Stephen Harper is at a NATO summit in Latvia today. NATO is currently trying to drum up support for the mission in Afghanistan, and is in need of 2500 more troops to get the job done.

A lot of the European NATO members have troops in Afghanistan, but they're not allowed to fight. Even the war-mongers in France understand how ludicrous this concept is. French President Jacques Chirac admitted yesterday that "the Europeans have relied on their American allies for too long. They have to shoulder their share of the burden."

But if NATO can't even get 2500 troops when they need them, what exactly is the point in having NATO? Too many countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and Norway are apparently just along for the ride. They get all the benefits of NATO membership, but do none of the work. War is declared in Afghanistan, and they prepare to send in the cafeteria-crew while the other allies lose lives.

NATO's original purpose was to keep the Soviet Union at bay during the Cold War. Apparently thats where the allegiance ends as well. If NATO can't get the resources to tackle a place like Afghanistan, who in their right mind would think they could do anything about Russia today? The Soviet Union may have collapsed, but Afghanistan was a completely failed state.

I think that the time has come for NATO to consider shedding some of the fat. If a country like Spain is unwilling to fight after losing 180 of their own citizens to the savages in the Madrid train bombings, why are they a part of the treaty? It becomes abundantly clear in this context that these "allies" don't believe in fighting for anything, no matter what the threat is. So why are we watching their collective back?

Labels: Afghanistan