Hello! Today I was just about to register on this forum to make a post where I could put on the line my view of NATO's problems. You know, I find this subject very interesting 'cause this is what concerns all of us and we all need to know what expansion of NATO might reduce to.
However, before I began typing my message I ran across an article in NY Times with the heading
Once and Future NATO. I strongly recommend you look it through 'cause it is just about what I was going to say. You can find it here
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/op...in&oref=slogin
Actually, while I was reading I felt that these words were mine. Ispecially here
Quote:
Despite its benefits, expansion will not cure what ails NATO. The greatest military alliance in history has begun the 21st century fractured and without a consensus about the threats it faces and how to meet them. No where are NATO’s problems more pressing - or more dangerous - than in Afghanistan. Twenty-six NATO states and partners have fielded some 47,000 troops to help the Afghan government and defeat a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda. The effort is not going well, especially in the South.
Americans have sent the most troops and taken the most casualties, and Britain and Canada have been hit hard, too. Other members are not doing their full share. Germany, France, Spain and Italy have balked at sending desperately needed additional combat troops and placed stiff restrictions on where and how their forces would operate. (France may now send extra troops.)
This has raised the dangerous specter of a two-tiered alliance where some members volunteer for the most dangerous duty and others opt out.
|
and here
Quote:
|
Mr. Bush was bull-headed in insisting that decisions on Ukraine and Georgia be made this year. NATO has many more urgent problems to deal with, starting with how to salvage the war in Afghanistan.
|
In this part I absolutely agree with the author. What's the sence of inviting Ukraine and Georgia? I remember Georgia sending its troops to Iraq - a bunch of ill-trained and ill-equiped soldiers who don't even know what to do with a rifle! How can they fight Al Qaeda? This simply makes no sense. Actually, just the same with Ukraine - we don't need to have them - they can only freeload us! Do you agree with me?
04-02-2008, 06:27 AM
Speaking about NATO's ails
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
