only on the basis of solid intelligence, supplied by locals. In other words, hearts and minds. Don't see how anyone but the Pakistanis could do this in Pakistan, which would be required.

The Russian strategy in Chechnya -- total war against the population, much like the Israelis in Gaza, except not stopping until much of the population had been killed or physically subdued. Massive casualties on both sides, total wreckage of the "saved" area. Might produce some peace until the next generation grows up, full of hatred.

I think option one is the only feasible way, and it depends on the Pakistanis mounting a major effort on their side of the border with Afghanistan.

Meantime, we need to focus on thwarting attacks rather than deluding ourselves into believing we can erase hostility to the US with drone-launched missiles.

[MilwaukeeDan]

Madam, you start by saying you hate war but then you like this one in Afghanistan. Here are some issues I have with this thought. Al Qaeda is not some massive army where you fight then with a conventional military. You need to use intelligence and good police work to keep them in check. It was proven in 2001 that most of the Taliban soldiers were easily bought and switched sides, remember that. The problem was Americans installed a puppet government, but the life for the average Afhgan never inproved plus they have this hate of occupation and they have nothing better to do than fight the occupiers(GM or Microsoft never opened any plants in Kabul to put anyone to work). If we insist on trying to convert them to a western style democracy(whatever the hell that is) we will be there longer than we were in Vietnam with the same results. As for NATO, they are smarter than the Americans, plus they have read the NATO charter.

[WorkingClass]

"The Taliban and Al Qaeda wish to eradicate the West and Western Civilization"

I suppose that its possible that someone somewhere "wishes" to "eradicate" Western Civilization. But as soon as you stop hyper-ventilating you will realize that its not going to happen. The United States needs to abandon Imperial ambitions. Economic realities dictate that Americans will learn to live within their means and within their borders. Expanding the Af-Pac war is Obama's stupid idea. Europe is saying "good luck with that" and "we will hold your coat". Obama should take this response as a clue that he is pursuing the wrong policy.

[peterg76]

"amassing hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers along those countries' borders" didn't faze Iran.

The first step is to achieve the existing military objectives in Afghanistan, not the half-hearted occupation of pipeline routes while the rest of the country is neglected.

[Dolmance]

I hate to say it, but we started this sort of thing, when we were in Bosnia and wouldn't allow our troops to be anywhere near ground combat, while European soldiers were required to go into harm's way. We set the stage and now that the shoe's on the other foot we're expressing an outrage that sounds like recently profligate Republicans scolding Obama over budget deficits.

[morgan1]

NATO is a dog with no teeth--It is a presence and not a pro-active, take the fight to the enemy, organization. The US in particular has marginalized NATO and wants to use it an an extension of the DOD and Pentagon war machine. We will not win anything by taking the "war" to the terrorists, Al Qaeda or the Taliban. This is a religious war and no matter what, anyone attempting regime change will be crusaders and occupiers. Rest assured, this idea of specialized assassination/hit squads would be the perfect way to bring the war here. That happened under Pinochet (Remember Washington, DC and the car bomb) and he was one of ours ruling a country where there were no rights and thousands were murdered and disappeared. The best solution is putting an end to joblessness, starvation, lack of education-- A better quality of life for all those living under horrible conditions. None of that can be delivered at the point of a gun.

[oxi]

Read the NATO Treaty first and tell me how can they be in Central Asia (and attack Serbia for that matter)?

NATO is a joke, nuff said!

[MilwaukeeDan]

oxi, I agree 100%, NATO should be disbanded. Has anyone ever read the treaty documents? I doubt it, if they would have, they would have realized this organization should have gone the way of the Soviet Union. But hey, the United States is all about empire and NATO is one way to hold on to it.

[Solaris123]

Europeans are like spoiled sheltered children. Safely behind American military shield they have the luxury of hiding their head in the sand while whining about American militarism.
It's time Europe is made to fend for themselves.

[oxi]

How many European nations want to dominate the world and construct 733 military bases abroad like the U.S.?

The U.S. is pushing for NATO expansion to surrond Russia and take over the world for her empire, don't blame Europe.

[Solaris123]

U.S is a global empire. No question about that. And Europeans got lazy, fat and complacent behind American shield. Europeans elites are squawking about the difficulties they're facing in Afghanistan. This is laughable.
It is up to U.S. to loosen the grip and let Europeans take more responsibility for their own defense as well as defense of the Western democracies around the world.

[Solaris123]

NATO should be disbanded. Period. Russia is no longer a threat. The threat now comes mainly from the Middle East and from within. A new alliance should be reoriented to fight the newly resurgent Islamist neo-imperialism. Russia MUST be made an ally in this struggle.

[cylindar]

Your husband may have his military strategy right but I do doubt that we could win anything long term with it. The reason is that it is a religious war. It is Moslem versus Christian. To put it in any other context is not seeing the forest for the trees. The Muslims have been fighting the Christians for many many years. The long term problem with your proposal is that the crusades did not work. This smacks of the same thing. Again not a bad strategy but will not win the coveted cigar because those people will feel occupied and told what to do. That is something that does not work over the long term. The French lost Algeria that way. They were finally run out by the Muslims. As a matter of fact it has not worked anywhere except in Spain where the Muslims were run out of the country by the Christians. That however was extended territory for them not their homeland. I pedict that the US government will allow Taliban rule and will focus on Bin Ladens group. I do not like the Taliban but they are the culture of most of Afghanistan. This is sad but true. Also the US needs to realize that like ancient Rome we do not have the resources to police the world. Most NATO countries understand that you cannot win a war in Afghanistan. The Russians already tried it just like we did in Viet Nam. It did not work.

[Solaris123]

As a matter of fact it has not worked anywhere except in Spain where the Muslims were run out of the country by the Christians.
Wrong

"It" has worked in the Balkans, Armenai, Georgia, Ossetia, Russia,Mongolia, Hungary, Austria, India, Israel, Sicily, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania etc.... History-- try it sometime.

[Kassandra]

So....HOW are we gonna pay for this again? Will the IMF loan US the money in exchange for financial/political control over the USA???

[fisharefreinds]

Let me understand, we are not in Afganistan for any reason except to root out the Taliban and Al Qaeda which want to bring us and the world to its knees.
Once we have rooted out these two illnesses we can leave cause we are not there to build anything either! Blow the place to hell...sort of like how the Israelis handle the West Bank and Gaza....

[Solaris123]

Dramatics using false analogies and overwrought rhetoric doesn't a coherent argument make.

[metropixie]

That's not what she argues at all. Work on your own plan. As it stands it makes no sense. I think Lisa Solod Warren has echoed my own thoughts quite verbosely. The current strategy will not have the purported effect. These groups need to be approached in the same way they operate, not with tanks.

[oxi]

We are in Afghanistan to encircle Russia which is proven with NATO troops there out of bounds with their treaty and to build oil pipelines like the massive TAPI one to by-pass Russian control to the north and west.

Get your facts straight, if we are there to root out the Taliban then ask why are the poppy fields, a major source of funding, still thriving?

[FrozenNorthObserver]

Sorry dear, they just know a US clusterf**k when see one. My country is already there and I don't blame them one bit. According the UK Independant the US has already caused over a half amillion displaced persons in Pakistan from drone attacks. Oh yes this will end well.

[oxi]

Taking the Kosovo logic of the West, those displaced are being ethnically cleansed.

[nanatehay]

lisa, here's an excerpt from a post i wrote which ties in with what you're saying.

The situation as I see it is that, for good or ill, we’re already in the region, we’re committed. Leaving now would only serve to wipe out whatever gains have been made, and to render meaningless the price paid in blood and money by we and our allies. Withdrawing may seem like the sensible thing to do, and in the short term at least would be far easier than staying. Nobody has yet explained how we’re going to win, or even defined victory in a meaningful way, and I’ve got no brilliant suggestions myself as to the best way forward.

To all this though I’d like to add one further thought, and I know many will disagree; the only thing worse than staying in Afghanistan would be leaving it when we’ve fulfilled almost none of the goals we should have had when we first went in.

We as a nation have a long sorry history of intervening in conflicts or crises to "fix" things, and then bailing as soon as it becomes convenient for us to do so. Look at what happened after the Soviets left Afghanistan in ’89. We declared victory and left the Afghani people twisting in the wind, and that decision to disengage, to not live up to our moral and strategic obligations, led ultimately to 9/11. I fail to see how leaving now would have any better consequences.

[RabidRightRebel]

I think you may have been watching too many Rambo movies.

The sad fact is that in the months after 9/11 America had the sympathy and support of the entire world and could have done and or asked for almost anything they needed to eliminate the few thousand El Qaeda members hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan. But most that sympathy and support was squandered by the Bush administration.

To expect that rest of the world to just give America a “do-over” is not realistic. After all 47% of Americans still support the Republicans, there has not been any accountability for the torture conducted in secret prisons that help recruit so many El Qaeda fighters, and America continues to support corrupt leaders in Afghanistan.

Given this situation it is likely that America is going to have to offer more deeds, than words, before the world once again rallies around its call for support. That is not to say the world is not supportive, it is just that they are going to be cautious about acting until America proves that it has truly changed and has a realist plan for sorting out Afghanistan.