CTV News | Afghan forces need to take lead, says NATO

Top Stories -   

Afghan forces need to take lead, says NATO

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News Channel: CNN's Chris Lawrence in Kabul
A correspondent based in Afghanistan describes the debate about whether the U.S. should or should not send a more troops to the war-torn country.
CTV News Channel: Ivan Eland, security expert
U.S. General Stanley McChrystal's request for an additional 40,000 troops for the mission in Afghanistan may not be enough to make a significant enough impact.

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(8)

Photos

Slideshow image

View Larger Image

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Nov. 12 2009 7:03 PM ET

As U.S. President Barack Obama wrestles over options for Afghanistan, NATO's secretary general said Thursday the military alliance should begin handing more responsibilities over to Afghan forces.

Obama is considering whether to send tens of thousands more American troops to the war-torn country, as requested by his war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

However on Wednesday, it was reported that Obama wouldn't accept any of the proposals before him without changes.

The news, proffered by a senior administration official under the cover of anonymity, came as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry was reported to have expressed strong dissent about a troop surge, and as the war loses popular support in most NATO countries involved in the fighting.

Meanwhile on Thursday, Anders Fogh Rasmussen issued a statement after meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London. The release said the NATO head and Brown had agreed that the solution to the Afghanistan conundrum is to increase the transition to Afghan leadership.

"We can and should start next year to hand lead responsibility to Afghan forces in a co-ordinated way through NATO where conditions permit," Fogh Rasmussen said in the statement.

Brown also said this week that heavy-lifting responsibilities in the volatile southern Helmand province -- where the lion's share of Britain's troops are stationed -- could get underway as early as June.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also maintains that a handover in the south should begin soon.

But confidence in Afghan leadership is at a low point, following a presidential election debacle rife with violence and widespread corruption and allegations of vote rigging.

Eikenberry, Obama's ambassador to the country, warned recently that a troop surge should not be considered unless there are improvements in the government's performance.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also worries about corruption and a "lack of transparency" in Afghanistan, she said Wednesday in Manila.

"We're looking to President Karzai as he forms a new government to take action that will demonstrate -- not just to the international community but first and foremost to his own people -- that his second term will respond the needs that are so manifest," Clinton said during a news conference.

Obama is still expected to send more troops to Afghanistan, but the 40,000 he was earlier expected to send is now in doubt.

During meetings Wednesday he called for revisions to draft strategies to ensure there is clarity around how and when responsibilities would be handed over to the Afghan government.

Canada's military commitment to Afghanistan is scheduled to end in 2011. It's not clear whether troops will remain in the country to focus on non-combat roles.

With files from The Associated Press

Comments are now closed for this story

GHW
said
0 0

The problem is much of the Afghan culture and forces are opportunistic and even if they were reasonably above corruption are not likely up to the task, never were and never will be. We should never have gone in there like this and the longer we stay the more painful it will be pulling out. Stay out of the Middle East! Whose bright idea was it to go in there and nation build?I for one can’t wait for the day when we won’t have to be led around like puppets by big American corporate interests. Like the mob they keep a low profile but anyone who thinks it isn’t happening on a grand scale is deluded. Follow the money.


I. M . Wright
said
0 0

How does one spell NATO?L-O-S-E-R-S.


Michel (Ottawa)
said
0 0

Hey I.M. Wright....U. R. Atwit.


Larry in Wpg
said
0 0

It seems memories are short. In 2001, the Taliban were allowing/running training camps to train people to attack the West. We were included in their plans for death and destruction. They had a safe haven from which to operate. This is no longer the case. While the action in Afghanistan may not have been run in the best way and the local government is not up to our standards, is anyone going to seriously say it was better for Canada before ? How about for the Afghanistan population ? Anyone remember public executions in soccer fields ? Girls not allowed to attend school ? It is easy for those of us sitting in Canada to have our opinions as to the validity of the NATO action. I think a good indicator is the opinions of the military personnel involved in the action. From what I have read and heard, support for the mission is pretty much unanimous amongst the people on the ground there.


Tono
said
0 0

NATO is an archaic organisation. We don't need it today. Well, the United States needs it, but Canada doesn't.


Doug @ BC
said
0 0

I have a lot of time for those who offer ideas about how the mission in Afghanistan could have been better done.And I can even muster up some sympathy for those who suggest it was a bad idea to begin with.I don't agree that this was the wrong mission,or that both NATO and the UN should have ignored the human rights abuses going on there.Sitting here in Canada,fat dumb and happy,with most of our human rights not in serious jeopardy,it is far to easy to ignore the plight of others when a mission like this doesn't go as well as we had hoped.I hope all those who suggest we should all just pull up stakes,and abandon the people of Afghanistan are prepared to live with the fact than many atrocities will occur after we're gone and we will have another enemy of the west for generations to come.And also,those who think this is none of our business,must be prepeared to sit down and shut up when it comes to whining about human rights anywhere in the world.If you don't have the stomach to "walk the walk",you can't run around "talking the talk".Canadian arrogance and self rightousness are becoming our worst traits. And finally,"Tono" should know all to well,that Canada needs NATO far more than any other member.The EU will unite in a crisis.THe USA will remain a power broker for a long time.If we are not in NATO,we stand alone.I do not see a day when a nation so sparsely populated,and with such a small economy,can remain free and sovereign without allies.NATO gives us allies other than the USA.I concede it needs fixing,but if it's gone,who are Canada's allies???


Bill in BC
said
0 0

It would seem that some people need to get a real education as opposed to that gained at Joseph Stalin University. NATO is more important now than ever before.Before spouting nonsense, learn a little.


The weaklings mewling and puking about NATO.
said
0 0

NATO is finished.

USA will have to commit war criminal imperialistic aggression without NATO as cover story.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz