It Makes You Wonder

I grew up during the height of the cold war. I remember doing "duck and cover" drills in the hall of my first elementary school. A dubious exercise at best since there were large glass skylights in the hallways there. But we were always told that we were not alone. We were part of a bigger organization: NATO. If the Soviets attacked, it would be all of Western Europe that would stand with us. A mutual stand against an invasion or aggression, not just the US alone. An attack on one of us would be considered an attack on all of us. We would all respond as one.

Now NATO is even larger than it was then, More nations have been admitted to the venerable North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Yet, the alliance cannot seem to meet the commitments it has made. So it is that forces in Afghanistan are pushed to the limit because no reinforcements are at hand.

BRUSSELS — More than a week after NATO's top leaders publicly demanded reinforcements for their embattled mission in southern Afghanistan, only one member of the 26-nation alliance has offered more troops, raising questions about NATO's largest military operation ever outside of Europe and the goal of expanding its global reach.

The plea for more soldiers and equipment to fight a resurgent Taliban insurgents comes as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's forces are suffering the highest casualty rates of the nearly five-year-long conflict in Afghanistan, and as European governments are feeling stretched by the demands for troops there and in Iraq, Lebanon, the Balkans and in several African countries.

"NATO's credibility and future are at stake in Afghanistan," said Pierre Lellouche, president of the French delegation in NATO's parliamentary assembly. "They can't fail, otherwise NATO will lose its credibility."

"It's our most important mission, it's our first priority," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in an interview at his office here, describing the ongoing combat with the Taliban in southern Afghanistan as "the most intense battle NATO has fought in its history."

Some members of the alliance complain that others are not contributing enough soldiers or equipment, leaving a handful of countries shouldering most of the burden for a high-stakes mission that is becoming increasingly treacherous.

Though no members have criticized others by name, eight of the 26 countries are providing more than three-fourths of the alliance's 20,000 troops now in Afghanistan. Many members are providing fewer than 200 troops. Poland, for example, has contributed only 10 soldiers to the mission, according to NATO officials, although it pledged last week to send about 1,000 more.

There are a lot of excuses coming out of the member states right now. Too many commitments in Bosnia, too much else going on. Risk is more than we thought. Cost is too high. Iraq is draining too many resources. The excuses are endless, the dodging of treaty responsibilities endless. The hiding behind excuses apparently bottomless. The commitment: negligible.

It makes one wonder. Would we really have been able to stand off an invasion of Western Europe? Not because of lack of talent or ability on the part of the NATO soldiers, but because of the failure of will of their governments.

It makes you wonder.