quote:

---

"Historically, Afghanistan is the great breaker of armies," CBC concluded. "Could it also break NATO? That's no longer idle speculation."

Link to article

---

quote:

---

Michael Clarke commented that the more strongly the Dutch, Canadians, and British indicate their determination to keep fighting, it easier it will continue to be for the Germans, French, and Spanish to avoid making any greater commitment. "It is astonishing and scandalous that we have to negotiate in this way with our fellow-allies in NATO," he said.[/qb]

---

The twisted thinking to come up with this stupidity of thought is significant.

1. He left out the USA in that country participation equation, seeing as how they are the ones spearheading Afghanistan, and considering that they dumped the majority of it into NATO's hands, after initiating it, and went off to conduct their illegal war in Iraq.

2. Saying that because the Dutch, British and Canadians determination to keep fighting makes it easier for the Germans, Spanish and French to forgo fighting without recognizing that:

a) if the British, Dutch and Canadians military stopped fighting, or being determined to fight, this would not mean that the French, Germans and Spanish contingents of NATO would step up to fight.

b) why is it astonishing and scandalous that the rest of NATO, are wisely refusing to deplete their countries finances in a war, that should never have happened, and should not be continued?

c) why should NATO countries follow the unjust lead of other participants?

quote:

---

[qb]"Historically, Afghanistan is the great breaker of armies," CBC concluded. "Could it also break NATO? That's no longer idle speculation."

---

quote:

---

remind:
1. He left out the USA in that country participation equation, seeing as how they are the ones spearheading Afghanistan, and considering that they dumped the majority of it into NATO's hands, after initiating it, and went off to conduct their illegal war in Iraq.

---

Of course, he is speaking as a US ally pursuing a common agenda which they wish to be an international agenda. Blame the others for not pulling their weight.

quote:

---

a) if the British, Dutch and Canadians military stopped fighting, or being determined to fight, this would not mean that the French, Germans and Spanish contingents of NATO would step up to fight.

---

Yes, but neither does it mean that they would not. If the US and vassal states were to play chicken with the French, Germans, etc. who knows where it may lead. Their refusal to play along would weaken the US and put NATO at risk, but it would also jeopardize any profits that their industries are making from the war and could put those industries at risk in other places should the US retaliate economically.

quote:

---

b) why is it astonishing and scandalous that the rest of NATO, are wisely refusing to deplete their countries finances in a war, that should never have happened, and should not be continued?

---

I think what they are doing is investing the minimum effort necessary to keep their hand in the cookie jar and on the good side of the US. If they were really opposed to this war, rather than being opposed to taking too much heat at home for it, they wouldn't be there in the first place.

quote:

---

c) why should NATO countries follow the unjust lead of other participants?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Valid points Jerry, but really the bottom line is NATO is destroying NATO by members countries gfixation of making money off of war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I look at NATO history and I see the US, Britain and France in particular having been focused on making money off of war since NATO's inception. Making money off of war is what drives NATO not what is destroying it.

---

quote:

---

EU: Military Arm Developing More Quickly Than Expected
By Breffni O'Rourke

The European Union appears to be developing its new military arm rapidly. Its first-ever deployment of peacekeeping troops came earlier this year in Macedonia, and since then it has also sent forces to the Congo. Now the Netherlands, an EU member, has suggested that union troops be sent to Moldova to back a peace settlement there.

Prague, 16 July 2003 (RFE/RL) -- France's traditional Bastille Day military parade is always a colorful affair, with the troops swinging down the grand Champs Elysee as jets sweep overhead streaming blue, white, and red smoke.

This year the 14 July commemoration of the revolution was marked by something new. At the head of the rows of infantry, cavalry, and mechanized troops was...a German general. And immediately behind him was a unit of the new European Union military forces, complete with EU shoulder flashes on their national uniforms. This was a moment of symbolism for the embryonic EU military arm, which has recently come into existence after years of frustrating delays.

The EU undertook its first joint military deployment only in March of this year, when it sent a small and lightly armed force of some 300 "peace enhancement" troops to Macedonia.

The troops sent to that former Yugoslav republic are drawn from present and future member states of the EU, and their task is to demonstrate the international community's desire for peace in Macedonia, where there was violence in 2001 between government forces and ethnic Albanian rebels. The original six-month term of the EU soldiers appears likely to be extended by another three months at the request of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski.

Then in June came an unexpected deployment in a part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where civil war has been raging. In contrast to Macedonia, where tranquillity now reigns, the Congo deployment of the French-led force is to a "hot" area, namely the northeastern town of Bunia.

The EU troops in Bunia have strong rules of engagement, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is now pushing the United Nations to strengthen the mandate of the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo, as a means of dampening the violence.

Bunia is also the first occasion on which the EU military has used its own assets. In Macedonia, it has relied on pre-existing NATO equipment and hardware.

---

The "quagmire" isn't in Afghanistan,its in Brussels.

NATO is already dead except for the political posturing. Given that a US general always heads NATO and that the Deputy Commanding General of NATO in Afghanistan is always an American, NATO is merely the dysfunctional rubber stamp for American adventurism.

The Euros are in Afghanistan for their own interests,vis-a-vis the Americans, and as long as they can make minimal committments without any exposure to combat,they will keep b.s.ing the Americans along.

There is no will in NATO for the Afghanistan mission because efforts to actually accomplish positive change runs counter to American geopolitical objectives.

Its always the same elephant in the room and all the non-elephants merely play the game to prevent the elephant from any unpleasantries associated with being singled out.

While the Euros can tinker with an all-EU military union, Canada is rather exposed. Canada should quit NATO but isn't brave enough to challenge the elephant with such heresy.

[ 03 January 2008: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

jester:
The "quagmire" isn't in Afghanistan,its in Brussels.

---

quote:

---

jester:
Canada should quit NATO but isn't brave enough to challenge the elephant with such heresy.

---

It isn't a question of bravery. You are assuming that Canada (its government) wants to challenge the elephant. In fact, it works for the elephant as a loyal retainer and is happy to do so.

Do Canadians want to challenge the elephant? That is another issue. If they were serious about it they would elect representatives who had that on their agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

There may be one in Brussels, but there is definitely one in Afghanistan. It will continue to suck up bodies and resources as long as the occupation continues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

It isn't a question of bravery. You are assuming that Canada (its government) wants to challenge the elephant. In fact, it works for the elephant as a loyal retainer and is happy to do so.

Do Canadians want to challenge the elephant? That is another issue. If they were serious about it they would elect representatives who had that on their agenda.

So, maybe most Canadians are happy serving the US empire? Why would be an interesting question to pursue.

---

It is a question of bravery. From the cancellation of the Avro Arrow to joining NORAD to Paul Martin's craven acceptance of the Khandahar mission, Canadian interests are subsumed by the political reality that the US is willing to stoop to any measures when its will is challenged.

Our federal politicians are not servile stooges as much as they are hapless ones. I suppose there is a minority of Yankophiles in Canada and another mass that,as usual, doesn't pay attention but on the most part, Canadians are very determined to be Canadian.

The acquiesance to American bullying and meddling is more a resigned acceptance that there is little we can do without growing a spine and telling them to shove off.

ETA: Yes,that is an interesting question. One that I have discussed in a half-assed way with Spector in the Canadian values thread. It doesn't draw much interest when there are soooooo many exciting activities to ponder. Activities such as 100 posters on what Jack had for lunch or the breadth of the fork in Steve's tail.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

jester:
Our federal politicians are not servile stooges as much as they are hapless ones.

---

How hapless and how servile may be debatable. It is probably a combination of both, and in different combinations in different groups.

One probably should look at the relationship between US cooperation and Canadian economics to see who wins and who loses and what influence there is on the political system.

Politician who put economic interests ahead of national independence could be seen as servile to those economic interests.

quote:

---

Rather than an international effort to salvage a failed state, the Afghan quagmire becomes another American adventure in geopolitical engineering.

---

Unfortunately the citizenry are not privy to cabinet decisions and therefore do not have benefit of all the facts. It is very doubtful that any government would make such unflattering decision-making public.

In spite of the bravado of the uninformed (including myself), the government of Canada must make decisions in the interests of all Canadians. Nationalist breast-beating is great sport but sadly, sound decision making must prevail and,especially dealing with the Americans,these decisions are usually between the odious,the reprehensible and the downright unpleasant options.

quote:

---

jester:
Individually, Canadians could weather the consequences but for those whose wealth is threatened,losing our country is much preferable to losing the personal stature and prestige their wealth provides.

---