NATO HOLDS BACK

by RAY FLEMING
THE refusal of several leading member nations of Nato to commit forces to Afghanistan is politically embarrassing and militarily dangerous. At a high–level meeting in Brussels yesterday France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Turkey cited ”differing rules of engagement among Nato forces” as one reason why they will not be able to reinforce the Nato force of 18'000 already in Afghanistan to which Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark are the main contributors. France and Italy can claim that they are taking a major role in the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon but before the other Nato members, among them also Poland and Norway, are criticised it is important to recognise what an unsatisfactory mission Nato is undertaking in Afghanistan. When Nato involvement was agreed in 2004 the task was defined as being to ”concentrate on those activities that will most clearly assist the government of Afghanistan in its drive to establish the sustainable economic growth on which the future of the country depends”. Both Tony Blair and the then Defence minister John Reid gave the impression that the mission was more ”hearts and minds” than a close encounter with a resurgent Taliban. In fact the military task is proving harder than anything undertaken in Iraq. PP It is not unreasonable for Nato countries to ask for a new and honest mission statement which makes absolutely clear what is now involved in Afghanistan before they decide whether or not to commit their forces there.