Please Sir, can NATO have more?

NATO is still asking another 2,500 troops for Afghanistan and, with one exception, the member states are still saying no. The exception is Latvia which has managed to find 20 troops (yes, twenty, two- zero). It would be laughable if the consequences were not potentially so serious.

At a time when NATO's Operation Medusa is making some progress recapturing territory from Taliban terrorists it would be tragic if ultimately the bravery of the troops involved would be rendered pointless through the cowardice of the majority of NATO's member states.

This blog makes no apologies for repeatedly asking the question, what is the point of a military alliance in which the majority of governments will not commit their military forces? Joining an alliance should not mean a complete surrender of responsibility to other countries but a sharing of that responsibility with other countries. That is not happening. Some NATO countries are content to leave the fighting completely to a handful of others and turn a deaf ear when asked to play a part; others play only a token part, sending forces to an area but keeping them out of combat. The full burden of fighting and dying falls on the military of a minority: in Afghanistan, notably the USA, the UK, Canada and Netherlands.

NATO has perhaps outlived whatever usefulness it ever had, if any, and has increasingly become a mésalliance between those willing to defend the west and those willing for others to defend the west. Time for a divorce.