Posted by: Tony Carson | 19 September, 2007

Nato’s failure in Afghanistan

The two overwhelming questions about Afghanistan:

• Why is the perception of Afghanistan so murky? It is, or it is not, a land worth fighting for.

• And what does Nato stand for any more? It either goes into Afghanistan with a singleness of purpose or it does not.

Clearly, if Afghanistan is going to become a peaceful democracy with a viable (legal) economy, it’s going to take an awfully long time.

If Nato can’t come together over this issue and agree on a long-term approach, what good is it? What is the value of an organization where its members can opt-in and opt-out whenever it wants — and even qualify the extent to which it will opt-in? (I know it’s in the nature of its mandate but the question still stands.)

Afghanistan isn’t just about pushing back the Taliban, it’s about a total rebuild, otherwise it will revert back to its anarchic default position the moment Nato troops leave.

If Nato countries aren’t prepared to stay for the long-haul, why bother with the short term? That is meaningless.

Nato is now being put to the test and it’s not looking promising. If 26 countries can’t work out a joint long-term agreement between themselves and appeal to countries with a vested interest to help (ie Muslim countries) there is little point in the pathetic finger-in-the-dike approach we are now watching.

This should not be a headline: Karzai pleads with Canadians not to desert Afghanistan


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: