ARMIES THAT WON'T FIGHT!
Apart from the Salvation Army, I can't really see the point in having an army that is reluctant to fight.
Perhaps Germany is trying to make up for a historical over-enthusiasm in the aggression stakes but I do wonder at its current decision to refuse to deploy its military in southern Afghanistan as part of the NATO operation there, and as requested by the US which is currently doing most of the heavy lifting there. German troops stay in the safer climes of the north, well away from the violence. Germany has insisted it will NOT place its troops where they might get in danger, and thus they will remain in the relative tranquility of northern Afghanistan and Kabul.
This reluctance on the part of many NATO members to risk danger brings discredit on that organisation. Apart from the US, the UK, and Canada - the rest of the NATO "force" in this region seems to consist of armies that refuse to fight. What is the point of being in such an organisation if refusing to put troops in the face of danger is deemed too high a political risk?
David Vance
7 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (7)
Since the collapse of Soviet communism (Gramscian communism is alive and well), there has been no need for NATO. The UK would be best served by having mutual assitance agreements with like-minded states in the Anglosphere and compatible nations such as India and Israel.
Seriously, just look at Germany: it's neutered.
Allan,
Disagree totally with your neutered comment.
In order to be neutered, you had to have some balls in the first place!
I think a valid point has been raised as to the nature of military cooperation among NATO allies. Frankly, we in the US have had troops protecting Germany in Germany for some time and one begins to wonder what the point of it is.
The Germans are rightly taking the flack for their cowardice, but the Dutch, French and Italians are just as guilty.
Nato should be disbanded. It has ceased to have any coherence. as the debacle in Afghanistan shows.
The Dutch and Italians couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and I'd be happy to see them remaining in Kabul, counting supplies or whatever they are doing.
The Germans and (believe it or not) the French do have highly competent military organizations, and they had better get down there and do what they're paid to do, and what Article Five of the NATO Charter obligates them to do.
Otherwise, yes we had better re-examine the value of having treaty obligations with countries that do not honor their own obligations.
>>The Germans and (believe it or not) the French do have highly competent military organizations, and they had better get down there and do what they're paid to do<<
Phantom, in European countries the army is a tool of the government, which has to act within laws, which are in turn passed by the people's representatives.
So the armies are obviously already doing what they are paid to do.
Noel
You know what I am saying, so don't get cute.
Of course there is civilian control of the military, as there must be.
But here, France and Germany have treaty obligations to the USA that they are in breach of, or are very close to it.
The Dutch can continue to smoke hashish in their barracks. After seeing how they performed in Yugoslavia, I want them nowhere near the action.