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

Sri Lanka: The Palestinian Story Outshines Flattery and Triumphalism

Germany: Trump Is Flying Low

Pakistan: Israel Bent on Sabotaging Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan

South Korea: The CIA and Its Covert ‘Regime Change’ Operations

Topics

Poland: Trump Ends the Slaughter, Netanyahu’s Problems Remain*

Canada: Carney Is Losing the Trade War

Australia: Benjamin Netanyahu Has Rejected ‘Bibi-Sitting’ Claims but the US Is Watching Israel Closely

Australia: As South-East Asia Reels from Tariffs, Donald Trump’s Flashy ‘Peace’ Deal Falls Short

South Africa: Israel-Palestine Conflict: The Shaky Ceasefire Is Still a Pivotal Window of Opportunity

South Africa: Trump’s ‘Self-Styled Pragmatism’ Closing the Door on Ukraine

Related Articles

Germany: Donald Trump vs. James Comey: A Legal Vendetta

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?