publicou no dia 24 deste mês a notícia que abaixo se transcreve, e que um amigo fez o favor de me enviar:After the collapse of its coalition cabinet, the Netherlands is set to withdraw its 2,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. That decision is an embarrassment to the Netherlands, to NATO, and to Washington at a moment when President Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy faces a crucial test.
NATO members should be looking for ways to add troops and military and police trainers in Afghanistan. The withdrawal will be a blow to the Afghan province of Oruzgan, where most of the Dutch troops have been stationed since 2006 and have earned a reputation as good fighters, sensitive to local needs and concerns.
It is possible, though unlikely, that the next Dutch government could change its mind after elections this June. For now, Washington, other NATO partners and the Dutch need to reflect on how this happened and how to contain the damage.
The Dutch cabinet fell when the Labor Party, one of the main coalition partners, refused NATO’s — and Washington’s — request to extend the Oruzgan mission for an additional year. The mission had already been extended twice before. But with Dutch casualties rising sharply and the overall effort struggling, public support evaporated and the Labor Party refused to go along.
That forced new elections, in which the main issue is likely to be not Afghanistan but the more emotional question of restricting Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. The biggest parliamentary gains are expected to go to the hate-spewing xenophobic Freedom Party, which also advocates withdrawing from Afghanistan.
Centrist parties, like Labor and Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s Christian Democrats, worry about voters defecting to Freedom. But Mr. Balkenende strongly favors keeping Dutch troops in Oruzgan to reinforce NATO and to give Mr. Obama’s strategy a chance to work. Labor chose not to get caught on the unpopular side of the issue. That seems woefully shortsighted.
We fear the Dutch decision could provide cover for wavering politicians elsewhere — Germany, for example, or Canada, which is now scheduled to pull out its troops at the end of 2011.
Europe’s leaders need to tell themselves — and their voters — the truth. The war in Afghanistan is not just about America’s security. It, too, is about denying sanctuaries to Al Qaeda, which has also carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Europe. NATO is stronger when it stands together. The Netherlands weakens itself and all of its allies by choosing to stand alone.
Independentemente das razões que assistam ao governo dos Países Baixos (ou de outros estados) para retirar as suas tropas do Afeganistão, julgo que toda a gente já percebeu há muito tempo que a decisão de invadir este país, na sequência dos ataques de 11 de Setembro de 2001, nada teve a ver com aquele evento. De facto, os aviões que chocaram com as torres do World Trade Center, o avião que, hipoteticamente se despenhou sobre o Pentágono, e um quarto avião que, ao que parece, se volatilizou, não descolaram do Afeganistão mas dos Estados Unidos. Se a sede da Al-Qaeda, a quem se atribui o ataque, estava domiciliada no Afeganistão, se ali vivia Osama bin Laden (?!), pretenso chefe daquela organização (e até hoje nunca capturado), nada prova que o referido ataque não pudesse ter sido comandado de qualquer outro país, inclusive dos EUA. Por isso, a decisão de Georges W. Bush (estúpido, mas não tanto) e da administração norte-americana foi obviamente motivada por outras razões ao atacar um país que, goste-se dele ou não, era um país independente. Aliás, foi posteriormente utilizado o mesmo figurino no Iraque, sob o pretexto da existência de armas de destruição massiva. Pairou idêntica ameaça sobre a Síria e continua em marcha todo um arsenal de propaganda relativamente ao Irão.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário