NATO Numbers
Published in Neues Deutschland
(Germany) on 23 October 2009
by Olaf Standke (link to original)
(Germany) on 23 October 2009
by Olaf Standke (link 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.
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.