Comments on: Swan Song for NATO: The Real Cost of Defeat in Afghanistan http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:30:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: heike http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14562 heike Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:37:00 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14562 This makes no sense. NATO was not formed to fight the Taliban but to be a collective security alliance in Europe. Success or lack of it in Afghanistan will not impact the vitality of the alliance in Europe. NATO will not fold up its doors on the basis of whether or not Germany keeps its troops in Afghanistan. Russia will, of course, continue to use every strategem to divide the alliance. Also, the FRG is 5th in the list of world economies according to the IMF and 4th according to the World Bank. What resources besides opium does Afghanistan possess that we want to control? Can you provide one single document to prove your allegation that the U.S. motivation in Afghanistan is control of resources? Yes, the UN HDR does show that Afghanistan lags behind its neighbors in development, but it also shows that per-capita GDP has improved since 2002 and that some other indicators also show an improvement. But this doesn't mean the country as a whole is a basket case. Let's say the Taliban takes over again. How will that contribute to the development of the country? How many women would have access to education under a restored Taliban regime? Is this what you call progress? This makes no sense. NATO was not formed to fight the Taliban but to be a collective security alliance in Europe. Success or lack of it in Afghanistan will not impact the vitality of the alliance in Europe. NATO will not fold up its doors on the basis of whether or not Germany keeps its troops in Afghanistan. Russia will, of course, continue to use every strategem to divide the alliance.

Also, the FRG is 5th in the list of world economies according to the IMF and 4th according to the World Bank.

What resources besides opium does Afghanistan possess that we want to control? Can you provide one single document to prove your allegation that the U.S. motivation in Afghanistan is control of resources?

Yes, the UN HDR does show that Afghanistan lags behind its neighbors in development, but it also shows that per-capita GDP has improved since 2002 and that some other indicators also show an improvement. But this doesn’t mean the country as a whole is a basket case.

Let’s say the Taliban takes over again. How will that contribute to the development of the country? How many women would have access to education under a restored Taliban regime? Is this what you call progress?

]]> By: Rev. José M. Tirado http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14552 Rev. José M. Tirado Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:29:20 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14552 Michael, Again I wonder about your comments regarding Europeans and where you derive your insights about them. When you say, "The Lobby thought it could use European troops as cannon fodder" where does this inside information come from about both the workings of the "Lobby" and about Europeans? As well, you mention the EU s "consensual/confederal nature"; I never heard that the EU based any of its decisions on "consensus" nor that it is anywhere near a "confederal" system. (Maybe people want it to be, but those I know here don´t) Maybe I don´t read what you do but I live in Europe and was not familiar with this. Please explain. Also "ever servile Brits". Which Brits are you referring to? Michael,
Again I wonder about your comments regarding Europeans and where you derive your insights about them. When you say, “The Lobby thought it could use European troops as cannon fodder” where does this inside information come from about both the workings of the “Lobby” and about Europeans? As well, you mention the EU s “consensual/confederal nature”; I never heard that the EU based any of its decisions on “consensus” nor that it is anywhere near a “confederal” system. (Maybe people want it to be, but those I know here don´t)

Maybe I don´t read what you do but I live in Europe and was not familiar with this. Please explain. Also “ever servile Brits”. Which Brits are you referring to?

]]> By: DavidG. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14549 DavidG. Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:14:07 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14549 It's amazing that, after the humiliation of Vietnam when American military might was exposed for the joke it was, that America didn't learn something. Yet here it is again, up to its ears in another defeat, no hope of winning, hundreds of thousands of people killed, massive destruction, plummeting world image (how low can it go?), looming recession, enormous debt, mama mia! "When will they ever learn...when will they evvver learn?" It’s amazing that, after the humiliation of Vietnam when American military might was exposed for the joke it was, that America didn’t learn something.

Yet here it is again, up to its ears in another defeat, no hope of winning, hundreds of thousands of people killed, massive destruction, plummeting world image (how low can it go?), looming recession, enormous debt, mama mia!

“When will they ever learn…when will they evvver learn?”

]]> By: Michael Kenny http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14536 Michael Kenny Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:50:59 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14536 A few small points. I don't think that support for the war is waning in Europe in the sense that there never really was any support for it the first place. That's why most of the troops refuse to take part in the fighting. Besides the ever servile Brits a small Dutch force is the only European contingent fighting alongside the US and even in those two countries, public opinion is very hostile to the whole thing. That explains Gates' remarks! Equally, I don't think that German support, or lack of it, is decisive. Given the consensus/confederal nature of the EU, the EU-Russia relationship is not determined by Germany although, like all the larger Member States, it has quite a bit of weight. It is true, though, that the "European street", whether in Germany or anywhere else, does not want to see a new cold war and when Putin frowns, European leaders have to take note. The other point worth noting is that, for obvious geographical reasons, NATO is vital to the Israel Lobby as it provides a legal pretext for maintaining US forces and military supplies close to Israel. The Lobby thought it could use European troops as cannon fodder and having shot itself in the foot (so to speak!) on that score, it will now sacrifice everything just to keep NATO alive. The NATO Treaty was signed in 1949 and renewed in 1969 and 1989. That means an end to NATO participation in any wars before 2009, an end to kidnappings, renditions or black sites and all the rest. Of course, with the US economy heading for collapse, the chances that POTUS 44 will have the money to do all of this is highly unlikely! A few small points. I don’t think that support for the war is waning in Europe in the sense that there never really was any support for it the first place. That’s why most of the troops refuse to take part in the fighting. Besides the ever servile Brits a small Dutch force is the only European contingent fighting alongside the US and even in those two countries, public opinion is very hostile to the whole thing. That explains Gates’ remarks!

Equally, I don’t think that German support, or lack of it, is decisive. Given the consensus/confederal nature of the EU, the EU-Russia relationship is not determined by Germany although, like all the larger Member States, it has quite a bit of weight. It is true, though, that the “European street”, whether in Germany or anywhere else, does not want to see a new cold war and when Putin frowns, European leaders have to take note.

The other point worth noting is that, for obvious geographical reasons, NATO is vital to the Israel Lobby as it provides a legal pretext for maintaining US forces and military supplies close to Israel. The Lobby thought it could use European troops as cannon fodder and having shot itself in the foot (so to speak!) on that score, it will now sacrifice everything just to keep NATO alive. The NATO Treaty was signed in 1949 and renewed in 1969 and 1989. That means an end to NATO participation in any wars before 2009, an end to kidnappings, renditions or black sites and all the rest.

Of course, with the US economy heading for collapse, the chances that POTUS 44 will have the money to do all of this is highly unlikely!

]]> By: John Wilkinson http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14535 John Wilkinson Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:39:16 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14535 the more chaos, the more uncertainty, the better the conditions for war and for weapons manufacture. endless war is great for the govt-military-industrial complex. even if we lose, there'll be another war. (it's actually much better to lose, then there'll be even more money for expensive weapons). the worst thing we did was "win" the cold war, then all those expensive weapons systems looked like they'd have to go, but, fortunately we "found"(ed) something much, much, better, the endless and unwinnable war on terror. the more chaos, the more uncertainty, the better the conditions for war and for weapons manufacture. endless war is great for the govt-military-industrial complex. even if we lose, there’ll be another war. (it’s actually much better to lose, then there’ll be even more money for expensive weapons). the worst thing we did was “win” the cold war, then all those expensive weapons systems looked like they’d have to go, but, fortunately we “found”(ed) something much, much, better, the endless and unwinnable war on terror.

]]> By: John Wilkinson http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14534 John Wilkinson Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:32:49 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/swan-song-for-nato-the-real-cost-of-defeat-in-afghanistan/#comment-14534 pretty much on the money, IMHO. But it doesn't matter -- win, lose or draw, the govt-military-industrial complex wins. they get the windfall in their executive packages, derived from our taxes. and, the more chaos, the more insecurity, the more we are hated around the world -- the better; then the uneducated rabble, scared out of their wits, will even more support being ripped off, and driven into grinding poverty, and losing even the remaining freedoms to their overlords. pretty much on the money, IMHO. But it doesn’t matter — win, lose or draw, the govt-military-industrial complex wins. they get the windfall in their executive packages, derived from our taxes. and, the more chaos, the more insecurity, the more we are hated around the world — the better; then the uneducated rabble, scared out of their wits, will even more support being ripped off, and driven into grinding poverty, and losing even the remaining freedoms to their overlords.

]]>