Why Didn't NATO Come to Our Aid After 9-11?

[Grey]

Give it a rest rjung. There’s no need to drag Bush into this; simple American preoccupation with America is enough.

[Grey]

@Jim B.

I honestly thought the UK was the only one who helped us (or one of the few countries that helped us in any event). But as others have pointed out, our media may have made it seem that way a little too. (My apologies to Canada .)

Thanks. You’re not mixing Iraq up with Afghanistan are you? I’m asking only because the global outpouring of sympathy following 9/11 was staggering. Nations lined up to help, NATO invoked article 5 for the first time, all in bound flights to the US were diverted elsewhere etc. etc.

Iraq was/is a much lonelier road and you wouldn’t be far wrong in saying NATO has done little with respect to that war. Though Italy, Spain, Poland, Japan, Australia and the UK (plus others) supported and helped.

[Miller]

@RickJay

I find this legitimately depressing. Canada was the **only country on earth that actually did anything of significance to help on 9/11 itself, ** for which we were snubbed in the President’s speech to Congress. Then we sent men to fight in Afghanistan to help defend the United States, had men die there - most of them killed by an American pilot on drugs, which I guess didn’t make the news much down there - and other of our men won decorations for bravery in combat. Now later, it’s “Only the UK helped us!”

You’re so frickin’ welcome.

What can I say? We’re a buncha dicks. Sorry.

[Jim_B]

@Grey

Thanks. You’re not mixing Iraq up with Afghanistan are you?..

Certainly not. I don’t think the Iraq war was even justified to begin with. But that’s just my opinion, of course .

[Imasquare]

@Tuckerfan

…German, French, and British forces were said to be totally stunned by what our military was capable of doing, and have been pressuring their government’s for increased funding in order to catch up.

You forgot Canada. I believe the Canadians were particularly stunned at what the US military was capable of doing.

[Ravenman]

@Tuckerfan

My understanding was that had more to do with the fact that the US military had the coolest “toys” to bring to the war, while the rest of NATO’s equipment hadn’t advanced much since GWI, and not any particular snobbishness on our part. German, French, and British forces were said to be totally stunned by what our military was capable of doing, and have been pressuring their government’s for increased funding in order to catch up.

That is no doubt true. There is a large gap in interoperability.

However, if Kazakhstan, Albania, Slovakia, and Moldova are capable of helping out in Iraq, one would think that we would have been able to find some role for NATO in Afghanistan prior to the handoff of ISAF responsibilities, which, to my recollection, happened in late 2002.

[Grey]

NATO took over control of ISAF in 2003 but NATO members were involved almost immediately in naval operations and ground activity and helping set up the new Afghan government at the Bonn conference. Canada controibuted 850 light infantry to operation Apollo in February 2002 following the fall of the Taliban in December of 2001. But the fall of the Taliban was done by US air and special forces combined with the northern rebels. Not exactly a NATO set piece operation.

Likely I’m omiting other contributions from other countries.

[Acsenray]

@Jim B.

I honestly thought the UK was the only one who helped us (or one of the few countries that helped us in any event). But as others have pointed out, our media may have made it seem that way a little too. (My apologies to Canada .)

I certainly remember plenty of stories about French, German, and other countries’ troops in Afghanistan.

But the kind of misinformation the OP illustrates is far too common in the United States. What are its causes? I think there are probably several, among which may be –

1. The mainstream media, even if it initially notes important information regarding the activities of foreign governments, covers them superficially and drops any mention of them quickly.

2. Many Americans follow partisan conservative media, which carry on a determined campaign to slander and libel foreign governments, especially when they express disagreement with their preferred policy.

3. Many Americans suffer from short term memory and are malleable to political reprogramming on the part of the people around them.

4. Most Americans don’t follow the news at all and “know” only what people around them say.

[Tuckerfan]

@Imasquare

You forgot Canada. I believe the Canadians were particularly stunned at what the US military was capable of doing.

Yeah, well, given that Canada’s involvement cost them a fair number of lives due to a friendly fire incident, I really didn’t want to open that particular can of worms. (Though I will say that Candian snipers out performed our guys in the field on more than one occassion. Not bad for a country with strict controls on civilian ownership of weapons. )

[Gorsnak]

@Tuckerfan

Not bad for a country with strict controls on civilian ownership of weapons.

You’ve obviously never spent any times on the Canadian prairies. Strict controls? Ha!

[Plan_B]

@RickJay

I find this legitimately depressing. Canada was the **only country on earth that actually did anything of significance to help on 9/11 itself, ** for which we were snubbed in the President’s speech to Congress. Then we sent men to fight in Afghanistan to help defend the United States, had men die there - most of them killed by an American pilot on drugs, which I guess didn’t make the news much down there - and other of our men won decorations for bravery in combat. Now later, it’s “Only the UK helped us!”

You’re so frickin’ welcome.

FWIW my apologies also. I think that part of the reason was the left wing in America was so focused on presenting GWB as some moron who couldn’t wait to alienate the rest of the free world. So they kept talking about the WOT as if it was GWB and a bunch of neocons in the White House who were running the whole thing.

How many times did Kerry use the word “unilateral” during the campaign? And the irony is, he kept talking about how was going to rebuilt relations with old Europe.

[Frank]

@Plan B

I think that part of the reason was the left wing in America was so focused on presenting GWB as some moron who couldn’t wait to alienate the rest of the free world. So they kept talking about the WOT as if it was GWB and a bunch of neocons in the White House who were running the whole thing.

You are conflating Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe you will find that a large chunk of, if not an actual majority of, the left wing in America supported our actions in Afghanistan. Me, for one. One of the many sad by-products of the moronic invasion of Iraq is that we have left Afghanistan twisting in the wind.

[WeRSauron]

@Plan B

FWIW my apologies also. I think that part of the reason was the left wing in America was so focused on presenting GWB as some moron who couldn’t wait to alienate the rest of the free world. So they kept talking about the WOT as if it was GWB and a bunch of neocons in the White House who were running the whole thing.

How many times did Kerry use the word “unilateral” during the campaign? And the irony is, he kept talking about how was going to rebuilt relations with old Europe.

It seems that it serves the agenda of both political parties to ignore Canada’s contributions, which is quite sad. I’m sure the US government has its own qualms about Canada’s government and its policies, but nevertheless the US government and US politicians ought to express more appreciation for what Canada has done for the US.

WRS

[Tuckerfan]

@WeRSauron

It seems that it serves the agenda of both political parties to ignore Canada’s contributions, which is quite sad. I’m sure the US government has its own qualms about Canada’s government and its policies, but nevertheless the US government and US politicians ought to express more appreciation for what Canada has done for the US.

WRS

And they’ve again done us a favor. You know guys, I really wouldn’t blame you if next time you said, “Clean up your own mess, eh?”

[Plan_B]

@This Year's Model

You are conflating Afghanistan and Iraq.

I like that word - conflating - hadn’t read it in a long time. But, no, I’m actually accusing the left of the conflating. Iraq=WOT=Afghanistan

[Plan_B]

@WeRSauron

It seems that it serves the agenda of both political parties to ignore Canada’s contributions, which is quite sad.

Not that the right is any more moral, we’re probably not, but what would be in it for us to ignore Canada’s contributions to WOT? I seem to remember Rumseld making speeches where he painstakingly mentioned all the countries that were helping out in Iraq.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Plan B

I like that word - conflating - hadn’t read it in a long time. But, no, I’m actually accusing the left of the conflating. Iraq=WOT=Afghanistan

Actually, I don’t know of anyone on the left who does this. All along the White House and others on the right have been trying to link Iraq and 9-11 while folks on the left have been pointing out that they’re not connected. Go to a liberal website like Smirking Chimp and you can read post after post of people lamenting polls that show large percentages of the American people believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. Go to a conservative website like Free Republic and you can read post after post of people justifying the war on Iraq with “Well, they attacked us first!”

I know it’s hard to believe now, but a fair number of us liberals were quite willing to line up behind GWB after 9-11. Where do you think those 70% approval ratings came from? Our country was attacked and we put aside our political differences and rallied to the flag. And we supported going into Afghanistan after the criminals who were responsible.

It wasn’t until GWB turned his back on finding the 9-11 criminals and turned his back on rebuilding Afghanistan that we started peeling off. So, no, liberals don’t typically try to fuzz the lines. Instead we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to correct conservatives who use 9-11 as an excuse for everything under the sun … .

[WeRSauron]

@Plan B

Not that the right is any more moral, we’re probably not, but what would be in it for us to ignore Canada’s contributions to WOT? I seem to remember Rumseld making speeches where he painstakingly mentioned all the countries that were helping out in Iraq.

I love Rummy.

Conservatives, such as myself, have a few issues with Canada’s government. With a conservative America and a liberal Canada, such a situation is to be expected. Some of us may be ambivalent towards Canada: thankful Canada is helping and doing what Canada is doing, but displeased at how Canada is not cooperating. (I was going to make a list of how we feel Canada is not cooperating, but that deserves its own thread.)

Plus, it is sad but true that, whether liberal or conservative, we take Canada for granted. Whereas we Americans can always depend on some level of assistance from Canada, such cannot be said about other states, whom we Americans (and particularly we conservatives) may attempt to flatter in order to ensure they will keep helping us Americans (especially us conservatives), if they don’t increase their help.

As a conservative, I would love to see the Administration - even big names in the Party - begin to establish warmer relations with Canada and Mexico. This will surely come to our advantage at some point.

WRS

[Acsenray]

@Tuckerfan

Yeah, well, given that Canada’s involvement cost them a fair number of lives due to a friendly fire incident, I really didn’t want to open that particular can of worms. (Though I will say that Candian snipers out performed our guys in the field on more than one occassion. Not bad for a country with strict controls on civilian ownership of weapons. )

So far as I am aware, the penetration of firearms ownership in Canadian society is comparable with that of the United States.

[tagos]

@acsenray

So far as I am aware, the penetration of firearms ownership in Canadian society is comparable with that of the United States.

gun ownership 1996 survey

This paper comparatively summarizes the Canadian experience with regards to firearms ownership and victimisation in relation to eight other Western industrialized societies, as measured in the International Crime (Victim) Survey 1996 (IC(V)S). The countries included in this comparison are: England and Wales, Scotland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Austria, and the United States.

The survey indicated:

* Canada was in the mid-range of firearms ownership. Nearly 22% of Canadian households possessed at least one firearm. Possession was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in England and Wales, Scotland, and the Netherlands.

In order to accurately analyze this question, Michael Moore’s proclamation about Canadian society must first be analyzed. Moore’s first assertion about Canada is that since it is a country with “ 7 million guns,” it must therefore be a “gun crazy country.” While Moore’s statistics are accurate, the actual ratio of people versus guns is quite distinct from the United States. If all 7 million guns were distributed to different individuals in Canada, only 25% of Canadian’s would have a gun in their hand. Whereas, if all the 222 million firearms in the United States were distributed to different individuals, 82% of American’s would have a gun. It seems a gross exaggeration to claim that Canada is the “gun crazy country”.

A critique of Moore

Either way, it isn’t even close.