NATO to consider going to Iraq

Reuters | 9/27/03

[kattracks]

BERLIN (Reuters) - A senior NATO official was quoted on Saturday as saying the military alliance would likely get involved in Iraq, just as it had done in Afghanistan.

"If, as is to be expected, there is still a great need for troops to stabilise the country, NATO will be faced with this question, sooner rather than later," General Harald Kujat, head of NATO's military committee, told Welt am Sonntag newspaper.

"We must ask ourselves whether we can afford for a NATO member, and the biggest at that, to get into difficulties and be left alone," he said in an interview with the German paper released ahead of publication on Sunday.

The committee Kujat heads is the NATO's highest military authority which includes the Chiefs of Defence of its member states and advises on military policy and strategy.

Kujat said NATO involvement in Iraq could follow the route taken in Afghanistan where the alliance initially supported individual members indirectly and then took control of a sector.

NATO took command last month of the 5,000-strong, U.N.-mandated force in the Afghan capital in Kabul, which has sought to maintain security since U.S.-led forces ousted the Islamist Taliban in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Kujat said NATO was ideally positioned for Iraq: "It accommodates both sides -- the Europeans with their demand for multilateralism, the Americans with their condition that they continue to be the leading military power."

Kujat, who was general inspector of the German military before moving to NATO last year, called on the German government, which opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, not to stand in the way of any future NATO engagement in Iraq.

Faced with daily guerrilla attacks on its troops in Iraq and spiralling costs, Washington is working on a new U.N. resolution with the aim of winning more international support for its occupation both in terms of soldiers and cash.

[samtheman]

The more I think about this whole situation, the more angry I get at the Europeans and their lack of concern for our welfare, our safety, our security... after all we've done in the last 100 years for their welfare, their safety, their security.

[afz400]

Sending the UN, NATO, Turkey etc in to help - what's the point? Any way you look at it it's always OUR money that pays for it. Why not do it ourselves and not have to listen to their whining?

[BOBTHENAILER]

A senior NATO official was quoted on Saturday as saying the military alliance would likely get involved in Iraq, just as it had done in Afghanistan.

Late to the party, but a welcome addition nonetheless. If it happens, of course.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Much of what you read is being played that way by our enemy press.

We have many allies around the world who are grateful, and who see through the 24/7 anti-American press distortions.

Read this. Have hope. Always question Reuters.

8 Why Denmark Decided to Participate in the War Against Saddam Hussein

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks for the ping, BOB. The troops are decent, but not as able.

Reuters at least included this seldom reported fact:

NATO took command last month of the 5,000-strong, U.N.-mandated force in the Afghan capital in Kabul, which has sought to maintain security since U.S.-led forces ousted the Islamist Taliban in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The press continues to play up the increased attacks in Afghanistan, with quotes like "since the American troops led the forces against the Taliban.." rarely mentioning that NATO is now in charge.

 Thanks, Tonkin!

If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

[blackie]

Bump!

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[PhilDragoo]

Reporting of events in Iraq and Afghanistan is being done by the political wing of the papparazzis, the pappanazis.

Be that as it may, NATO now runs the Afghanistan campaign.

Our allies in Iraq include Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain.

"Journalists" will have to decide (as the UN has to decide) whether to be relevant, or to be washed away like a news kiosk in a flood.

[Consort]

[windchime]

Bump!

[samtheman]

thanks

[samtheman]

Sending the UN, NATO, Turkey etc in to help - what's the point? Any way you look at it it's always OUR money that pays for it. Why not do it ourselves and not have to listen to their whining?

Exactly. All we'd be doing is paying others to get in our way.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

What helps me is reading the accounts from the troops working side by side. There is a genuine mutual respect between honorable military from differing countries who are on the same mission - no matter the politics of the national leaders or the folly of a nation's current popular culture.

When other troops work closely with our troops, they usually forge friendships that last sometimes for decades. Many of the Central American troops helping our troops today in Iraq were trained by and assisted our troops in previous Central American civil wars and are volunteering to help us today.

Cool, huh!

[samtheman]

Your right about soldiers of other countries being better than their politicians. One of the regular military analysts on Fox News said a long time ago that the French special forces, for example, are actually quite professional and their presence would be helpful in Iraq.