Saturday, September 30, 2006

NATO command in Afghanistan - unilateral is lookin' better and better

Nato unable to find Afghanistan reinforcements
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor, London's Times Online

Rumsfeld hails the decision to place US troops in Afghanistan under NATO command as a "bold step forward".

HUH? Donald, Donald... what are you and your boss, the Cowboy President, thinking?? This is like cleaning the pond of oxygen choking algae to save the koi, then turning the watch for new algae over to the house cat.

Naturally John Kerry
places the blame of NATO countries refusing to honor their commitments on Bush, saying "the Bush Administration has failed to lead to prevent disaster".

Where NATO allies have pledged troops and assistance to Afghanistan, they must follow through. The United States must lead by example by sending at least five thousand additional American troops — including more elite Special Forces troops; more civil affairs forces; and more experienced intelligence units – to Afghanistan immediately.

The Taliban and al Qaeda know we are bogged down in Iraq. We must not allow that disastrous policy to be the excuse for allowing Afghanistan to descend into chaos.”

Perhaps Kerry should be reminded that NATO has been actively involved as the "leader" defacto for the fledgling ME democracy's security and safety under UN mandates since 2003. In fact, it was only January of this past year when the NYT's ran a story on Kerry's belief that pulling NATO into Iraq "could help", using their "success" in Afghanistan as an example.

DOH! Spoke too soon, eh Lurch? NATO has delivered their usual lackluster performance. But then, only globalist fools like Kerry expect anything else from them.

Fact is, the troops providing the most effectual performance were our own US coalition troops in conjunction with the Afghan trained troops. Now we're about to turn our boys and girls over to a foreign leadership that has continually proven themselves to be a joke for strategic warfare leadership and efficiency.

I repeat... HUH?

So, back to the headline story here... the search for the elusive additional NATO troops under the "international community" banner. It appears that 26-nation alliance on the Afghan war - which may I remind you everyone appeared to support (unlike Iraq) - can't seem to muster up the balls or the troops in response to the request three weeks ago... nor will they get around to addressing it further until sometime in November.

“There was no offer of more troops. There were some encouraging signs but it is unlikely anything will be decided until our next meeting in Riga in November,” said a British official at the talks.

Although Britain has not ruled out sending more forces itself, it currently has more than 5,000 troops in Afghanistan and is still deploying reinforcements pledged in the summer.

Typical UN/NATO... put off for months what should have been done years ago. Perfect recent example? Sudan/Darfur... thrown off the UN platter over two years ago after Danforth's failed truce. The UN deftly avoiding the issue by refusing to recognize that ugly, but appropriate "genocide" word. Don't want to digress here. Just pointing out that the UNSC and NATO are experts in sidestepping difficult problems, dragging it out and incurring more deaths.

In the meantime, since the fellow NATO alliance members appear to be backing away from the plate in droves, per Kerry, it's up to the US & Britain - alone again - to protect Afghan and world interests.

Do allow me to point out the obvious dichotomy here. Kerry and globalist ilk want all our ME missions to be done only with the approval of the "int'l community", code word for UNSC/NATO. Yet even with mandates and promises, the alliance under NATO doesn't care to play the game, and we still end up doing it alone. This is "multilateral" in Kerry's eyes.

Okay.. and that differs from "unilateral" in what way? Is it not still just those ugly American/Britain faces doing battle in precious Islam's back yard? Like what the hell is the difference?

Well I can certainly point out one BIG difference. If we did it "unilaterally", at least our proposed 17,000 US troops, and the Brit's troops, there wouldn't be answering to foreign commanders with a deplorable track record as losers.

In fact, unilateral is lookin' better and better every day. Witness the Iraq "unilateral" coalition/alliance. Those invisible countries weren't mandated to send troops by the UN. They do it by choice. And frankly, at least they respond when the need arises.

Must be that "freedom of choice" status that makes all the difference.

No comments: