Why do they still accept their subordinate -- and often thankless -- role? An Afghan campaign and others like it won't enhance the European capitalist bottom line. The entire US Middle East policy at least since 11.09.2001 has been a DISASTER for the Europeans, a growing proportion of whom are immigrants from the Middle East, making oil supply more insecure and oil prices more volatile. -- Yoshie
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=a3uqQNrWDqTo&refer=germany> Afghanistan Combat Will Define NATO's Future at Summit in Riga By Mark Deen and Caroline Alexander
Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- NATO, the alliance formed to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe, will this week struggle over a future that is being defined a continent away on the battlefields of Afghanistan.
As casualties inflicted by Taliban insurgents mount, British lawmakers say allies, especially Germany, should do more fighting to carry their weight in the organization's biggest engagement ever. Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged to raise the issue when North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders meet in Riga, Latvia, tomorrow.
``In NATO, being a good ally used to be about showing up to fights with limited fatalities like in Bosnia and Kosovo,'' said Bastian Giegerich, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. ``Afghanistan has changed that. Now it's about sharing risk and the perception is that some people aren't doing that.''
At the summit, NATO's first in a former Soviet republic, President George W. Bush will join Blair in urging allies to add troops and ease restrictions on their use. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she'll resist such pressure while French President Jacques Chirac counters suggestions the Atlantic alliance sign up members in the Pacific such as Australia and New Zealand.
The Afghanistan debate is focused on what NATO leaders call ``caveats'' or restrictions on how and where national forces can operate. The caveats hamper the alliance commander's ability to react quickly to fighting on the ground.
Contentious Example
The most contentious example right now relates to the 2,700 troops Germany has stationed in the North of Afghanistan as part of a 32,500-strong NATO force in the country.
When a force made up primarily of British and Canadian soldiers moved into the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar this year and suffered a total of 71 fatalities because of unexpectedly fierce resistance, the German contingent couldn't be quickly moved to provide reinforcement.
There are 70 separate caveats on troops from the 37 nations that are supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan, according to Britain's opposition Conservative Party.
``While the British see themselves as part of a single force under NATO command, too many others see themselves as national forces under a NATO umbrella,'' Conservative lawmaker Liam Fox said last week. ``This is true of the Germans, the Spanish and the Italians.''
A ``high-ranking'' U.S. Defense Department official who asked not to be identified by name also called on the Germany to be ready to move hundreds of soldiers south on short notice, the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung said Nov. 19.
Combat Fatalities
Germany is the third-largest contributor of troops to the Afghanistan operation behind the U.S., which has almost 12,000 soldiers there, and Britain, which has about 6,000. While the Bundeswehr has lost 18 soldiers in Afghanistan since 2001, none have died this year.
By contrast 81 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year, while the U.K. and Canada, which has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, have fatalities of 36 and 35 respectively, more than the rest of the NATO force combined.
``It's not just about numbers,'' said Joanna Nathan, an analyst at the International Crisis Group in Kabul. ``Those who are here have to be where they're needed, with robust rules of engagement that enable them to do what's needed.''
Germans say there is another side to the story and Chancellor Angela Merkel last week ruled out redeployment.
Germany was among the first to push for NATO involvement in Afghanistan, an idea initially rejected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld after the U.S. ousted the Taliban government following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. German troops have been there ever since, while much of the U.K. force was pulled out, only to be moved back this year.
``We are not in the North because the North is quiet. The North is quiet because we have been there since 2001,'' Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's ambassador to Britain, said. ``The last thing we should do is deploy German troops away from the North because it would invite the Taliban to establish itself.''
Military Action
The German constitution also gives lawmakers tight control over military action, meaning that changes to the Afghan mission have to be approved by the Bundestag. That could backfire and be ``self-defeating,'' Ischinger said.
The matter is unlikely to be put to rest at the summit. The trans-Atlantic bitterness left by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2001 may make it difficult for Bush or Blair to win support for changes, analysts said.
Even so, much is riding on success in Afghanistan for the 57-year-old alliance, as governments assess its readiness to fight the battles of the 21st century.
``The credibility of NATO rests on us doing everything we can,'' Blair said last week after visiting troops on a desert plain in Helmand. ``We have to make sure not just the U.K., but all NATO partners are doing their utmost to stabilize the situation.''
General David Richards, the British officer currently in charge of the NATO mission, said last month that the alliance has to demonstrate by spring 2007 that it has control of the country, or risk seeing the country slide back into chaos.
``This is make or break for NATO,'' said Giegerich of the IISS. ``If NATO fails in Afghanistan, it's going to be a huge setback for the alliance.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Deen in London at markdeen at bloomberg.net Last Updated: November 27, 2006 02:27 EST
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>