After 9/11, NATO countries were quick to invoke NATO's article 5, and even quicker to boast about it. What a hollow PR exercise by an endlessly self-promoting organization. With the exception of a few, like the British, Canadians and Dutch, none of the braggarts was willing to commit troops into harm's way, to fight and die for the key NATO partner, the USA. If they're not willing to do that, then why should Americans have to fight and die for Europe? There is clearly a set of one-way expectations here. If NATO troops cannot fight when called upon, then what good are they? What good is this organization? It's a worthless organization, and it needs to be scrapped.

AHOY

Everyone knows its not about the troop numbers. But everyone will waist all kinds of time chewing the cud on that one.

Oh yea and lets come up with some more terms "Pakistani Taliban" the "fighting nations". IMO the NATO nations like German and espicially France are no different than Britain in Iraq who never join in with all the bombing and indict fire tactics. These nations don't won't to bomb wedding parties just to get a few Taliban. Why not patrol the rivers, and hang out at the wells. Recuiting and fund raisig down? How in the world could SP know that for sure.  

Is the enemy so militarily formidable that it needs the entire Western World to contain it? It's not as if they are Napolean.They are a glorified bunch of banditi, annoying to hunt down not any more of a threat to world order then we choose to let them be. Most of the troops we want are wanted for the chimera of gaining popularity for the war effort by feigned international support rather then for any military purposes.

All this puts unnecessary strive with allies. It also gives them more favors to call in from us, and tacitly it implies that other nations have a veto on our policy as we are doing it to give the impression that the Coalition really is willing. It also by the way raises the enemies prestiege. If they need the whole civilized world to suppress them they must be pretty big men. Is that the way to fight against an enemy from a culture that thinks so much about prestiege. Doesn't it strike anyone that it might be a little like publishing the biography of a serial killer?

Why not continue as we are doing and let the whole thing drop from international and public view while we deal with it efficiently and quietly. A terrorist campaign no one knows about is like a tree falling in the wilderness. 

One article I read this morning used term Tehrike Taliban, Wikied up the name, its a Pakistani movement that had a lot to do with Pakistan independence etc. thought it was interesting.

G-day!

AHOY, jstayme3, I mostly agree with you,


IMO what the US is doing is losing the war. We need more accurate information.  And these book thumping Taliban are more like a forest fire that well spread.

Actually when a forest fire is well spread it has devoured it's fuel. Which come to think of it is not that far from

 from what is happening.

 But I mean by "continue doing what we are doing", continuing a strategic pattern that is starting to pay dividends. Continue

with the ink-blot in Iraq and Afghanistan. Continue making local forces ready to exist on their own. Continue tightening the vice.

 It is in PR in the general world we are losing, not in the actual places where action is taking place. And that is largely because we give them more respect then we should be giving them.

 

 

Frankly, the Germans don't seem to want to be in any war that they don't personally start; The French are almost as useless.

A big question is why NATO? The US knows who it can count on if there is a good reason to send troops, neither Germany or France is counted on for anything but grief (although the French president does show some promise).

 

Flyingarty

Stabilize Afghanistan? That's like stabilizing the ocean.  Shouldn't we be satisfied with removing the Taliban?

 

Be that as it may, is Europe the place to get "boots on the ground"? Under the circumstances they are more likely to sit down

where they are, do nothing and become hindquarters on the ground. We want them for political not for military reasons. Which would be all very well if they gave us political advantage but the evidence is that they are more trouble then they are worth.