Thursday, September 14, 2006

NATO culminates?

Culminate is a strong word in this line of work. Let's look at it up close.
cul·mi·nate Pronunciation (klm-nt)
v.intr. cul·mi·nat·ed, cul·mi·nat·ing, cul·mi·nates
a. To reach the highest point or degree; climax: habitual antagonism that culminated in open hostility.
b. To come to completion; end: Years of waiting culminated in a tearful reunion.
In military terms, it can often be seen as a high-water mark. A point where a force has lost its ability to advance.

Now, read this.
Nato member states have refused to send any reinforcements for the mission in Afghanistan despite appeals from the organisation's leaders for 2,500 extra troops to fight Taliban insurgents.

The delay will be seen as a further sign that most countries are reluctant to commit troops to the south of Afghanistan, where pitched battles between militants and British and Canadian forces have resulted in the deaths of more than 30 British troops.
There is a lot more to this than in this article. What happened is that General Jones had a "come to Jesus" meeting with all of NATO; in effect to say, "We need help, now. Our people are dying." No one offered anything. Look at this map.

Notice what troops are where. Notice where the fighting is (RC South, and RC East). Have we reached the point that only English speakers will die for NATO? Is that a fair alliance? Is this what you get for keeping (most of) them safe from Communism? At least Poland will try to step in some, after the fact. Maybe. They have a history of helping.

Senator Kerry aside, there are huge problems when you are going to rely on nations that have more in common with the Elector of Bavaria at Blenheim that the Thin Red Line in the Crimea.

This is gut check time NATO, and from what I see, you have a yellow stain running down your pants.

No comments: