Whoops! Either you need Flash, or I screwed something up. -Blue Steel

NATO urged to plan Afghanistan exit strategy as violence soars

OK, now I grasped why the hatred for George Bush prompted many European countries to refuse helping in Iraq, but what good reason could there be for NATO to stop helping in Afghanistan?

What is the problem here? Is it because the Taliban and Islamic extremists are re-exerting power that has NATO thinking it's time to leave? Because the decision to leave certainly wouldn't be based on progress in Afghanistan. The Taliban have regrouped, and the Taliban were internationally recognized evildoers (pardon the expression). What's the deal? What am I missing?
Quote:
NATO's fragile unity over Afghanistan has begun to crack ahead of an important summit - with one public call to discuss an exit strategy from the Allied forces' bloody confrontation with the Taliban.

While heads of government are to make a show of unity over Afghanistan at tomorrow's alliance summit in Riga, Belgium's Defence Minister has questioned the future of Nato's most important mission.

And heads of the alliance's 26 nations are unlikely to agree to send reinforcements to Afghanistan - dealing a blow to Tony Blair's hopes that others will take up more of the increasingly heavy burden.

In the bloodiest day of violence to grip the country in many weeks, a series of fierce clashes between Nato forces and Taliban fighters and a suicide bombing left 76 people dead and more than 45 injured yesterday, many of them children.

Though Belgium only makes a small military contribution to the Nato mission, the Minister's comments will alarm senior figures at the alliance's headquarters where there is already concern that France is getting cold feet about its role in Afghanistan. Paris has remained publicly committed to the mission but Nato sources are concerned about the possibility of an eventual French withdrawal. They are pressing for an enhanced UN profile in Afghanistan to reassure the French who are suspicious about an expanded role for Nato because of Washington's hold over the alliance.
Read more here...
  • November 28, 2006
  • AddThis Social Bookmark Button
This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
Subscribe for updates
Click here to manage subscription