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

Germany: Tactically Right, Morally Clear

South Africa: Saudi Arabia Signing ‘Abraham Accords’ Spells Doom for Palestinians

Japan: Argument for Dissolution of the ICC: The US Administration Is Wrongfully Exerting Pressure

South Korea: Approving Saudi Uranium Enrichment and Imposing Tariffs: The US Hits a Nerve

India: The new Middle East Calculus: Trump’s Israel Condition Threatens US-Saudi Nuclear Deal

Topics

Austria: Déjà-vu in Gaza: The Latest Plan Won’t Work Either

India: The new Middle East Calculus: Trump’s Israel Condition Threatens US-Saudi Nuclear Deal

Egypt: Bibi Goes to Washington Again: This Time, Washington Sets the Terms

Nigeria: Trump’s Commendation, NSA and War Against Terror

South Korea: Approving Saudi Uranium Enrichment and Imposing Tariffs: The US Hits a Nerve

Poland: Trump Won’t Back Down in His Global Trade War

Japan: Argument for Dissolution of the ICC: The US Administration Is Wrongfully Exerting Pressure

Saudi Arabia: Washington’s Smartest Move Is To Keep Israel out of the War

Related Articles

Guatemala: The Return of Nationalism

Germany: Trump’s Fatal Signal to Putin*

Austria: Trump Punishes Merz but Also Weakens His Own Country

South Korea: Trump’s Move To Cut Troops in Germany Must Not Affect Korean Peninsula

Poland: Polish PM Donald Tusk Questions US Loyalty in Financial Times, Targeting Both Parties