Posted on 11/23/2004 8:35:32 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) - The top U.S. military commander in Europe criticized NATO countries who refused to provide military instructors for a training mission in Iraq, saying the result will be an increased burden on allies who are contributing.
"It's important to recognize that once the alliance gets involved in an operation, it is important that all allies support the operation," Gen. James Jones, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe said Tuesday.
He said "nine or 10 or 11" of NATO's 26 countries would not send instructors, even though they voted to approve a mission there.
"This is disturbing. I hope it is a one-time event, because it really will be a limiting factor in the long term in terms of generating forces and successive rotations," Jones said in a speech at the National Press Club.
He did not identify the countries, but France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece have refused publicly to contribute personnel. It is unlikely Iceland could provide a contribution because it has no military, although it does have technical experts who have accompanied other NATO missions.
The project to train Iraqi officers will not involve offensive combat duty and is part of a broader program aimed at creating an Iraqi security force capable of protecting the country without the need for U.S. and other foreign forces.
As designed, it would involve 400 instructors and about 1,200 troops to protect them, a State Department official said last week
The United States will bear a large share of the costs and contribute a sizable percentage of the instructors and the protective force, the official said. An advance contingent of 60 to 65 officers will go to Baghdad in four to six weeks to begin the training program.
While NATO long has played a postwar peacekeeping role in Afghanistan, many European governments and their constituencies still disapprove the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq.
The decision to use soldiers of NATO nations to train Iraqi officers is the first collective action on Iraq by the alliance, the official said, although individual NATO members have contributed troops.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking at a news conference at the Pentagon, called the refusal by certain NATO countries to send personnel a problem.
"It's kind of like if you've got a basketball team, and you have five people train together, week after week after week, it comes to be game time and two of them stick up their hands and say, 'Gee, I don't think I'm going to play this week.' It would be better if they were on the bench, and somebody else had been training for the last period of weeks," he said.
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and Commander of the U.S. European Command, General James L. Jones, holds a news conference at the National Press Club about NATO and the European Command transformation, Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Do we need NATO or can it be replaced?
NATO is out of its territorial jurisdiction. Iraq is not part of Europe. I don't know how long it is going to take for the majority, but it is becoming clear to some that we are not the most loved nation on the planet. Europe went through an ordeal of destruction and killing half a century ago and I don't think they want back for seconds.
Well if they don't want thirds (there were TWO world wars - more if you count in Napoleons efforts) they need to help defeat the Jihadists before they become a serious threat.
Bullcrap.
Socialist Europe can't stand the GOP and will do whatever they can to undermine its standing.
They would be all for this if their fellow Socialist Kerry won.
Hardore leftists are in control in France Germany and Spain.
"NATO is out of its territorial jurisdiction. Iraq is not part of Europe. I don't know how long it is going to take for the majority, but it is becoming clear to some that we are not the most loved nation on the planet. Europe went through an ordeal of destruction and killing half a century ago and I don't think they want back for seconds."
This is bulls**t! The members of NATO voted as a group to support training efforts in Iraq, including the gutless wonders who later refused to send troops to do what they said they would do in the first place. What's the point of having an "alliance" with a bunch of recalcitrant bums who never contribute anything or anyone when the s**t hits the fan? And it doesn't matter a whit whether or not the Eurabians have bad memories about WWII. Ask yourself how many Americans have died since then protecting these yellow bellies all over the world. We've lost over 200,000 servicemen dead since WWII bearing the burdens that these cowardly dogs have refused to shoulder for too damn long. We've got a lot of bad memories, too! There's really no excuse for the constant failures of the Eurabians to participate in legitimate NATO, and UN, activities, except cowardice and venality.
It's time the US stopped covering the asses of these backstabbers and get out of NATO, and the UN, too! We should only provide protection and form alliances with those countries that are willing to fully participate in our efforts. We should stop wasting blood and treasure on all others!
It moght be b-sh-t but NATO was formed to protect Europe from the Russkies. Its mission is not go over the world being a lap-dog for every war enthusiast that wants to kill somebody.
NATO died several years ago. We are in the process of building a new alliance and we have yet to find a catchy name for it. But even though we continue to call the new alliance "NATO", it is not NATO.
It shouldn't really surprise anyone. The old NATO was always an agreement that the US would defend Germany, and Germany would make their territory available for that purpose. It was never, ever, about Germany defending the US.
If anyone wants to know the makeup of our new alliance, its easy. You just look at who is physically on the ground in Iraq. Look at who offers material help for our combat operations there and in Afghanistan, and you will see some surprising names there, and some sadly unsurprising omissions.
I don't automatically include all members of ISAF, the NATO force patrolling Kabul city limits as members of the alliance; some have sent a small contingent to deflect criticism but have no real commitment to the fight. So ISAF members have to be judged one by one.
Then the cowardly SOBs should stop voting to send somebody else's kid to Iraq.
If NATO doesn't do its job, the jihadists will be in its lap the day after tomorrow.
And, in any case, which NATO members are capable of actually carrying out combat operations outside their borders?
Current euro militaries are designed for civil defense, cleaning up after a flood, crowd control, and providing extras for Spielberg specials. They are not capable of engaging in war-fighting against a committed foe who is shooting back.
What kind of an alliance is going to depend on these people?
"It moght be b-sh-t but NATO was formed to protect Europe from the Russkies. Its mission is not go over the world being a lap-dog for every war enthusiast that wants to kill somebody."
Your idiotic attitude, which I'm sure represents the thinking of all the other dhimmis in Eurabia, is exactly why the US should get out of Eurabia and let you people live with the results of your self-inflicted dhimmitude.
LOL!
Good allies are hard to find
"I don't know how long it is going to take for the majority, but it is becoming clear to some that we are not the most loved nation on the planet. Europe went through an ordeal of destruction and killing half a century ago and I don't think they want back for seconds."
Not sure of the connection between these two comments. Will you clarify for me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.