Europeans see what America cannot

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Europeans see what America cannot
By ERIC MARGOLIS, TORONTO SUN

At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.

The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost.

To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.

While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops -- yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the U.S. and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army.

Canada's calls for 1,000 more NATO troops, and the U.S. decision to send 3,200 marines, will not alter the course of this war, which is turning increasingly against the western occupiers. In fact, the war is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan, a nation of 165 million, stretching U.S. and NATO forces ever thinner.

A primary reason for Gates' recent call for U.S. troops to begin attacking pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen inside Pakistan is due to their growing attacks on allied supply lines to Afghanistan.

As this column has reported, over 70% of U.S./NATO supplies come in by truck through Pakistan's tribal belt known as FATA, including all of their oil and gas. Attacks by pro-Taliban tribesmen against these vulnerable supply lines are jeopardizing western military operations inside Afghanistan.

HUNTERS NOW HUNTED

The hunters are becoming the hunted. Cutting off invaders' supply lines is a time-honoured Pashtun military tactic. They used it against Alexander the Great, the British, and Soviets, and are at it again.

What angry Sec. Gates fails to see is that by pushing NATO into a distant Asian war without political purpose or seeming end, he is endangering the very alliance that is the bedrock of U.S. power in Europe.

Europeans increasingly ask why they need the U.S.-dominated military alliance, a Cold War relic, in which they continue to play foot soldiers to America's atomic knights, to paraphrase the late German statesman, Franz Josef Strauss.

Why does the rich, powerful European Union even need NATO any more? The Soviet threat is gone -- at least for now. Nuclear-armed France and Britain are quite capable of defending Europe against outside threats. Why can't the new European Defence Force take over NATO's role of defending Europe and protecting EU interests?

In short, most Europeans see no benefit in playing junior members in an alliance whose historic time has passed and that serves primarily as an instrument of U.S. power. Washington's sharpest geopolitical thinker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, calls NATO a "stepping stone" the U.S. uses to project power into Europe.

By pushing NATO towards a bridge too far, the Bush administration may end up fatally undermining the alliance and encouraging anti-American forces in Europe.

In fact, it's becoming evident that the cash-strapped U.S. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.S.

CONSCRIPTION

Final point. If impassioned claims by U.S. and Canadian politicians that the little Afghanistan war must by won at all costs, then why don't they stop orating, impose conscription, and send 400,000 soldiers, including their own sons, to fight in Afghanistan?

Of course they won't. They prefer to waste their own soldiers, and grind up Afghanistan, rather than admit this war against 40 million Pashtun tribesmen was a terrible mistake that will only get worse

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/02/10/4838323-sun.php

...

Make that .. Europeans see what SOME Americans cannot.
 
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDhjOTE4NWNlN2IyZGZiMzgwZmNlMjRhMjE5MDkyNGE=

Monday, February 11, 2008

NATO Epitaphs [Victor Davis Hanson]

There has been a recent series of disturbing op-eds and press conferences concerning European participation (or lack thereof) in the NATO mission in Afghanistan — the common theme being either an unwillingness or inability of our continental partners to fully engage the enemy, despite a European Union with 1.7 million men and women under arms.

What is baffling (perhaps not really given the social and demographic landscape of the last 20 years), is that a united Europe — drawing on its collective manpower and long military and scientific traditions for the last 2000 years — had been the dream of every nefarious and megalomaniac conqueror.

But now when that mad dream is finally realized, but under lawful and peaceful auspices, and the ensuing resources could be used for humanitarian purposes rather than for Caesarian, Napoleonic, or Hitlerian conquest, only stasis follows?

There is a terrible irony here: the ferocious European military tradition that was unleashed on itself from Waterloo to the Verdun could not be reformulated for something other than civil annihilation, saying removing a psychopath like Milosevic or subduing medieval killers such as the Taliban or containing the murderers in Darfur? In the end the Europeans will have to deal with their own tragic paradox: when the military will was there, too many nations used it for ill ends; and when the aims were good, there was no longer any will. I'll let others sort out the cause and effect of all that.
 
You dont seem to understand that they dont think that the aim is good.

It is not their fault you are stuck in a fantasy.
 
Europeans see what America cannot
By ERIC MARGOLIS, TORONTO SUN

At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.

The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost.

To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.

While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops -- yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the U.S. and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army.

Canada's calls for 1,000 more NATO troops, and the U.S. decision to send 3,200 marines, will not alter the course of this war, which is turning increasingly against the western occupiers. In fact, the war is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan, a nation of 165 million, stretching U.S. and NATO forces ever thinner.

A primary reason for Gates' recent call for U.S. troops to begin attacking pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen inside Pakistan is due to their growing attacks on allied supply lines to Afghanistan.

As this column has reported, over 70% of U.S./NATO supplies come in by truck through Pakistan's tribal belt known as FATA, including all of their oil and gas. Attacks by pro-Taliban tribesmen against these vulnerable supply lines are jeopardizing western military operations inside Afghanistan.

HUNTERS NOW HUNTED

The hunters are becoming the hunted. Cutting off invaders' supply lines is a time-honoured Pashtun military tactic. They used it against Alexander the Great, the British, and Soviets, and are at it again.

What angry Sec. Gates fails to see is that by pushing NATO into a distant Asian war without political purpose or seeming end, he is endangering the very alliance that is the bedrock of U.S. power in Europe.

Europeans increasingly ask why they need the U.S.-dominated military alliance, a Cold War relic, in which they continue to play foot soldiers to America's atomic knights, to paraphrase the late German statesman, Franz Josef Strauss.

Why does the rich, powerful European Union even need NATO any more? The Soviet threat is gone -- at least for now. Nuclear-armed France and Britain are quite capable of defending Europe against outside threats. Why can't the new European Defence Force take over NATO's role of defending Europe and protecting EU interests?

In short, most Europeans see no benefit in playing junior members in an alliance whose historic time has passed and that serves primarily as an instrument of U.S. power. Washington's sharpest geopolitical thinker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, calls NATO a "stepping stone" the U.S. uses to project power into Europe.

By pushing NATO towards a bridge too far, the Bush administration may end up fatally undermining the alliance and encouraging anti-American forces in Europe.

In fact, it's becoming evident that the cash-strapped U.S. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.S.

CONSCRIPTION

Final point. If impassioned claims by U.S. and Canadian politicians that the little Afghanistan war must by won at all costs, then why don't they stop orating, impose conscription, and send 400,000 soldiers, including their own sons, to fight in Afghanistan?

Of course they won't. They prefer to waste their own soldiers, and grind up Afghanistan, rather than admit this war against 40 million Pashtun tribesmen was a terrible mistake that will only get worse

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/02/10/4838323-sun.php

...

Make that .. Europeans see what SOME Americans cannot.


"""Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost."""

This is coming from the people we supposedly had so much 'goodwill' from after 9/11?
 
"""Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost."""

This is coming from the people we supposedly had so much 'goodwill' from after 9/11?

America had much goodwill all over the world after WWII.

Bush and the neocon horde spent every last drop of it.

Now there's none left.
 
America had much goodwill all over the world after WWII.

Bush and the neocon horde spent every last drop of it.

Now there's none left.

So we had "goodwill" after 9/11 but they felt us retalliating against the Taliban was wrong? Am I getting the jist of it?
 
So we had "goodwill" after 9/11 but they felt us retalliating against the Taliban was wrong? Am I getting the jist of it?

No, you're not.

That goodwill turned to suspicion after all the evidence was reviewed and all the frauds were exposed.

They also came to a conclusion about 9/11 that Americans cannot.
 
No, you're not.

That goodwill turned to suspicion after all the evidence was reviewed and all the frauds were exposed.

They also came to a conclusion about 9/11 that Americans cannot.

that 9/11 was an inside job or allowed by the U.S. government?
 
FYI: SEE: Caspian Sea Pipeline.

It's why we attacked Afghanistan.

1) Those pipelines will be more for Nat gas than oil

2) Afghanistan is simply the site for the pipeline, most of the oil and gas transported will be coming from Turkmenistan and it is designed to get the nat gas from there to Pakistan. An American company was invovled in the proposal to build the pipeline, but the main beneficiaries were Turkmenistan and Pakistan, not the US.

3) We attacked Afghanistan in repsonse to 9/11, not for the pipeline. The taliban was willing to assist in building the pipeline back in the late 90's. So why would we start a war for something we were already going to get?
 
1) Those pipelines will be more for Nat gas than oil

2) Afghanistan is simply the site for the pipeline, most of the oil and gas transported will be coming from Turkmenistan and it is designed to get the nat gas from there to Pakistan. An American company was invovled in the proposal to build the pipeline, but the main beneficiaries were Turkmenistan and Pakistan, not the US.

3) We attacked Afghanistan in repsonse to 9/11, not for the pipeline. The taliban was willing to assist in building the pipeline back in the late 90's. So why would we start a war for something we were already going to get?

Wrong as hell sir.

Tha Taliban refused to go alomng with the pipeline deal, thus the Bush Administration thgreatened them with "Bombing you with carpets of gold, or carpets of bombs."


The pipeline had been long desired by western oil interests and in fact, Unocal executive John Maresca went before the US Congress to implore themn to overthrow the Taliban in 1998 .. and after the Taliban was overthrown, Maresca was made US Envoy to Afghanistan.

There is so much more.
 
apparently I have been hit with a severe bout of cognitive dissonance. Please help me out and enlighten me. Show me the error of my ways.

:cool:

Enron

"Kenny Boy" Lay

Khalizad

PNAC

Bush

All participants in the fraud of Afghanistan

Fascinating truth once revealed .. to Americans.

The rest of the world already knows.
 
Wrong as hell sir.

Tha Taliban refused to go alomng with the pipeline deal, thus the Bush Administration thgreatened them with "Bombing you with carpets of gold, or carpets of bombs."


The pipeline had been long desired by western oil interests and in fact, Unocal executive John Maresca went before the US Congress to implore themn to overthrow the Taliban in 1998 .. and after the Taliban was overthrown, Maresca was made US Envoy to Afghanistan.

There is so much more.

Actually, they had agreed to it. Then Osama bombed the two embassies and Clowntoon bombed Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan. But that does not change the fact that Unocal had a deal. A deal they backed out of due to the bombings and public pressure for working with the Taliban.

Bottom line.... it was never about oil. It was never about the pipeline. It was about Bin Laden. You do not even comprehend the reason the pipeline is being built, yet you are quick to parrot the leftwing position that it is about the Caspian Oil. Note again: it is the nat gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan that is the primary reason for the pipeline through Afghanistan.

The quote you provided is nothing more than propaganda B.S. Not once is it documented WHO said it, nor WHEN it was actually said. It was a rumor that began that no one ever bothered to confirm. It was made up by Brisard, who has given no evidence to support that quote by the way.
 
Enron

"Kenny Boy" Lay

Khalizad

PNAC

Bush

All participants in the fraud of Afghanistan

Fascinating truth once revealed .. to Americans.

The rest of the world already knows.

There was no fraud in Afghanistan. Just your complete lack of understanding at what the pipelines were designed for.

Side note.... just how does the above enlighten anyone to your position? Rattling off names and pointing fingers is your idea of evidence?
 
Actually, they had agreed to it. Then Osama bombed the two embassies and Clowntoon bombed Bin Laden camps in Afghanistan. But that does not change the fact that Unocal had a deal. A deal they backed out of due to the bombings and public pressure for working with the Taliban.

Bottom line.... it was never about oil. It was never about the pipeline. It was about Bin Laden. You do not even comprehend the reason the pipeline is being built, yet you are quick to parrot the leftwing position that it is about the Caspian Oil. Note again: it is the nat gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan that is the primary reason for the pipeline through Afghanistan.

The quote you provided is nothing more than propaganda B.S. Not once is it documented WHO said it, nor WHEN it was actually said. It was a rumor that began that no one ever bothered to confirm. It was made up by Brisard, who has given no evidence to support that quote by the way.
It would make no sense to pipe Caspian oil all the way through Afghanistan when there is already oil pipelines on a less circuitous route.
 
It would make no sense to pipe Caspian oil all the way through Afghanistan when there is already oil pipelines on a less circuitous route.

Through Russia.

Educate yourelf on this my brother.

If what you say is tru .. why did they build the pipeline through Afghanistan?
 
Back
Top