I wonder why the Times didn't cover it?
It's their paper that reported it:
"NATO pleads for more troops for Afghanistan campaign; Boost is sought in commitments" by Judy Dempsey/International Herald Tribune October 23, 2007
[I thought we were winning?]
BRUSSELS - Under intense pressure from Taliban insurgents based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and short of the troops needed for victory, NATO again is pleading with member states to step up their commitments, casting the fight in Afghanistan as vital for global security.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, secretary general of NATO, urged the alliance's members to stay the course, saying it was now entering the most difficult phases of the Afghan campaign.
de Hoop Scheffer, Friday in an interview at NATO headquarters in Brussels:
"If we do not prevail, the consequences for the public in Europe will be dire. The security of Afghanistan is directly linked to your and my security and that is the message we have not yet been able to get across."
[Why, you lying fucker?
'Cause they will COME HERE?
Bullshit!!!
They want to be LEFT ALONE, asshole!!!!!]
His plea for national governments to explain to their constituents why Afghanistan is so important reflects increasing frustration inside the 26-member alliance.
Military commanders complain that they lack enough equipment and soldiers. NATO diplomats want Pakistan to clean out the havens Taliban and Qaeda fighters have established. Last week, commanders in Afghanistan said insurgents had attacked NATO forces with weapons from Iran.
[There they go again!]
There is also resentment by some countries over what is seen as a lack of NATO solidarity. Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States do most of the fighting, while other big countries, including Germany, keep their forces in the comparatively safe northern region of Kunduz.
[Is the "alliance" splitting?
Finger-pointing and back-biting?]
All in all, alliance officials see a bleak picture in Afghanistan, where in 2003 NATO took over the International Security Assistance Force in its first mission outside Europe. Since then, the mission, at least in the south of the country, has been transformed from peacekeeping and security to a high-level combat operation with casualties on both sides.
[WTF?!?! I was told we were WINNING?!
I was told you could play golf in Kabul!
I am TIRED of BEING LIED TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Since the mission began, 644 NATO and US troops have been killed. Human rights organizations say thousands of Afghans, including many civilians, have died. NATO forces have also swelled in number, from about 5,000 in 2003 to more than 41,000, including 7,000 US counterterrorism forces.
[And they STILL NEED MORE?!
It's TIME to COME HOME, folks, and STOP KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE who want to be LEFT ALONE!!!!]
de Hoop Scheffer said there were still substantial gaps in the forces promised by member states:
"We are now in the most difficult phase in Afghanistan. The forces have still not been completely filled."
De Hoop Scheffer, who tends to be optimistic, appeared preoccupied with the immense task he faces as NATO defense ministers meet this week in the Netherlands. He will ask the ministers to provide more troops for Afghanistan, but he can already anticipate the response.
de Hoop Scheffer: "The pressure on the armed forces is growing and growing."
[I'm sensing the pungent, wafting shitstinking aroma of a DRAFT, kiddies!!!!]
He counted out the areas to which defense ministers are being asked to send troops: Afghanistan, Kosovo, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and Chad.
[NONE of which are ANYWHERE NEAR the Atlantic!
So WTF they doing there, other than killing innocent people, readers?]
The demand has become so great that NATO's much-trumpeted reaction force, structured so that 25,000 troops can be sent within days to trouble spots anywhere in the world, has been sharply scaled down because there are not enough soldiers.
de Hoop Scheffer: "The pressure on the forces is enormous."
[Gonna need a DRAFT to relieve that pressure!]
De Hoop Scheffer is loath to say that NATO is overstretched or indeed that it should refuse to take on more missions. Instead, he said, the alliance could be "more inventive than we are."
He said, for example, that some member states could take the lead in providing certain military equipment. The alliance could also agree to a system under which the costs of missions would be shared.
De Hoop Scheffer has been trying to push these reforms through since he became secretary general in January 2004, but member states are reluctant to pool more of their resources. The result is that the countries that provide the most troops and equipment have to pay for it out of their own national budgets."
[No wonder all this shit is COSTING US SO MUCH!!
It is TIME to COME HOME, readers!!!!!]
