Bucharest (Romania): NATO Summit Update – Mar 24, 2008

Mar 24, 2008 (Romania Report & sources)

Bucharest (Romania): NATO Summit Update – Mar 24 Britain's Brown, France's Sarkozy expected to discuss the need for more troops in Afghanistan… NATO Faces Fundamental Issues at Summit in Bucharest – ‘Aviation Week’… NATO Must Step up in Afghanistan – ‘American Thinker’…


Britain's Brown, France's Sarkozy expected to discuss the need for more troops in Afghanistan

When British PM Gordon Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy meet for talks, in London later this week, they will also discuss Afghanistan ahead of a summit of the NATO alliance in Bucharest, Romania, April 2-4.

Britain has 7,800 troops in Afghanistan, most in unstable Helmand province in the south, while France has 1,900 soldiers in the country, mostly in the Kabul area.

One British newspaper reported last week that Sarkozy would offer at the NATO meeting to send 1,000 more French troops to Eastern Afghanistan.


NATO Faces Fundamental Issues at Summit in Bucharest – Aviation Week

As the April NATO summit approaches, political frailty and the growing gulf in defense expenditures may threaten the very future of the alliance – reads aviationweek.com.

The British Parliament's Defense Committee is cautioning that the NATO alliance needs to quickly address issues that will otherwise gnaw at its well-being - and eventually risk its existence.

"The biggest shortfall in NATO's capabilities... is a lack of political will," the committee comments in its report titled The Future of NATO and European Defense. "This is most manifest in the large and growing gap in defense spending between the United States and the European members of NATO."

Discussing the report, one British defense industry analyst says, "They're pointing out the elephant in the room when it comes to the alliance." He adds that, concerning Afghanistan, the report also shows how "the whole alliance is put under stress when it has to deal with an ambiguous area of operations."

While NATO has a long-standing - if informal - target of member nations spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, only six of the 26 countries meet this.

"There is no detectable appetite in Europe for increasing spending on defense," the committee notes in its Mar. 20 document. "We are concerned that an Alliance containing such large disparities in defense spending will prove unsustainable in the long-term."

NATO Must Step up in Afghanistan – ‘American Thinker’

It's spring in Afghanistan and time for the annual Taliban offensive. In truth, it never amounts to much - or at least it didn't in the past because allied forces would intercept the groups of 50-100 fighters who would try to infiltrate across the border from Pakistan – a Rick Moran report reads in the today’s edition americanthinker.com.

But this year, with the new Pakistan government making noises about negotiating with the tribes backing the Taliban, the enemy may be emboldened to strike even harder at the peace and security of Afghani villagers:

In the last year, Taliban attacks kept about four percent of children out of school. This is often done by burning down the local school, or killing teachers. The tribes support the schools, but if the Taliban can get one of their combat teams (50-100 gunmen) into an area, the tribesmen back down and do what the Taliban want. These Taliban teams are large enough to drive away local police. The Taliban groups can be gone before the Afghan army can show up, and return to keep the locals terrorized. But the U.S./NATO troops are more mobile, and have better intel (UAVs and manned aircraft). If foreign troops are available, the Taliban often get caught, and that's when those items show up in the news, about "20-50 Taliban killed in southern Afghanistan." Last year, over 4,000 Taliban were killed in this way, and the Taliban lost influence in many areas. But NATO commanders can look at their maps and do the math. With a few thousand more troops, they can shut down the Taliban "enforcers" sooner and more often, shutting the Taliban out of many areas permanently. This takes the pressure off more rural Afghans, allowing them to send their kids to school, rebuild roads, get electricity, and generally get on with their lives.

Just a "few thousand more troops" would help enormously. France just promised an additional 1000 men for the war effort but that is the extent of any additional help that has been forthcoming. For the Germans, who have a sizable contingent in Afghanistan but refuse to put them in harms way, this attitude is breeding resentment among those nations who are doing the bulk of the fighting:

There are 78,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. The 28,000 Americans are all allowed to fight, but most of the 50,000 NATO personnel are restricted in how they can be used. It has been this way for years, and the nations that allow their troops to fight (like Britain, Canada, Denmark, Romania, Estonia, the Netherlands, and non-NATO Australia), are getting angrier at those who will not (especially Germany, which has a large force that is forbidden from going after the Taliban).

Anti-war sentiment seems to be growing in Canada while resentment builds in countries like the Netherlands whose troops are operating in dangerous areas where Taliban attacks and suicide bombers are increasing.

For NATO as an organization, this may be the most serious crisis in its entire existence. And there is no sign that most of its members are willing to step up and meet the challenges posed by increased enemy activity and the political opposition at home.

Romania Report & sources