Well done the United States of Europe, NATO says ,send more troops to Afghanistan, the silence has been deafening, and no doubt sihthead Bliar will find more, roll on the revolution,the only people left to vote for are?
Clouseau said:The problem is that although there has been a deafening silence from NATO members, NATO cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan. The repercussions are just too great for NATOâ€™s future existence as a credible force. If it fails, then you can kiss NATO goodbye in less than 5 yrs.
So what's to be done? - wait and see. This silence may well be the result of political manoeuvring. There will be reinforcements, but from where? Certainly not from the UK. Certainly not from the US.
It also brings another important question up - Where should our military/political allegiance lay? US or EU? Is this an indication of what would happen when deploying an EU Defence force?
imom1406 said:UK's primary interests should remain with what is best for the UK, that should be our first allegience. Sometimes that will mean supporting the US and sometimes EU....and sometimes both.
As far as NATO is concerned, it has always really only been US and UK, with some input from Germany...and when they could drag themselves away from the brothel/bistro, the part time French.
Sadly despite the high ideals at their creation NATO, UN and Non Alligned Countries etc. function as political bodies that suck in billions in cash, but really produce very little, and the dinkey work is left up tio individual states...this is when they serve their own interests....and why not.
Sorry to sound cynical, but it will always be down to a few like minded allies to solve global problems...not large political bodies who can spend for ever talking. UN Successes......Mid East, Ruwanda, Cambodia, Balkans etc...
Clouseau said:I agree with you in the first instance; the UK has always engaged in a balancing act with respect to it's allies - trying to achieve what is best for the UK with limited rescources.
I also agree that the larger, resource rich and economically powerful countries dominate any organisation. They have to.
I do believe, however, that Cold War NATO achieved it's goal; it acted as a block to the USSR. The UN too, while never publicised, often criticised and increadibly underfunded, achieves massive amounts on the ground with ordinary people. The reason it fails at a strategic level is that it tries to be a form of government in an essentially anarchic International System.
There is a greater danger here: that the US will turn inwards and leave the EU and the rest of the world to itself.