http://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...838323-sun.php

At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.

The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost.

To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.

While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops -- yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the U.S. and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army.

Canada's calls for 1,000 more NATO troops, and the U.S. decision to send 3,200 marines, will not alter the course of this war, which is turning increasingly against the western occupiers. In fact, the war is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan, a nation of 165 million, stretching U.S. and NATO forces ever thinner.

A primary reason for Gates' recent call for U.S. troops to begin attacking pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen inside Pakistan is due to their growing attacks on allied supply lines to Afghanistan.

As this column has reported, over 70% of U.S./NATO supplies come in by truck through Pakistan's tribal belt known as FATA, including all of their oil and gas. Attacks by pro-Taliban tribesmen against these vulnerable supply lines are jeopardizing western military operations inside Afghanistan.

HUNTERS NOW HUNTED

The hunters are becoming the hunted. Cutting off invaders' supply lines is a time-honoured Pashtun military tactic. They used it against Alexander the Great, the British, and Soviets, and are at it again.

What angry Sec. Gates fails to see is that by pushing NATO into a distant Asian war without political purpose or seeming end, he is endangering the very alliance that is the bedrock of U.S. power in Europe.

Europeans increasingly ask why they need the U.S.-dominated military alliance, a Cold War relic, in which they continue to play foot soldiers to America's atomic knights, to paraphrase the late German statesman, Franz Josef Strauss.

Why does the rich, powerful European Union even need NATO any more? The Soviet threat is gone -- at least for now. Nuclear-armed France and Britain are quite capable of defending Europe against outside threats. Why can't the new European Defence Force take over NATO's role of defending Europe and protecting EU interests?

In short, most Europeans see no benefit in playing junior members in an alliance whose historic time has passed and that serves primarily as an instrument of U.S. power. Washington's sharpest geopolitical thinker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, calls NATO a "stepping stone" the U.S. uses to project power into Europe.

By pushing NATO towards a bridge too far, the Bush administration may end up fatally undermining the alliance and encouraging anti-American forces in Europe.

In fact, it's becoming evident that the cash-strapped U.S. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.S.

CONSCRIPTION

Final point. If impassioned claims by U.S. and Canadian politicians that the little Afghanistan war must be won at all costs, then why don't they stop orating, impose conscription, and send 400,000 soldiers, including their own sons, to fight in Afghanistan?

Of course they won't. They prefer to waste their own soldiers, and grind up Afghanistan, rather than admit this war against 40 million Pashtun tribesmen was a terrible mistake that will only get worse.

__________________
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin

Hmmm...nice of them to reap the benefit of NATO for 50 years, having the threat of a US retaliation keeping them safe, and then not want to return the favor.

Afghanistan doesn't have oil, by the way. The Taliban were and are a threat and openly harbored Al Queda and Bin Laden. The attack on the US originated from the country they ruled.

I will agree though that we should stop holding back there. Take all the troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place and which would have ended this war long ago.

Funny...seems to me all the radical leftists were crying about the Taliban blowing up the Budha statues and oppressing their people and demanding the US do something about it 10-15 or so years ago.

__________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

Did you see the film Charlie Wilson's War?

Dude. Those were some very cool statues.

Leftists cry out against every group that is oppressing another. Or blowing up artwork.

__________________
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin

NATO's reluctance to get involved with Afghanistan is because of Iraq, pure and simple. The 'either you're with us or you're against us" line on Iraq alienated alot of our allies and now we're reaping the fruit of that alienation in Afghanistan. Almost no one on the left was against the war in Afghanistan and they warned that Iraq would distract from the job needed to be done there. That is exactly what is happening now.

__________________
"What's up Pops!" - Lebron James to Bush 41.

Oh...I agree completely. But this article is clearly stating that they believe the war in Afghanistan is unjust and illegal. That's clearly backlash from Iraq since they originally supported the action against Afghanistan.

And the fact is, they are two separate actions. If they want to denounce the Iraq war, I'm with them 100%. But this is a different issue. And it falls directly under the NATO charter.

__________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

And now they're gone forever, as will be so much more jahiliyyah unless force is used.

Maybe instead of crying, they should lend their support to doing something about it.

The article posted sounded as if there is no reason that anyone in Europe could think of that might justify the war. It sounds biased to me.

A few years ago I saw a famous British actor on a talk show discussing his views about mideast culture and it's threats to that European. He also mentioned that European concepts about government and rights have caused radical Islam to grow and move into Europe. The guy I'm talking about was the Arab in Indianna Jones, sorry I didn't feel like looking him up. But, my point is that the article doesn't represent this point of view.

That's because Ezra always puts this anti American crap on here.

__________________
___________________________



___________________________

Learn the truth about Danny Faulkners
murder and his murderer here:

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/

Oh, oh!!! Me, me me!!!

Surely I'm not the only one who noticed the Bushies' ultimatum that the Afghans turn over OBL forthwith -- with none of the courtesy (and evidence) with which we extracted Ira Einhorn from the French? Could it have been because the Bushies wanted to fight, and therefore scorned the diplomatic niceties which might have avoided war?

__________________
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterton

The world (and most americans) can see that Afghanistan was treated as a stepping stone into Iraq. There was global support, even from leftist liberals, to go into Afghanistan. And just like when the Soviets were driven out, the job was left undone. Instead Bush rushed into Iraq which was clearly the objective since long before 9/11. So the support is gone. Why would any country in there right mind support a Bush military action now?

I watched Charlie Wilson's War last week. Good flick. In it it shows how the 5 to 10 million the CIA was spending to fight the Soviets was a worthless drop in the bucket. It took 5 Billion in the end to do the job right. America had the money and the firepower 5 years ago to do the job right this time but it's gone now.

NATO and the EU sees America begging for scraps and says no because they are back at the drop-in-the-bucket level. Whats the point in supporting that? "Give me another drop for my bucket or you are with the Terrorists!"

Any troops NATO etc give for Afghanistan means less troops America needs to withdraw from Iraq. The two are inseparable.

AndreHalite: if you know that the view in the article is incomplete... then post something that illustrates a fuller picture. I know there are right wing Europeans. But just like right wing Americans they are becoming increasingly embarrassing.

__________________
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin