NATO Calls For Reinforcements: Europe Yawns

From Captain Ed @ Captain's Quarters and the Times Online

THE political head of Nato appealed yesterday for alliance members to provide hundreds more troops for the mission in southern Afghanistan.

With most of the fighting burden falling on the shoulders of the British, US, Canadian and Dutch troops in the South, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Secretary-General of Nato, said that some countries had failed to live up to their promises on troop numbers.

In an interview with the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, he said that he could not accept a scenario in which Nato members would fail to supply the necessary troops. Alliance foreign ministers will meet in New York next week to discuss the crisis.

Mr de Hoop Scheffer said: “I am calling for alliance solidarity because some nations are carrying more of the burden than others.” He was speaking out after The Times revealed that many Nato members had made it clear they had no intention of sending more troops. General James Jones, the American Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has asked for another 2,500 soldiers for southern Afghanistan.

Now, as Captain Ed points out, asking certain nations to contribute more is not go8ing to happen. Great Britain has shouldered a good deal of the burden in both theaters in this war. Italy has sent troops to Afghanistan, including reinforcements, and now also to Lebanon. Germany, France, Turkey, and Spain are the ones dragging their feet. That irritates us.

Not because these people seem to be as anxious to defeat these animals as the American Democrat Party, but because we have pointed to NATO for quite some time as an example of an international organization that works. That is, of course, in opposition to the United Nations and their ineffective, inept attempts to exercise it's feeble authority around the globe. And it also used to be that an attack on one NATO nation was considered an attack on all NATO nations. Now, apparently, some have decided that the concept is outdated; they are ignoring the calls for assistance from their allies.

So, what can we discern from this? We already knew that many nations in Europe were not happy with the United States. To that there is no secret, and the list of the "usual suspects" reads like a Mouseketeer's roll-call. These nations can play nice and be polite when the cameras are on them. But when the favor comes a-calling--for all those other times that their allies have come to their assistance--this handful of "old Europe" seems unable to answer the call. Actually, it is more like being unwilling to answer.

All these nations are doing is ensuring that there will be no more international organizations left. They will all be dead and buried in their own irrelevance. And maybe, just maybe, that is a key to the success of the future. The United Nations had its big chance in the past, and they blew it time and again. Most recently, people have had a look at precisely what the United Nations has become. It is no longer a beacon of peace in the world unless they are looking for their personal piece of it. It is corrupt and untrustworthy. Sex scandals and bribery scandals have erupted from that institution over the last five years. It is sick, and there is no cure save withdrawal, and allowing it a merciful death.

NATO is starting to emanate similar symptoms now. Granted the scandals are not there, but the malaise that the United Nations possesses seems to have found a new host. Best to act surgically now than allowing this to fester for years.

Marcie