Shows what's important here: Obama won the support he wanted from NATO

[denem]

The new US strategy was welcomed and adopted. Europe committed 5000 additional (short-term) troops and $600 million in funds. Obama brokered a deal with Turkey to appoint the Danish PM as head of NATO, which threatened to derail the meeting. It's posted in LBN, but posters are more concerned with John Edward's mistress.

[FrenchieCat]

1. You are guilty of keeping the right perspective!

J'accuse! LOL!

[SurfingScientist]

2. $600? I know we Germans are frugal, but not THAT uptight ;-) (n/t)

[elleng]

3. CHEAP!

.

[denem]

5. Fixed.

[elleng]

23. Much better!

(depending on one's perspective.)

[ShortnFiery]

6. Whaat? 600 million ? :( It will be pissed away - no good will come of OCCUPATIONS.. nt

[denem]

8. It's a big number, however you look at it.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Yes, mostly spent to buck up our Military Industrial Complex with weapons of DEATH and

DESTRUCTION. Pissed away for killing machines and pretty weapons. :(

[ShortnFiery]

4. 5000 troops?!?

:eyes: Soon we won't have that many in "the coalition" when the Taliban steps up their Spring Offensive. :(

Don't worry though, although EVERY OTHER COUNTRY will pull out of the deal within a year or two, the Taliban (natives) are hunkering down and not going anywhere ... and sadly, neither are we (US Military).

[denem]

7. considering how unpopular any troops were with European electorates,

it was a political success. I am not debating the merits of the war in Afghanistan. I can't see much prospect of improvement in the ordinary lives of Afghans, but there are plenty of deaths being racked up.

[ShortnFiery]

11. They won't be there long. The people will remind their leaders, unlike the USA, the leaders are

forced to LISTEN to the discontent of their populace.

[GeorgeGist]

25. Hooray?

Political success trumps reason!

[Peacetrain]

12. I believe this with all my heart.. they are going to get bin laden..

with the help of the locals.. we are out of there, the UN will step it up somewhat, and we will pour money into whatever government is in charge (can be good or bad) but once we have bin ladens carcass.. we are history.

The reason I think that, is because Obama has had that as his missions' end for the last two years. He has a point where the mission is done. Get Bin Laden, we are gone

[ShortnFiery]

18. Pay attention to the daily drones that are sent in to bomb villages in Pakistan, IF Bin Laden

is alive, he won't be found. Our "illustrious" air strikes have killed MANY MORE innocents than the evil Taliban.

I'm depressed because I'm old enough to remember Vietnam where my brother almost gave his life. A friend of mines son is going to Afghanistan. He's just recovered from almost having his arm blown off by an IED in Iraq. It required five operations to set him right ... now he's going to Afghanistan to kill and die for The Military Industrial Complex.

But nobody gives a shit because they either aren't military veterans or don't have family and/or friends whose KIDS are being repeatedly sent back to those HELL HOLES of the Middle East.

No, I'm both depressed and disgusted with the lack of concern by the lion's share of Americans.

ONLY when we are in dire straights financially, will the Political Ruling Class permit Obama to pull our troops out of the M.E.

Only FINANCES will make the difference, and that's beyond SAD. :(

[polichick]

I agree that THIS president actually intends to get bin Laden.

[Romulox]

9. I thought an attack on one NATO country was to be treated as an attack on all?

None of NATO allies (save Britain and Canada) have treated the war in Afghanistan that way. :shrug:

[Peacetrain]

13. Actually the Afghanistan Mission was completely a UN mission..

We had only 15% of boots on the ground there.. the other 85% were international forces when we went in

[Romulox]

16. Er, that is a related, but separate issue.

And I sincerely doubt your number holds up over the course of the past 8 years... :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

14. That's because of what Bush did.......

and how that galvanized the people of the respective countries; made them dead set against helping the United States.

President Obama's accomplishment, considering, as to what he got out of NATO is nothing short of spectacular. They didn't have to give him anything, knowing whatever it was that they would support would get a lot of heat in their countries.

Good going President! And fuck the media and this "glass 1/2 empty" routine. Our press is on my last nerves with their negative spin on everything that this President does. They should be hanging their collective heads in shame, with all of the assistance they provided the last President in totally fucking everything up.

Thank goodness for a new reasonable well informed and cool as a cucumber President. We'd be totally fucked without him, far as I'm concerned.

[Romulox]

17. Right. But either the countries have an obligation under NATO, or they do not.

Are you arguing that the US should decide on a case by case basis whether to honor our NATO obligations if another NATO "ally" is attacked?

If so, what good is NATO?

[FrenchieCat]

21. I think they have contributed.....and the bigger question is how much,

not whether they should.

The point is that Bush soured everyone on helping the US,
something that should have never happened.
Folks don't appreciate getting kicked in the ass,
while being told what to do.
Alliances are only as good as those who participate in them.
So yes, Bush almost made NATO obsolete by demanding much,
while going off in a totally wrong direction.
Approach is 1/2 of everything. Bush got it wrong,
and has forced President Obama to make it right again.

[TankLV]

26. ya got that right...

that's why I not only don't watch the whore media much anymore, but also tend to stay away from DU for stretches...

[denem]

15. Given that Bin Laden is/was married to Mullah Omar's daughter

you can mount a case that Al-Qaeda was a coalition partner in the Taliban government, but the NATO allies take the view that Al-Qaeda is/was a non state actor, including the United States by designating them enemy combatants.

[Romulox]

19. If our NATO allies agree with your analysis, then why committ ANY troops at all?

Sounds like having it both ways.

:shrug:

[Aloha Spirit]

20. In Afghanistan we are helping build security for the Afghan people, protecting our citizens

and defending the values of freedom, democracy and human rights. Our common security is closely tied to the stability and security of Afghanistan and the region: an area of the world from where extremists planned attacks against civilian populations and democratic governments and continue to plot today. Through our UN-mandated mission, supported by our International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners, and working closely with the Afghan government, we remain committed for the long-run to supporting a democratic Afghanistan that does not become, once more, a base for terror attacks or a haven for violent extremism that destabilises the region and threatens the entire International Community. For this reason Afghanistan remains the Alliance’s key priority.

-NATO declaration, 4/4/09

[denem]

22. More or less the Truman Doctrine with a UN mandate.

I am always surprised at how little attention is given to the Truman Doctrine, the cornerstone of US policy since 1947. The US claims the right to intervene economically and militarily to protect it's 'vital interests', with or without UN approval. It has never accepted that international law limits such an extensive ambit claim to do whatever it deems necessary.

[mix]

24. No, he did not.

Obama wanted combat troops. The Europeans refused. Our President's popularity in Europe is tremendous, but not enough to convince people there to send their sons and daughters to die.

Think about it.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Obama wasn't supposed to get what he got.....

because 600 billion and 5,000 bodies in Afghanistan is something, even if you don't think so.

Think about it.

[biopowertoday]

29. you are right. also. And the non combat troops we got are very temporary

[BelgianMadCow]

28. He said jump, the next attack is equally, if not MORE likely to be here (in Europe)

and we said how high. Belgium was among the first to pledge troops, I'm so proud.

Sorry but I feel a bit queasy. Even when it is brought by an eloquent and savvy politician, fearmongering is still fearmongering.

[mix]

30. Which is why NATO countries want a diplomatic solution here

and have refused more combat troops. More war promises to breed more hatred and instability. THAT creates terrorism.