Now that the majority of NATO countries have totally failed in providing adequate troop resources in Afghaniastan . Should it be replaced by something else ?

To be fair, it (NATO) was designed to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe . It's current exploration in becoming a European /Asian military policeman seems to be half hearted in that the majority of nations that makeup its membership don't want to play an active role . If that's the case ,The UK for one needs to restructure and reallocate financial resources to compensate for our European brothers pitiful weakness and total lack of understanding with regards to the consequences of their actions
The bedrock of our security in Europe is NATO at present . But if the majority of NATO countries don't understand the reasons for creating a stable and secure Afghanistan . Then I say NATO is another UN ...............A toothless tiger !

Nato nations refuse to commit more troops
By David Rennie in Brussels and George Jones, Political Editor


(Filed: 14/09/2006)



Nato member states have refused to send any reinforcements for the mission in Afghanistan despite appeals from the organisation's leaders for 2,500 extra troops to fight Taliban insurgents.
The delay will be seen as a further sign that most countries are reluctant to commit troops to the south of Afghanistan, where pitched battles between militants and British and Canadian forces have resulted in the deaths of more than 30 British troops.
Tony Blair said yesterday that Nato countries had a "duty" to respond to the call by the alliance's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, for more forces.
Germany, France, Spain and Turkey have been mentioned as countries that could do more.
The Prime Minister said British forces were fighting "in difficult circumstances and fighting brilliantly". He said the September 11 terror attacks came out of Afghanistan.
"The Taliban and al-Qa'eda training camps were the reason we went there and it is of fundamental importance to the security of this country, never mind the world, that we make sure the job is done properly," he said.
The plight of British troops, who are taking the brunt of Taliban attacks in Helmand province, was underlined by Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister, who told the Commons foreign affairs committee that he had spoken to the commander of the Nato forces in Afghanistan, Lt Gen David Richards, and it was clear back-up was needed.
"We need Nato to be pulling its weight. They need to put more resources in there," Mr Howells said.
Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, said Afghanistan could "come back to haunt us" if the West once again allowed it to become a failed state. Referring to a US decision to give the country a lower foreign policy priority after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989, Miss Rice said, "We all came to pay for that."
A Nato spokesman said there were "positive indications" that some allies might consider providing additional forces but it could take until a meeting of Nato defence ministers in a fortnight in Slovenia to finalise offers.
Nato's American military commander, Gen James Jones, has expressed concern that delays in reinforcements would allow insurgents to slip back to regroup.
Although Nato officers maintain that the 13-day-old Operation Medusa, led by the Canadians in one section of Kandahar province, is close to achieving its military objectives, Taliban attacks in Kandahar and Helmand have surprised Nato troops and dragged the alliance into its first major land battles since it was founded in 1949 to defend Europe from Soviet attack.
Gen Jones last week made a very public demand for up to 2,500 new troops, shortly after returning from what officials said was a sobering inspection visit to Afghanistan.
There are 20,000 troops in the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and another 15,000 US troops conducting Operation Enduring Freedom, launched to free Afghanistan from Taliban rule after September 11.
Mr de Hoop Scheffer has remarked that some nations in quieter parts of the country should head south, particularly the Germans, and broaden rules of engagement. Behind closed doors, Nato is witnessing fierce debates about why the alliance is not following up military victories on the ground with the swift deployment of teams to dig village wells, or build bridges.
Espen Barth Eide, the Norwegian secretary for defence, said his nation — which has 500 troops in Afghanistan — was actively considering sending more as the stakes were far too high to allow the international community to fail.

It's designed in the spirit of the post WWII era. Which, in essance is over. Intended to stop something like Germany from happening again and to stop the Soviets from launching convensional war. We'll that's largely a concept of the past two. If it was the Russian's barking across the Ukraine at us, then I think we would feel more pride and validity in our "ultra" powerful alliances of WWII and soon there after.

Now though, we seem to be facing the modern masters of Sun Tzu teachings, which are of course all about not being found and disecting the enemy.....from a point of appearing entirely rag tag and disorganized. Once we learn how to fight this war, NATO maybe will be useful in it......who's not useless at this kind of war right now...from the west that is.

__________________
Humans, a renewable resource?
Bumble Bees Die to sting you

I agree with you, NATO's problem (and for that matter the U.S.'s as well) is this is a different conflict that we're used to. And we're not fighting it right. It's time to take off the gloves and play harder. NATO has teeth (unlike the UN) they're just not chewing right.

__________________
"We do not negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business." - Scott McClellan

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over" - Gen William T. Sherman

NATO in fairness has moved much faster in military terms then the UN.. Problem with NATO is that politics seems to be increasing in stature for deployments.... the old school seems to be on the way out...

as NATO was formed to fight the communists and stop it from spreading to western europe...its not a hard change to say now we will use it to fight terrorism certian countries in nato should be ashamed of themselves as far as their comitment to afghanistan goes germany france italy..these are powerful nations as far as milatry...but texas is right....they are half hearted troop deployments

All countries should stay away from the temptation of looking inward in todays world... its dangerous... Ireland is Neutral country, with Neurtrality as part of our government policy since the foundation of the state.... however, we have a large portion of our professional Army abroad on UN committment in over 83 contries.... any more after the new Lebannon, and we would comprimise our own national security... Why cant other countries see that in order for order to be restored in the world and the bad guys to be checked.... we need the good countries to committ its troops in the defence of weaker nations..... we are tiny..... others are huge..... the approach should be the same...

your geolocigal position gives you some serious advantages.. when it comes to war..

Toothless tigers still have claws.

I blame the Swiss.

__________________
We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish. It is vain to look for present aid. We must now act or abandon all hope! Rally to the standard, and be no longer the scoff of mercenary tongues! Be men, be free men, that your children may bless their father's name. - Sam Houston

Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee

lol....blame the swiss,NATO isnt a thoothless tiger in my opinion although some members are....theres a few countries and theirs no need to name them ...that are fully comitted to the cause....kick out the french as someone used to tell me...get busy or go home