NATO Numbers

Published in Neues Deutschland
(Germany) on 23 October 2009
by Olaf Standke (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Ron Argentati. Edited by Jessica Boesl.
The NATO nations are squabbling again. Defense Ministers attending their autumn meeting in Bratislava have been discussing the United States’ demand for a troop surge in Afghanistan just as support for the war is beginning to disappear in many NATO countries. The new NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, would prefer to bring on additional troops from allied partners as well as from the United States, and sooner rather than later.

However, enthusiasm among allied partners is sparse, especially during this time of empty treasury coffers. NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen argued yesterday that the cost of failure in Afghanistan would be far higher than the cost of sending in more troops. One could also submit the alternative: If a mere fraction of the $65 billion the United States plans to spend in Afghanistan in 2010 on military operations were spent on civilian development, it would be enough to deny the Taliban the fertile ground it uses to stay in power. For example, this program could supply farmers economic alternatives to opium production, which is currently their only source of income and simultaneously the most important source of income for radical Islamists. This is not to mention that in NATO countries, according to U.N. figures, around 10,000 people die every year due to heroin addiction. That’s five times the number of soldiers killed in action in Afghanistan over the past eight years.


NATO-Rechnungen
Von Olaf Standke


Wieder einmal wird in der NATO gefeilscht. Die Herbsttagung der Verteidigungsminister in Bratislava diskutiert die Washingtoner Forderungen nach mehr Soldaten in Afghanistan, während in vielen Mitgliedstaaten die Zustimmung zum Krieg schwindet. Der neue NATO-Oberkommandierende in Afghanistan Stanley McChrystal würde die Pakt-Verbände wie die separat operierenden US-Truppen lieber heute als morgen aufstocken. Doch die Bereitschaft der Bündnispartner zumal in Zeiten leerer Kassen ist gering. Generalsekretär Anders Fogh Rasmussen argumentierte gestern mit dem Hinweis darauf, dass die Kosten eines Scheiterns viel höher ausfallen würden als die Kosten des Einsatzes der internationalen Truppen in Afghanistan. Man könnte auch eine Gegenrechnung aufmachen: Schon ein Bruchteil der allein von den USA für das Jahr 2010 veranschlagten 65 Milliarden Dollar Kriegsetat würde ausreiche, um die zivile Entwicklung im Lande so voranzutreiben, dass den Taliban der Nährboden entzogen wird. Etwa durch nachhaltige wirtschaftliche Alternativen für die immer weiter steigende Opiumproduktion, die für Hunderttausende Afghanen einzige Existenzgrundlage ist und zugleich die wichtigste Geldquelle der radikalen Islamisten. Ganz davon abgesehen, dass in den NATO-Staaten laut UN-Angaben jedes Jahr rund 10 000 Menschen am Heroinkonsum sterben, fünf Mal mehr, als Soldaten der Militärallianz seit 2001 in Afghanistan gefallen sind.


This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

El Salvador: The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues

Germany: We Should Take Advantage of Trump’s Vacuum*

Austria: Donald Is Disappointed in Vladimir

Austria: If This Is Madness, There is a Method to It

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Topics

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Guatemala: Fanaticism and Intolerance

Venezuela: China: Authoritarianism Unites, Democracy Divides

Israel: Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias: Congress Opens Investigation into Wikipedia

Related Articles

Germany: Unfortunately, Reality Comes to Those Who Wait

Germany: A Software for Authoritarian Restructuring

Russia: The Issue of Weapons Has Come to the Forefront*

Germany: Can Donald Trump Be Convinced To Remain Engaged in Europe?

Germany: Friedrich Merz’s Visit to Trump Succeeded because It Didn’t Fail