NATO not up to task in Afghanistan
NY Times:
"NATO's top commander in Europe voiced frustration on Tuesday that members were not providing enough troops for the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, which he said was a 'defining moment' for the alliance as it adopted a broader agenda in the world.
"In testimony intended to bring members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee up to date on Afghanistan, the commander, Gen. James L. Jones of the United States Marine Corps, said NATO's plans to expand beyond the the capital, Kabul, and the northern area of Kunduz would require more troops than the current 5,500.
"He said he expected the number of United States troops in Afghanistan ? 11,000, most of them involved in counterterrorism ? to remain the same.
" 'The political will has been stated,' he said. 'The alliance has agreed, the donor countries have been identified, and yet we find ourselves mired in the administrative details of who's going to pay for it, who's going to transport it, how's it going to be maintained.' "
Dems who have argued that NATO should take over operations in Iraq, abviously are not in the real world. If they are having trouble coming up with 5,500 troops and trasporting them to Afghanistan, how can anyone reasonably expect them to contribute 20 times that unumber to a postion in Iraq?
NY Times:
"NATO's top commander in Europe voiced frustration on Tuesday that members were not providing enough troops for the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, which he said was a 'defining moment' for the alliance as it adopted a broader agenda in the world.
"In testimony intended to bring members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee up to date on Afghanistan, the commander, Gen. James L. Jones of the United States Marine Corps, said NATO's plans to expand beyond the the capital, Kabul, and the northern area of Kunduz would require more troops than the current 5,500.
"He said he expected the number of United States troops in Afghanistan ? 11,000, most of them involved in counterterrorism ? to remain the same.
" 'The political will has been stated,' he said. 'The alliance has agreed, the donor countries have been identified, and yet we find ourselves mired in the administrative details of who's going to pay for it, who's going to transport it, how's it going to be maintained.' "
Dems who have argued that NATO should take over operations in Iraq, abviously are not in the real world. If they are having trouble coming up with 5,500 troops and trasporting them to Afghanistan, how can anyone reasonably expect them to contribute 20 times that unumber to a postion in Iraq?
Comments
Post a Comment