Friday, December 4, 2009

NATO's View on Obama's Afghanistan Strategy

A new momentum for Afghanistan
From NATO, a transition but not an exit strategy

By Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Friday, December 4, 2009 -- From The Washington Post
A new momentum for Afghanistan

Foreign ministers from the 44 countries in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan are meeting here today to discuss the way forward for the mission. This year has not been an easy one for Afghanistan or for the countries sending troops. But a new phase of the international effort is beginning.

President Obama made an important speech this week in which he laid out America's strategy for this mission. He made a substantial commitment of resources, including more than 30,000 U.S. troops. And he made clear to any doubters that the United States is determined to do what it takes to finish the job.

But this is not just President Obama's war. We all face the same threats from what is happening in Afghanistan: threats from terrorism, from drugs, from extremism. This is an alliance effort, and we will finish it together. At this important moment in the evolution of our operation, NATO will demonstrate its unity and its strength once again.

There will be a substantial increase, in 2010, in the number of soldiers provided by the non-U.S. members of NATO: at least 5,000, and probably several thousand more. That is on top of the 38,000 or so non-U.S. troops already in Afghanistan. But this isn't just about troop numbers. It is about strategy. And our strategy is clear: to transfer responsibility for running their country to the Afghans, as soon as possible.

That means a transition in which Afghan forces take the lead and our forces move into a supporting role. I am pressing allies and partners to fully resource and finance our training mission. That is how we'll make the transition to Afghan leadership a reality, sooner. I'm confident that when the Afghan people and the citizens in nations that are contributing troops see this transition happening, starting next year, they will see the progress that inspires them to continue to support this mission.

To be clear, "transition" is not a code word for "exit strategy." It means transition to a different role. First, our soldiers will start to partner with Afghan forces at all levels, from the field to headquarters, to pass on the knowledge they need to stand on their own feet. When conditions are right -- when Afghan forces have the capabilities and the confidence -- we will move to the next phase, in which Afghan forces take the lead in planning and carrying out operations, with NATO forces backing them up. That is the way forward, and I'm confident we can start next year.

Foreign ministers will discuss all of this today, but talks will not be limited to the military operation. They will also focus on the broader political strategy, which includes what we expect from the new Afghan government. Good governance is the best way to close off the oxygen supply to the Taliban. After all that we have committed to this mission, we have the right to insist on it.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has made some very clear and welcome statements. I'm pleased that investigations of corruption are underway. It's a good start and will help establish the credibility the Afghan people and the international community need to see. A conference to be held in January in London will be important in this regard as well, to help establish a new contract between the Afghan government and the international community.

I am confident that we will soon see new momentum in this mission. In 2010, there will be substantially more forces on the ground, focused on defending the Afghan people. We will start handing over lead security responsibility to Afghan forces, district by district, where conditions allow. There will be clear commitments, and I expect clear action, by the Afghan government to earn the support of its people. There will be more development assistance, starting with the $5 billion pledged by Japan. The civilian side of the whole effort will be stepped up as well, not least through the European Union Action Plan.

In the end, it comes down to this: When Taliban soldiers come to take a young Afghan to fight on their side, what will his father do? If he sees that the Taliban has no chance of winning, if he sees that his life is getting better and if he believes in his government, then he will say no. And the insurgency will lose. It's that simple. Those are the conditions we have to create, and next year we will start to see light at the end of the tunnel.

The writer is secretary general of NATO.

12 comments:

Anon2 said...

Too few in America hear about the allied troops fighting in Afghanistan alongside the US army. Even less hear about the casualties of the allied troops in Afghanistan. Does the USA really care about them? As a matter of fact it's mostly the USA who decides to go to war and talks (or bullies) the allies into joining them.

Yes, I know what the NATO "rules" are!

Europe doesn't want any wars and doesn't really want to participate in any of them. They went through 2 world wars in less than abt 30 years. They said .... never again....

Casey said...

So...according to you, and all of Europe (who you speak for---???)there is nothing worth fighting for. That is the exact attitude that practically had Europe enslaved by the Nazi Regime. Oh how we forget the lessons of history that you claim to know so well!
I can't believe this stuff that you say. Do you just not THINK before you say them, or do you just hate the USA so much that you can't help yourself?

RayGun said...

"I am the Eric Burns who used to host Fox News Watch on the right-wing partial-news-but-mostly-opinion network."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-burns/if-i-still-worked-at-fox_b_376972.html
--
A great and funny link.

Anon2 said...

Read this link:http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091031/nato_afghanistan_091101/20091101?hub=SEAfghanistan

Excerpt:

"You have a lot of NATO countries who don't want to be there. They went in under the impression they were a stabilization force, similar to what they have done in the Balkans -- only problem is, they walked into a war," he said."

That proves more than plenty that Europe doesn't want war isn't it?

An American tourist who says, this is day 6 so it must be Belgium, or whatever, DOES know Europe isn't it? *cough*

Casey said...

there is nothing worth fighting for. That is the exact attitude that practically had Europe enslaved by the Nazi Regime. Oh how we forget the lessons of history that you claim to know so well!

As usual, Anon2, I think that we are having a difficult time communicating. The point that I was making (see above) is that sometimes you have things that are worth fighting for. You can't have the attitude of "peace at any price" or, as we almost saw prior to and during WWII there becomes is a very high price to pay for peace.

Europe doesn't want any wars and doesn't really want to participate in any of them. ---Anon2

Most of Europe tried to make compromises with Hitler to avoid war, but that didn't turn out too well, did it?

Casey said...

Here's one for you Anon2:

CJP said...
You're quite right, Casey. We are dealing today with the rise of a new Hitler and a new Nazism -- the Fundamentalist Islamic Fascists.

They must be defeated and, as usual, the USA is the one country that is able to do the job.

Do you think that CJP is one of the "Roman Soldiers"? Maybe he believes in this war for the "glory of it"?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Anon2, there are really, really bad people in the world. I know that is hard for you, but it is so true. And those people really, really don't care that you dont like war...Well actually, they prefer it that way.
And these people? They don't like us. They don't like our freedom, or our TV or our way of dress, or that women have rights and we object to beating women for no reason...They want to fight us because it is what the bad men call a "holy war". I hope that this helps just a bit, to understand the concept of not rolling over and giving up everything so that we don't have to go to war.

RayGun said...

"We are dealing today with the rise of a new Hitler and a new Nazism -- the Fundamentalist Islamic Fascists."
--
JFC, Case, sweetums, the FIF guys spend 20 million attacking us and we spend 4 trillion in response? Whos going to win that war? Who defeated the Soviets? Bin Laden defeated them in Afghanistan, and of course Charlie Wilson. Dumb ass RayGun didn't even know what was going on in Afghanistan until the very end. I have read the book and seen the movie "Charlie Wilsons War". Both very good.

Casey said...

"We are dealing today with the rise of a new Hitler and a new Nazism -- the Fundamentalist Islamic Fascists."---CJP

RG, that was a CJP quote. But I believe that he is right on this. These people want to kill us. They hate us and all that we stand for. They hate every western civilization. Don't like our freedom or our culture. This is a holy war to these people. How can we worry about the cost? This has to be stopped or we will end up living like Israel, never knowing when the next suicide bomb will hit.
You don't think that will happen? 9/11 wasn't the first time that we were hit. It was just the most severe.

RayGun said...

'How can we worry about the cost? "
--
Case darling, aren't those words sacrilegious to a con?

Bin Laden said the whole reason for attacking the west was to bankrupt the west. Just like they bankrupted the USSR.

Case, honey, I dont like Bin Laden, but other words he spoke are just as true. He stated something like fish of the ocean do not fear the rain. Do you know what he meant? Hint; He is not afraid to die as You Know Who will reward him with all kinds of good stuff. How can you fight and win against that belief system? Hint; Change said belief system.

Casey said...

We can't change their belief system, RG. My belief system frowns on killing people with suicide bombs or jets into buildings. So how do you handle it, Rg? Just sit back and mop up the mess?
Maybe we put out a warrant for his arrest? Seriously. What would you do?
You can't just do nothing. I believe that we just put full force into it and be done with it ASAP. This cannot be fought as a traditional war. It has all of the characteristics of another VietNam and therefor cannot be fought in the same way. We could end it in a very short amount of time.

RayGun said...

"So how do you handle it, Rg? "
--
Welllll, Case, honey, seems the wise path to take is not the path the enemy wants you to take. They want to bankrupt us Case. That has been their goal all along.

Maybe we should try and educate them. Pay for schools to brainwash them with being good Muslims, instead of the madrasahs brainwashing them into killing.

Maybe we should all really be brave and face reality, that all the good books are false. What do you say Case?

Casey said...

Maybe we should try and educate them. Pay for schools to brainwash them with being good Muslims, instead of the madrasahs brainwashing them into killing. --Rg

Great idea, RG! We will put you in charge of that program! When do you want to leave for the middleast?