ON Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush met with leaders of NATO-member countries to discuss “future alliance in Iraq”. This development proves only one thing and that is, U.S. involvement in Iraq shall remain long after the outcome of the January 30 elections that was held there.
See Chicago Tribune News Report Here.
In connection with the above stated development, Heads of State and Government of the 26-nation North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are set to convene on a summit to be held today, February 22 in Brussels to discuss future involvement of the transatlantic body in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans region.
This report would lead observers to ponder upon the significance of the Iraqi Elections. Was it held merely for show? Will the U.S. Military aim to put a rigid clamp on Iraq through a puppet administration?
We are reminded easily that there was a widespread call, especially within the United Nations, that U.S. Military should make a clean pullout from Iraq in the earliest possible time and pull out cleanly. As a response to this insistent clamor, the first popular voting in Iraq was held for the first time ever since we could remember.
Now we realize, George is not yet done with Iraq after all.
The extended entry of NATO to the Iraq scene may complicate matters considering that many European countries that are members of the expanded 1949 treaty have nothing to do with the conflict in the first place and what is apparent to this move would be the flight of NATO away from its original purpose of joint defense and cooperation. NATO was formed by the United States and a handful of European states in 1949 with the aim of thwarting any possibility of threat in the Atlantic region, from such perceived threat of a Hitler-like juggernaut and from the communist bloc headed by the now defunct U.S.S.R. If NATO steps into the Iraq dilemma of President Bush, it will be contradicting itself in the face and wide in front of the eyes of keen world observers.
To think, there is one messy side to this plan of a more NATO involvement. Turkey is a NATO member while at the same time it has existing claims over some oil-rich territories in northern Iraq. In essence, a territorial dispute exists between Iraq and Turkey. If NATO comes deep into the fray, would it not be serving a unique interest of its own member?
The transatlantic community serious involvement in Iraq may matters worst and hideous divisions may grow that could impel long-lasting antagonism between the West represented by the United States and NATO countries on one side and the East represented by countries like Iraq, Iran and China on another.
The United States and NATO should not be thinking of “future alliance” in Iraq. Instead, it should find a way on how to come out from Iraq and come clean real fast.
What’s On Your Mind?
See Chicago Tribune News Report Here.
In connection with the above stated development, Heads of State and Government of the 26-nation North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are set to convene on a summit to be held today, February 22 in Brussels to discuss future involvement of the transatlantic body in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans region.
This report would lead observers to ponder upon the significance of the Iraqi Elections. Was it held merely for show? Will the U.S. Military aim to put a rigid clamp on Iraq through a puppet administration?
We are reminded easily that there was a widespread call, especially within the United Nations, that U.S. Military should make a clean pullout from Iraq in the earliest possible time and pull out cleanly. As a response to this insistent clamor, the first popular voting in Iraq was held for the first time ever since we could remember.
Now we realize, George is not yet done with Iraq after all.
The extended entry of NATO to the Iraq scene may complicate matters considering that many European countries that are members of the expanded 1949 treaty have nothing to do with the conflict in the first place and what is apparent to this move would be the flight of NATO away from its original purpose of joint defense and cooperation. NATO was formed by the United States and a handful of European states in 1949 with the aim of thwarting any possibility of threat in the Atlantic region, from such perceived threat of a Hitler-like juggernaut and from the communist bloc headed by the now defunct U.S.S.R. If NATO steps into the Iraq dilemma of President Bush, it will be contradicting itself in the face and wide in front of the eyes of keen world observers.
To think, there is one messy side to this plan of a more NATO involvement. Turkey is a NATO member while at the same time it has existing claims over some oil-rich territories in northern Iraq. In essence, a territorial dispute exists between Iraq and Turkey. If NATO comes deep into the fray, would it not be serving a unique interest of its own member?
The transatlantic community serious involvement in Iraq may matters worst and hideous divisions may grow that could impel long-lasting antagonism between the West represented by the United States and NATO countries on one side and the East represented by countries like Iraq, Iran and China on another.
The United States and NATO should not be thinking of “future alliance” in Iraq. Instead, it should find a way on how to come out from Iraq and come clean real fast.
What’s On Your Mind?
0 Comments