NATO and Afghan leaders meeting in Chicago formally approved a plan to draw down international forces in Afghanistan. Under the plan, the Afghan military will take the lead role by next summer, though the U.S. will maintain a presence past 2014. We discuss the challenges ahead in Afghanistan, and the evolving role of NATO in world affairs.

Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and former director for European affairs at the National Security Council
Sarwar A. Kashmeri, senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's International Security Program, fellow with the Foreign Policy Association and author of "NATO 2.0: Reboot or Delete?"
William Cole, senior director for governance, law and strategy at The Asia Foundation

  • Henry

    When I see brutality meted out to protesters and reporters in Chicago by criminal police thugs, and I learn that bogus terrorism charges have been brought against what were essentially unsuccessful vandals, I come to strongly suspect that the people being shielded from largely peaceful dissent could not possibly be as just or innocent as they are portrayed by the corporate media cartel. By attacking protesters so viciously through their proxy Ram Emanuel, whose father incidentally was a terrorist specializing in bus bombings, NATO has committed human rights abuses inside the USA against the American people.

    About Rahm’s terrorist father:

  • Colin

    Why should the U.S. “maintain a presence” in Afghanistan past 2014 if the French and the other NATO allies, all of whom are equally at risk from Aghanistan becoming a terrorist haven again, are withdrawing their forces entirely?  Aren’t our European allies free-loading?  Why should we have to tighten our spending on things like Social Security and Medicare to pay for frivolous projects like creating a missile shield over Europe and expanding NATO eastward if the Europeans aren’t willing to share in that expense?

    • Alfie

       Yes, not to mention the fact that the Fed has bailed out European banks. We pay, they play. I wonder who’s the puppet and who’s the puppeteer.

  • Chrisco

    NATO has no reason to exist. Nor has it had one for over 20 years. It is obviously no longer a defensive organization, ostensibly protecting Europe from a Soviet Communist invasion, but it is now apparently looking around the world for a reason to exist. Hence, its intervention in Libya.

    It is so sick that we are slashing pensions, Medicare, government spending on infrastructure etc. etc. but we don’t slash this useless, outdated organization.

  • Sam

    NATO was always and continues to be an Imperialist institution, as evidenced by the way the US and UK were showing disrespect to the leadership of Pakistan for refusing to let NATO move supplies through Pakistan. These governments do not address or care about the legitimate anger by the Pakistani people over NATO’s murder of Pakistani soldiers and civilians.

  • Chrisco

    I don’t agree with the claim that Europe is “freeloading” off of our defense of it. Defense from what!?!?! Will North Korea invade Belgium? Perhaps Australia has designs on Spain. Give me a break. Europe is safe. I think they can defend themselves from any pending or foreseeable threats without our help.

    Let’s just face it. Compared to Europe, we are extremely militaristic, as reflected in our budget policies. We love military spending, and prioritize it. And will seemingly stop at nothing to continue to escalate it. See Ike, January 1961.

    • Henry

      The US military has a presence in a great many countries, a fact of which that the general public is quote ignorant. We’re in those countries because our corporations succeeded in enslaving their populations with debt. The question to ask is, do European corporations benefit from the debt traps that the USA set up?

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor