Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 30, 2007
NATO Defeat in Afghanistan

Every evening throughout World War II radio stations in Germany read out the "Forces Bulletin." A daily success report with a series of victories here, accomplishments there and lots of heroic deeds.

The victorious wording never really changed but the locations did. People marked those places on their maps. After Stalingrad they found that each announced victory on the eastern front happened further west than yesterday’s victory.

The described heroic deeds became defensive. Some Sergeant got decorated for stopping a big infantry attack single handed, a commander was lauded for rescuing his crew out of a burning tank.

Despite the positive language, the negative content could easily be detected.

Reading the Air Force May 28 airpower summary for Afghanistan, the similarity is striking:

[I]n Garmsir, French M-2000 Mirages dropped guided bomb unit-12s on enemy targets and escorted a coalition convoy. Other Mirages provided a show of force with multiple flares in the area. The drops and shows of force were reported as successful.

An attack on a convoy?

Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided shows of force, releasing flares to help ground forces withdraw from an area in Gardez. The F-15Es stayed with the ground forces until they had reached a forward operating base. They experienced no attacks while the aircraft were escorting them.

Troops had to withdraw(!) to their base?

An Air Force B-1B Lancer executed shows of force, releasing flares to support a medical evacuation in Asadabad. There were no attacks reported after the show of force. The Lancer also conducted a show of presence for a convoy on a coalition route in the area.

A medical evacuation – why? No attacks after(!) the show of force? What happened before?

Another B-1 showed force with flares to break up a developing riot in Farah. The show of force was called successful. They also performed shows of presence over a highway in the area.

Why was a riot developing?

An Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II provided a show of force, launching flares over Orgun-E to deter enemy activity surrounding a convoy in the area. There were no reports of attacks after the show of force. The pilots stayed with the convoy until they reached their final location.

Another convoy attacked? No attacks after(!) the show of force?

An F-15E provided a show of force over Kandahar to prevent any enemy activity while a convoy was stopped for vehicle repair.

Why did the vehicle break down?

From Iraq:

In Iraq, a U.S. Marine F-18 Hornet fired multiple cannon rounds at a vehicle with mortar capabilities near Karamah. The strafing was reported successful.

The resistance now has vehicle mounted, i.e. heavy mortars?

The glorious successful shows of force above do not paint a picture of progress towards some kind of victory.

Neither does this:

According to Red Cross, bombing by U.S. forces in western Afghanistan last month destroyed or badly damaged some 170 houses and left almost 2,000 people in four villages homeless.

The Afghan tribes will kick out the current occupier just like they did again and again throughout their history.

But maybe something good might come from this.

Under U.S. pressure NATO is ever expanding its agenda and is morphing into a U.S. controlled global force of Western imperialism.

There is no public support for such a role – at least not in Europe. People can read between the lines of such success reports. Without public support, NATO will lose in any bigger conflict like it is losing in Afghanistan.

NATO must be reduced back to its original North Atlantic defensive role or it must be dissolved. The coming defeat in Afghanistan will be a great occasion to do so.

Comments

Just in – another successful show of force: NATO helicopter crashes in Afghanistan

A NATO helicopter crashed in southern
Afghanistan on Wednesday, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force said.
The big, twin-rotored Chinook military helicopter went down in southern Afghanistan, a NATO official in Brussels said, but he had no word on casualties.

Posted by: b | May 30 2007 21:00 utc | 1

Under U.S. pressure NATO is ever expanding its agenda and is morphing into a U.S. controlled global force of Western imperialism.
why is nato in afghanistan? who makes these decisions?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 30 2007 21:12 utc | 2

what our slothrop faithlessly forgets – is that all, all decisions made by the empire are made in washington
& from what we are witnessing, while they may be very good at slaughter, they are not very good at war
money might buy the bang but it doesn’t buy the border

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 30 2007 23:03 utc | 3

dc madam claims — money can not buy love… just a good massage

Posted by: dolce | May 31 2007 0:33 utc | 4

The “show of force” is making a low, high-speed pass near the convoy in an attempt to intimidate any insurgents. The flares are fired as a defensive precaution against MANPAD missiles. It looks like NATO is doing really well there.

Posted by: Lurch | May 31 2007 3:03 utc | 5

These is an easy way to bring peace and stability in Afghanistan but unfortunalty the US chose the bloodiest and most dangerouse way. Now the question raises why did the US chose the bloodiest way than the peacefull way, no body know what their exact plan is and it is always a secret. But as it is concern to peace and stablity in Afghanistan there were lots of easy and better ways.As i am from Afghanistan i know about it.

Posted by: Bary | May 31 2007 5:36 utc | 6

Remember how Göring’s airlift “reduced the need” for supply convoys into Stalingrad?

Posted by: ralphieboy | May 31 2007 5:46 utc | 7

why is nato in afghanistan? who makes these decisions?
Why is Sweden in Afghanistan? We are not even in Nato.
From when and where the swedish troops are mentioned it grows increasingly clear that their role is to provide an excuse for ever-increasing surveliance.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | May 31 2007 11:30 utc | 8

These is an easy way to bring peace and stability in Afghanistan
Bary,
just to have a reference, what is the way?

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | May 31 2007 11:47 utc | 9

From Asia Times Online: Missions impossible: NATO’s Afghan dilemma
The first quote is the central reason for NATO defeat.
Without support at home to take real risks, NATO soldiers are simply ineffective. That support is not there because the home populations just sees no need for fighting in Afghanistan at all.
Now if NATO soldiers they fight, an inappropriate emphasis on self defense is ordered. This leads to (air-)actions that result in high civil casualties. These again helps to feed the resistance.
There is no way out of this but to either take the quite high risk and casualties that comes with appropriate fighting or leave in defeat.

Beaten and ridiculed by the Taliban for teaching in a clandestine girl’s school, Shukriya Barakzai welcomed the US invasion in 2001 with an open heart and hopes for the future. Now, she wants to know just what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) thinks it is doing in Afghanistan.
“They are too worried about getting shot themselves,” the Parliament member says. “Just who are they here to protect – the Afghan people or themselves?”

“We have a very difficult series of choices to make in Afghanistan,” he says. “We have to acknowledge that we do not have the commitment, the will, the forces, the [political] intelligence or the understanding to fight a 20-year counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. For that, you would need to exert control over the local government. It worked very well for the British in British Malaya. But that was a colonial government.”

Stewart agrees, but he argues that these divisions are a prescription for disaster if there is not a drastic change in Western strategy. “It is no good having thousands of troops on the ground if they are not going to leave their bases and attempt to dominate the soil,” he says.
Until NATO and the United States decide what their real mission is, he adds, perplexed Afghans are bound to grow increasingly bitter toward foreign occupation.
“Right now, NATO soldiers are flying 10,000 miles to maneuver through Afghan villages in full body armor and a tank,” he says. “Villagers just think, ‘Yes. And the Taliban are trying to kill you, and you are insisting that you are just here to build a girl’s school?'”

Posted by: b | May 31 2007 14:06 utc | 10

NATO crumbling at an important edge: A pro-Russian Turkish general?

A retired general and former head of the National Security Council (MGK) Tuncer Kılınç, speaking at a meeting in London organized by the Kemalist Thought Association (ADD), declared that Turkey should leave NATO. He said “to emancipate us from Western hegemony and colonization Turkey should put an end to its NATO membership.” The retired general also added that the US is not Turkey’s friend or strategic ally. His speech received huge applause form the ADD crowd at the meeting.
Such a call by a Turkish general who has served at the top post of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), an armed force that has been deeply integrated into NATO structures for last 50 years, may be shocking to many. But as I wrote some two weeks ago, “it would be a mistake to assume that the military’s commitment to the Western alliance is as solid as it used to be.”

Posted by: b | May 31 2007 15:16 utc | 11

William Pfaff: NATO’s Afghan Graveyard


I said this adventure may be the beginning of the end for NATO because its European members have allowed it to become transformed from a defensive alliance of nominal equals into an auxiliary of American foreign policy, and American foreign policy since 9/11 has been disastrously misconceived, and is disintegrating in the nihilistic violence of ruined Iraq.
The best thing America’s NATO allies could do for the United States would be politely, and with reasoned explanations, end their collaboration with the military operations of the war on terror.
The United States is itself probably incapable of reversing course, even under a new president. One has only to listen to the leading presidential candidates to understand that they too are under the spell of the ideology of American global intervention to conquer Terror and Evil — even while multiplying both. Possibly Europe could deliver the shock that could save the United States from the calamity it – and NATO — confront.

Posted by: b | May 31 2007 15:46 utc | 12

another downside to moral superiority
of all the armies that have tried & failed to pacify Afghanistan, NATO is probably the best-dressed.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 1 2007 8:29 utc | 13