Military

DATE=8/19/03

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

NAME=NATO TAKES ON AFGHANISTAN

NUMBER=6-13052

BY LINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT-

INTRO: In a historic move, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization last week took over control of peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan. It is the first time in the organization's 54-year history that it has taken on a role outside Europe. The U-S press is applauding the move and we get a sampling now from V-O-A's ___________in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: U-S papers have been editorializing for months about the need for more troops, amid reports of resurgent Taleban and rebel warlord activity. European troops from 30 nations were already on the scene before NATO took formal command, assisting U-S peacekeeping forces.

Just two days after NATO took over, more than 50 people died in several incidents throughout the country.

California's Sacramento Bee, noting NATO's historic departure from purely European operations says the Afghanistan mission will be "a tough one."

VOICE: In theory it could turn out well both for NATO, which has been internally at odds over the war in Iraq and has yet to redefine its post-Cold War role, and for Afghanistan, which badly needs both greater security and a major push to develop its economy. But whether that will happen is far from certain.

TEXT: In Louisiana, The New Orleans Times-Picayune notes the historic change of mission, before making this point.

VOICE: More significant, though, is what the change in leadership could mean for Afghanistan. Right now, the international force is too small to do much good outside Kabul, the Afghan capital, and leadership of the operation has rotated among some of the 30 countries that sent troops. Putting the force instead under NATO's oversight should produce more stable leadership. Eventually, it could lead to a larger international force in the country.

TEXT: The Los Angles Times calls the change of command "NATO's Welcome New Role," and has this advice.

VOICE: The Bush administration should press NATO to move beyond Kabul and offer to supply troops and help pay the higher peacekeeping bill. Afghanistan also needs money for reconstruction. Congress authorized more than three billion dollars, but far too little has been spent. The administration is considering speeding up expenditures in coming months for roads, schools and other visible projects. That will demonstrate the U-S commitment to the country, as well as help [President Hamid] Karzai before elections next year.

TEXT: Boston's Christian Science Monitor sees yet another benefit from the NATO takeover.

VOICE: [The] new role helps heal the rift between allies caused by disagreement over Iraq. Canada is providing 19 hundred troops, Germany 15 hundred (perhaps more) and France 550. The peacekeepers operate separately from the U-S-led coalition troops that still are tracking down terrorists. NATO's assumption of command and long-term commitment to Afghanistan provide an important boost to both the struggling government of President Karzai and the war on terrorism.

TEXT: Good for Afghanistan and good for NATO. That's the Washington Post's assessment.

VOICE: NATO's new role is a positive development for the Afghans, as well as for NATO and the transatlantic alliance. Formed 54 years ago in response to the threat of Soviet expansion on the European continent, NATO has suffered from an identity crisis since the Soviet Union's collapse. In recent months, as Americans and Europeans clashed over U-S policy in Iraq, the organization began to seem almost irrelevant.

TEXT: This move also comes at a time when U-S forces are also involved in other peacekeeping commitments, and so it will help both the Pentagon, and the U-S budget, as Pittsburgh's Post-Gazette sees it.

VOICE: Even though the role of U-S forces has not yet ended, the expanded NATO role enables America to look at reducing its security presence in Afghanistan, currently a drain on overall use of U-S forces, strained by the continued maintenance of some 145 thousand troops in Iraq. The U-S military presence in Afghanistan is currently costing about one billion dollars a month.

TEXT: Those views from Pennsylvania's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette conclude this editorial sampling of comment on the NATO takeover of the major peacekeeping role in Afghanistan.

NEB/ANG/RH