Many people, myself included, hoped that Barack Obama's popularity abroad would enable the administration to get increased cooperation from our allies, thereby making key US foreign policy objectives easier to achieve. These hopes took a major blow recently when European NATO allies rejected the Administration's call to send more troops to Afghanistan:
US hopes of securing more troops for Afghanistan from its Nato allies were disappointed on Thursday as European countries refused to offer up many more soldiers despite pleas from Robert Gates, US defence secretary.
At a two-day meeting of Nato defence ministers in the Polish city of Krakow, Mr Gates said the new US administration “is prepared to make additional commitments to Afghanistan. But there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well”....
However, other Nato allies, which have about 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, were prepared to offer only several hundred more to help secure the country during forthcoming elections...
During the campaign, Obama repeatedly emphasized that the Bush Administration had dropped the ball in Afghanistan and argued that it was imperative to send more troops there. He has made an Afghanistan "surge" the focal point of his War on Terror strategy. The fact that the European allies felt free to reject his pleas on this major priority at the very time when his popularity abroad is at its post-Bush peak is a very bad sign.
It's important not to paint the allies with too broad a brush. Some of them, such as Canada (2700 troops) and Poland (1600), have contributed combat troops out of proportion to their relative resources. It's understandable that these states don't want to give more. However, the big continental European states, including France (3300) and Germany (3500), have contributed very small forces relative to the size of their economies and populations, and have refused to allow even these limited contingents to actually be used in combat. Note that Canada and Poland (whose troops are deployed in the more dangerous eastern part of the country where combat operations are ongoing) have contributed almost two thirds as many troops as France and Germany, despite the fact that the latter have more than double the combined population of the former.
The allies' refusal to heed Obama's plea for more troops highlights the limitations of personal popularity as a tool for influencing allied policy. It also suggests that US-European differences over defense policy go beyond understandable anger over the flaws of the Bush Administration.
UPDATE: I can't put the point much better than NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer of the Netherlands:
NATO's exasperated secretary general, Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, said if Europe wants a greater voice, it needs to do more.
"The Obama administration has already done a lot of what Europeans have asked for including announcing the closure of Guantanamo and a serious focus on climate change," he said. "Europe should also listen; When the United States asks for a serious partner, it does not just want advice, it wants and deserves someone to share the heavy lifting."
It looks like someone was playing solitaire during Evidence again.
In fairness to Germany, they don't really have many troops to send. Their Armed Forces have largely become a pit-stop for people who want a good state gig with great benefits. Unfortunately, quite a few of those enlisted aren't really of fighting age. I've read that the average age is approaching 40 plus for their services in aggregate.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. That happened to me, once, in the seventies. The events of that day still haunt me.
I have discussed this with a conservative German friend and there is no desire in all in any segment of German society to send troops into combat anywhere.
WWII has essentially neutered most of the EU as hard power players on the international stage.
As usual, the Afghan War will be the United States and Mr. Obama's responsibility to fight and win or lose.
Now I have doubts even about them.
Man, oh man... I know that WWII was an enormous trauma, but what happened to the generations that have come up since then?
As for Obama's request, I think the European response isn't surprising. Europe is all about yelling/complaining and then doing little about the world's problems. If I had a dime for people like Somin who said things would change when Obama was elected I'd be a rich person.
To then go back, over 7 years later, even with a new administration and say "actually, now that it's years later and the prior administration maybe messed some things up, please help", I can totally understand the response being "sorry, no, we would have helped 7 years ago, we could have sold it to our citizens politically, but now, especially since Iraq and our country's views on that, not a chance".
I know (living in Canada) that at least for now the common expectation is that there is no chance that the (conservative) government will sustain Canadian troops in Afghanistan past its own deadline of 2011, the political cost would be much too high.
I suspect I am not the only one to wonder why you had that hope.
Nations dont have permannent freinds or peramnent enemies, only permanent interests"
a fundamental tenet of geopolitics
geography and national interest determines politics and policies.
Last i heard the geopolitics of europe didn't change with the ascention of BHO - PBUH ( as in praise be unto him)
Well, my 2 cents is that our Allies know that Obama is all about expediency, and that he is not above cutting and running when he judges the moment to be right. So they don't want to be left holding the bag. Bush, on the other hand, convinced them that his commitment was real and that their sacrifice was necessary.
BBB
The initial assumption is that the allies should adopt the US policy, and that they should do it without discussion and debate.
I realize 9/11 was a great shock to the US, and American response was first to blindly support whatever action Bush took. The Taliban were not a nice regime,but if Bush had waited it appeared there was possibility that Taliban would expell Osama. US couldn't wait; had to bomb something.
Just as regime change in Iraq was neither painless nor easy nor certain to be successful, even more so Afghanistan.
The US doesn't have that good a track record as an imperial country (Cuba, Iran, Vietnam). Perhaps you should give up trying, and concentrate on your real national security interests.
To the extent Afghanistan is a real threat, Europeans have a greater interest and are more vulnerable. If they don't think worth sending in troops, perhaps it isn't. US should disengage.
Historically, the military is always backward looking, preparing to fight the last war. Wouldn't it be better if you looked forward, and considered the future
Concentrate on solving the Palestinian problem, and nuclear disarmament- if no country in the region had nuclear weapons, there would be none for terrorist organizations to get their hands on!
That's not leadership.
And after closing, his new buddies aren't likely to help him home.
And the most important thing is to fail to recognise when other commentors are being sarcastic!
It's only Americans who dare to believe that the "savages" may actually be capable of self-government, may actually desire freedom and democracy, may be worth fighting to help... particularly since their subjugation is due in part to prior Western interventions in their affairs.
Bush-hatred by Europeans was just a convenient cover for their fundamental anti-Americanism.
Obama just returned from Canada. I think that a trip across the pond is in order at the summit level if not the full Shelby gambit. If Obama and the USA are humble and sincere, the Europeans will come around before long, as our interests coincide to some degree when it comes to radical Islamists. That can't happen until Obama first convinces an increasingly skeptical American public that the mission is worth the cost. I am not yet convinced, but more resources in country still strikes me as a good place to start not to mention politically wise given Obama's plans for Iraq. Our supply lines are vulnerable, we don't really have a choice but to try to expand capacity in Central Asia.
The European snub is annoying. We didn't assassinate Bhutto. We didn't give Pakistan nukes. We didn't raid Mumbai. We didn't shelter bin Laden. Lawless parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan did. The war goes on.
Our diplomatic position is further weakened by the global economic crisis, one brought on by the near collapse of the American financial system. The outrages of the Bush administration were bad enough, and now we blew up globalization in a blizzard of bad paper? Obama started way in the hole. This is going to take time and effort, and the payoff is uncertain. If the world turns away our hand, will we spite them in a bout of xenophobic populist rage? Or will we extend it again in the spirit of brotherhood and forgiveness?
So, if "the world" doesn't try to help us turn back rabid religious fanatics we're the ones who may respond with callous self-centered indifference?
Whew.
The Poles and Canadians are great but Canada can hardly send more. I doubt if Poland can either.
The plain fact that we had two goals. 1. destruction of Al Queda and 2. create a stable Afghanistan. 1 was accomplished but 2 will never happen. Ask the British and the Soviets.
We cannot lose militarily but we cannot accomplish our remaining goal either.
That means a new plan.
Maybe a smaller, but more mobile force, that will not prop up an unstable "government" but react by striking Taliban/Al Queda concentrations only. Creative instability. Neither the current "government" nor the Taliban in charge.
Maybe total withdraw. If Al Queda re-groups, Predator and regular air strikes on a regular basis.
Forget goal 2, concentrate on keeping goal 1.
If we send 30,000 more troops, it will be a mistake. It will kill the Obama presidency but will sacrifice US lives for nothing.
Being inexperienced Obama has dug himself into a hole because Afghanistan is not winnable in any meaningful sense. Alexander the Great faced his fiercest battles there and while he defeated the Pushtuns, nothing changed after he left. It worth noting that 2,500 years later the Pushtuns still talk about the hard time they gave him. The British failed to conquer, and so did Russia. If the brutal Russians can't subdue them how is America with its JAGs and rules of engagement going to succeed? We might succeed with nuclear weapons or even fuel-air bombs, but no administration is going to employ such weaponry. Instead we will try to win the "hearts and minds of the people." This isn't Chicago Barry, these guys play for keeps.
Bwahahahahahaha!!! Too funny...
We really did have a plan in Iraq, and it has pretty much worked, with some bumps in the road along the way. We have never had one in Afghanistan; making it the center of the war on terror was a campaign tactic. Unfortunately, it looks like the one campaign promise the president plans to keep.
Many people, myself included, hoped that Barack Obama's popularity abroad would enable the administration to get increased cooperation from our allies
</blockquote>
Yes, and the seas shall turn to lemonade.
(Plus, what DangerMouse said.)
I don't understand this comment. Seems to me that Europe is having a voice in the most direct possible way. It said "no".
This may be a first: I agree with Bob from Ohio.
Sorry, but how would that work exactly? To put a finer point on it, who's waiting to give them a push? Or are you incorporating by reference the fevered imaginings of the "Sharia law in Mississippi is just around the corner" crowd?
Remember: Prof. Somin is one of those rational, clear-thinking atheists who doesn't believe fanciful, irrational stuff.
Zing!
German troops don't go on patrol or take any risk to help improve the country.
I wonder where you get your information from, as a simple Google search contradicts you.
wikipedia
german forces in afghanistan
Ilya Somin:
However, the big continental European states, including France (3300) and Germany (3500), have contributed very small forces relative to the size of their economies and populations
I think military size would be a better value for comparison instead of population.
Additionally Germany's army consists largely out of conscripts, which can only be sent abroad if they vollunteer for it. Can you imagine the political fallout if the German government starts sending those draftees to Afghanistan against their will?
You'd think a Canadian, as a scion of the British Empire, would have learned something about what imperialism actually is in history class.
Vietnam? Imperial powers do not stand by as their possession goes through native coup and counter-coup, they impose a government and then run the damn place. Half the reason we lost the war was that we didn't impose a stable government on South Vietnam.
Iran? How many divisions did we ever put in Iran?
Cuba? You mean the place we refused to annex, and haven't intervened in for forty-five years?
You want real U.S. imperialism, consider the time when we seized control of Japan, put one of our generals in the job of shogun, imposed a Constitution on them, and kept our troops on their soil for the next sixty-plus years. Or when we seized the entire province of Panama from Colombia to dig a canal. Or when we seized an archipelago from the Spaniards in a colonial war, fought a long guerrilla war against the natives, and created a country where the laws are derived from ours and the educated all speak our language. Or when we invaded our neighbor to the south and annexed half of the place. Or, say, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.
Of course, the conclusion of looking at actual cases of U.S. imperialism is that, for the most part, we have a pretty good record of it working out. Certainly, compared to, say, the record of the Soviet Empire, or of all the various European empires in Africa.
And this means exactly what? That's not the kind of success a leader needs. That's success for a pop star or an actor. Diplomacy is supposed to be productive in some fashion. Wake me up when he gets them to behave in any way differently than they did when Bush was at the helm.
Europe is old and tired. All their production goes toward supporting massive welfare states. They have no way to project power and no will to do so in any case. Even the UK's military is a shadow of what it was a decade ago.
I realize the idea Bush somehow ruined our reputation in the world is a cherished notion on the left. But the reality is relations with other countries were no better or worse under Bush than other presidents. And under Obama things will be no better.
Though Bush totally won in Iraq - and in 3 months, natch!
Perhaps you should have read the article you linked. It doesn't say anything about German soldiers going out on patrol.
Defense policy that revolves around no offensive oprations to oust Al Qaeda or he Taliban. The EU forces areas have essentially become safe zones for the ratbags to restup before going back to the US/Canadian and UK (Sometimes)areas.
"WWII has essentially neutered most of the EU as hard power players on the international stage. "
WWII is an excuse. Most of the reasons now are related to fat left of center governments and policies used to getting away with rhetoric over action. Hence sending troops with a fine mandate that does not include attacking the enemy.
Another example is the French led UN force (I think it i still under the auspices of the UN) in Lebanon which does no challenge Hezbolah over the movement of men and munitions.
"Obama certainly had success pre-election in appealing directly to Europeans -- witness his vast Berlin rally. If he seriously wants to make political headway on this issue, he could try going over the politicians' heads there once more. I have no personal expectation that it would work, but it is an option for him."
His popularity in Berlin might well have had more to do with the the derth of things to do in Berlin coupled with the promise of booze and name bands. Having a socialist city government might have helped as well.
Then, too, Europe took even more of the peace dividend from the fall of the Soviet block than we did in the 90's and they were never equipped to fight in a place like Afghanistan in the first place. Between old equipment wearing out from the unexpected hard use and having to buy or in some cases lease MRPS, helicopters and planes, it's costing a fortune to re-equip the troops there.
Even if you believed the doubtful proposition that Obama's charm would be enough to cause NATO to live up to its obligation, the current economic crisis would make that difficult.
A dangerously naive view of how the world works.
Countries determine their foreign policy based upon national interests and domestic politics, always have and always will. To believe foreign policy is just a popularity contest among world leaders is foolish.
Did you really believe European countries would send more of their troops to die in war because they liked Obama? Really? Really!?
Geez.
Aren't we all better off with a pacifist Germany?
Don't forget that he totally won in Afghanistan, too. On 9/27/04, he said this:
Isn't deploying draftees against their will the point of conscription?
At that point, you just know something will happen that drives home the reason most of the world does NOT systematically disarm itself. All the nasty elements of human nature are still around, and you can't put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" to make them go away.
I can't justify that belief even as wishful thinking.
If US got its troops out of Germany and other countries it would have a difficult time fighting in distant lands.
BDS convinced a number of people. Some who started out with BDS as a political tactic ended up believing it.
And they thought other people believed it. As long as we had a fundamentalist (actually Methodist) cowboy (lots of people from Texas are not cowboys) who had only one Ivy advanced degree (that's considered dumb, which might be correct, maybe you need two or three to get up to average), who took American security seriously (actually America is its own and everybody else's worst enemy), the oh-so sophisticated Euros were going to hate us. Dumb enough to vote for that clown.
But now that he's gone, all the posing that BDS covered needs a new cover, or it is going uncovered.
Which surprises the BDSers. You can tell the real BDS believers from those who pretended as a political tactic. The former are surprised.
Dear Shelby:
Both before and after Pres. Obama's speech/rally in Berlin there was a free concert by the most popular band in Berlin. How many of the people there really showed up to hear him?
Still, you do suggest an alternative strategy. We won't let the military win. The distinction between the successful actions cited by D.R.M. and those in which the US failed, is that all of the successful ones were not based on the strategy of appeasing the NY Times, WaPo, etc. In the vicious little wars of peace -- Panama, Haiti, etc., the Marines were sent in and generally left alone by politicians. In the P.I., Black Jack Pershing was given a free hand. In Iraq, the State Dept was supposed to do the post-war planning and operations (remember the Coalition Provisional Authority? That fiasco was a DoS operation).
As there is no chance that the current administration will leave the military alone to do what is necessary to create stability in Afghanistan, and less chance that DoS will be more successful there than it was running the CPA in Iraq, an alternative strategy should be considered.
Maybe you're right. Let's have Pres. Obama hold "rallies" around Europe like the Berlin one -- before and after his speeches the most popular local bands will put on free concerts. At those concerts we'll have recruiters, signing people up for the Stoned Slackers Brigades -- a French Foreign Legion that brings Hash and munchies. Recreational drug use has a long history in Central Asia. Getting Al Qaeda and the Taliban stoned is likely as effective as killing them, and they might keep their opium for themselves.
I've found that a good deal of articles here start by assuming some position of one's opponents is real and take it to its logical, and ridiculous, conclusion. This is just a way of pointing out how ridiculous it was in the first place, it doesn't mean the article writer seriously believes it.
There are a couple of questions that the European countries need to ask. Are they prepared to see the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan given the terrible repression and concomitant ugliness? Do they believe that Al Qaeda is not a threat to the safety of their own people?
Instead, they only seem to ask if they can get by under the cover of US arms.
These arguments by Democrat foreign policy types that changing the party in the White House will change everything are purely designed to sucker naive voters. They know better in private. I'm surprised Somin fell for it.
1) Re France:
French trainers have been fighting with the ANA in the East for some time now. In addition, a French batallion is there fighting right now (relieving a US unit) and a second will follow in spring.
2) Re Germany:
- German parliament just incresaed the mandate from 3500 to 4500 in 2008. That's almost 30 % - just like the American surge coming now. Some of these additional troops are already in Afghanistan (=> current level c.a. 4000), some will be there in time to help with the elections (the "a few hundred soldiers" the blog entry mentions ...)
- German paratroopers have been hunting and arresting or killing Telaben since spring 2007 in the Kunduz area. Officially, of course, killed Talebs usually don't get reported as such (only as the result of self defense - Taleban tend to shoot at soldiers when they try to arrest them ...), as the German government desperately tries to avoid being "at war" before the elections.
That's why you get reports like this one:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/
world/0,1518,577023,00.html
Of course the Germans have been doing night patrols, too.
See pictures No 3-4 here (German paras heading out for patrol, with nightgoogles):
http://www.nusaku.com/forum/
showthread.php?p=14744
Don't know why these myths continue to get spread ...
I still, however, don't see why, even among posters here who aren't surprised by lack of European help, the prevailing attitude is that they SHOULD help the U.S. I mean the U.S. seems to be saying (I mean if you include politicians in Congress and media pundits not just the administration), "Europe and its militaries suck, we don't need you, buy American" and on the other hand "Why aren't you helping us in Afghanistan?". If you s**t all over other countries, don't expect them to be anxious to help.
These countries (or some of them) offered help after 9/11 and were (pardon the expression) shot down. It's 7 years later, why should they help unless they think the U.S. actually needs (not wants, NEEDS) help?
For that matter it wasn't that long ago that they were roundly criticized in the U.S. by many for failing to support (or at least offering to support) the U.S. in Iraq, I still remember (obviously in Canada it got more airplay) how Congressional politicians and e.g. FOX criticized Canada for not helping in Iraq (even though it was helping in Afghanistan), etc. They may think that just as the (majority) U.S. view of Iraq seems to have shifted, the same may happen shortly with Afghanistan so why should they send their own citizens to die when the U.S. is probably going to be leaving Afghanistan soon anyway?
I mean in Vietnam the U.S. had a draft and still didn't have the help of other countries (I'm not sure if they asked or when French involvement ended). Unless or until the U.S. needs help or its survival is at stake or whatever, why should European countries help? Especially when the current (public) U.S. stance seems to be we'll be leaving Iraq soon, we're going to send 18,000 more troops to Afghanistan, we're still an all-volunteer armed forces without a draft (unlike some European countries with mandatory service), etc.
When the U.S. public stance has for years been "we don't need your help" and still now is "we don't need your help, and we rejected it before, and we've screwed up, and we've bombed friendly forces like the Canadians, but please send soldiers anyway" and even in other areas the current administration is e.g. pushing "buy American" legislation, there were some silly insults in the past like "Freedom Fries", the U.S. says it's leaving Iraq relatively soon, etc., it just doesn't seem wrong or ungrateful or whatever, to me, for European countries to refuse to help.
Epeeist:
Actually, several countries assisted South Vietnam and the US in the Vietnam War. Notably, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and the Philippines. There were other countries also with lesser involvement.
Even the United States has had trouble getting troops in sufficient numbers into ground combat at times.
Thanks for the correction (I suspected, but didn't know/recall off-hand about other countries being involved). However, I primarily meant other European countries weren't involved (so unless I'm mistaken about that, I think the comparison still stands) -- those who were involved as you note appear to be those countries whose location made it more a matter of self-interest to be involved.
My response to that:
1) Most European countries don’t have much in the way of the ability to project serious military power even if they want because (a) post-WW II they had the United States to protect them and (b) it was more advantageous to spend their tax dollars on welfare benefits and industrial policy instead. We saw that in Bosnia in the 1990s where they couldn’t even stop genocide on their front door without US airpower.
2) Culturally they seem to regard pacifism as a virtue or do everything they can to avoid actual fighting even after they’ve agreed to “commit” what little they have in the way of military forces.
3) By and large the people who were bashing the United States or opposing our policies when Bush 43 was in office were doing pretty much the same thing when Clinton was in office. . and Bush 41 was in office . . . and Regan was in office and so forth. BDS was really a cover for other political interests and as another poster pointed out, that cover’s been blown.
4) Even if a country may personally “like” the leader of another country, they’re hardly about to sacrifice what they see as their own national interests just to help out the leader of another country unless they see something in it for them. Obama’s already given them what they wanted on ACC and Gitmo and their incentive to help him is WHAT exactly?
5) You overestimate the extent and depth of Obama’s popularity which tends to be that of a shallow celebrity promising to buy drinks rather than an accomplished and serious statesman.
Today, with a population of 300 million, we can't field 100,000 without calling up the Reserves.
Complaining that other countries are not fielding many troops seems, ummm, premature.
You really believed this?
Might you be interested in purchasing a bridge in New York? The tolls pay well.
Good point, but it leaves out the draft, which, as some others have pointed out, exists in some attenated form in some potential helpers, or lasted longer than ours did.
In addition, we make huge use of civilian contractors. Nobody wastes the time of a trained soldier to peel potatoes any longer. And most of the convoy drivers in Iraq have been contractors, third-country types.
So we fund a military effort which is quite a bit larger than it seems counting uniformed personnel and comparing to earlier wars.
In addition, in WW II, we had not had at least two generations scoffing at the possibility the US might have to defend itself. Either we shouldn't because it would be our fault, or we don't need to because all those other folks are so nice.
The difference in participation among Ivy grads is an example of the social difference.
Welcome to reality. Doesn't it suck?
No! Don't give Bloomberg more ideas!!!
In terms of location being a matter of self interest, I would think that Afghanistan is a pretty good analogy. Afghanistan is relatively close to Europe. By your argument, Europe ought to be more inclined to intervene significantly in Afghanistan than it was in Vietnam, but in fact significant combat forces have come from countries that are far away, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
I don's think proximity governs. It looks more like a combination of relative unwillingness to take risks when others are willing to do so on their behalf, and a decades-long relative unwillingness to invest in their militaries (again, when others are willing to do so on their behalf). Both of these factors have been observed for decades (particularly within NATO, where US contributions were always grossly over-represented even with Soviet troops in Europe), so the idea that is was the fault of one US Administration, or would change because of another one was always absurd.
I see this canard about Afghanistan never being conquered or even never centrally governed all the time and nobody seems to object. That's simply not true. Starting with the Samanids, then Ghaznevids, the Ghoris (which became the base of the Muslim conquest of India), then the Mongols, Timur, and their descendants the future Mughals... That's why I suppose the modern day Afghan warlord braggarts have to go all the way back to Alexander beyond the hapless Soviets.
I hope you learned your lesson. The only reason people (or countries) join us is that our intended action serves their interests. If they don't perceive our actions as furthering their interests the only way to get them to join us is to change our goals until they do. This is exactly what happens when you make working together a higher priority than making progress toward your goals. Unfortunately, Obama has committed himself publicly and loudly to this very strategy.
The fact that this occurs with our "allies" is very concerning. Apply this circumstance to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Palestine and you arrive at some truly frightening scenarios. Let's hope Obama is a fast learner. He has a long way to go.
Self-rebutting posts save valuable keystrokes! [Apologies to Sarcastro]
Hate to correct you, BUT:
The Economist, a wee bit better pub than the World Socialst Web Site which you cite, states:
"In Afghanistan, moreover, Germany’s military commitment is hedged with “caveats” that keep its troops out of the fighting in the dangerous south of the country."
The WSWS article you cite states: "On the contrary, the US and its allies are engaged in a neo-colonial war, aimed at making the country a regional base for staging operations into resource-rich Central Asia."
Ummmmm............yeah.
Note: as to Positroll's comment/post below, the Spiegel article he cites states that the German forces are still in the norhtern areas, and you've seen more violence in those areas. NOT, that the Germans have moved into the more violent southern areas.
As to conscription, not all the soldiers are conscripts, actually vast majority are professionals: "The armed forces comprise 247,712 troops, including 35,490 conscripts, 24,351 conscripts who voluntarily extended their service, and 187,871 professional soldiers either on fixed-term contracts or unlimited contracts. (May 2008)4. This means that more than 80% of the Armed Forces of Germany are made up of professional soldiers, and not by conscripts."
Still though, with a military just under 250K, they will not have much to deploy. And the domestic political opposition to a greater role has got to be pretty substantial.
Yup.... so much for the great charisma of Pres Obama to sway the world. Ha ha, never saw that coming.
Here goes again, citation for Ecnomist article:
for German manpower/conscription figures:
Wonder why it didn't take the first time? Must be Skynet taking over.
economist.com/world/europe/
displaystory.cfm?story_id=12517177
http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/germany.htm
He said he "hoped" - not "believed" that Obama's election would bring some change in our 'allies' ...
there is a difference.
And, Afghanistan is so much more important to Europe than someplace like Georgia, which has oil pipelines and rail lines passing through it, which are providing energy supplies to Europe that are not wholly dependent on passing through Russian controlled territory.
Self-rebutting posts save valuable keystrokes! [Apologies to Sarcastro]
This is a list of enduring conquerors or strong central local rulers of Afghanistan (one can look up which is which).
If saving keystrokes is the goal, one should refrain from posting.
And that hope had a basis in reality, and it had nothing to do with Obama being a well-spoken fellow with a nice jump shot.
BushCheney offered our allies a chance to participate in an unwinnable, fake GWOT with no particular timetable, no exit strategy and no obvious mission other than a dubious (and inconsistent) spreading of democracy to places with no democratic institutions.
Since Obama did not seem to have the same appetite for perpetual conflict, there was reason to think Europeans might be more receptive to something less open-ended and more strategic than a complete cluster****.
Apparently Afghanistan's reputation precedes it, and it's pretty darn far from the borders of most NATO allies, too.
Anybody in the last 500 years?
Ditto some of the heavy lifting. Reading between the lines, there have been armed US aircraft over A 24-7 since fall of 2001. They are available to any nation's forces who need tacair. They are supplemented by various nations' air forces (Canada, Holland, some others) but the 911 for troops in contact is 001.
Comments about caveats are valid. They go back, at least, to Rwanda where they bedeviled Dallaire.
The Mughals and the Iranian Safavids had it split through the beginning of the 18th century. Then a local Durrani dynasty united it for another 100 years. And of course Zahir Shah had a stable 40-year rule in the 20th century.
That was a ridiculous urban myth.
Sir Billsalot: Nice Socks anecdote.
Europeans aren't ready to do a damned thing because they know that Obama is a self-serving eunuch whose sole skill was to get a majority of the American voting public to mindlessly chant "hope" and "change."
Is it any wonder that they see no reason to help us out when we need them? The same thing will happen when Obama puts pressure on Israel. Those who have been clamoring for this for years will see the US turning its back on a loyal ally to curry favor with enemies who despise us. Their thought will not be "at last the US understands 'no justice no peace'" -but a far more visceral and self-interested fear: " hey, these dudes are unreliable."
Although I was being snarky in suggesting forming Stoned Slacker Brigades who would show up with Hash and munchies, but, given Soviet tactics -- which are well beyond what the US, NATO or EU would allow -- and given the failure of diplomatic efforts in places like Sudan and Central Africa, and the repeated failures of UN controlled peace-keeping forces, and that US DoS directed efforts (like the CPA) have failed, I think that when requesting assistance of other nations for military operations, we need to be explain a strategy and tactics that have a reasonable chance of success, and to which those nations will agree. I have not seen that from the Obama Administration.
The reluctance to deploy military forces into potential combat by central and western European nations appears greater than "deployments limited only to serving national interests" can explain. Those nations had obvious national interests in both Georgia and the Ukraine -- since Russian control of their oil and natural gas supplies puts them at the mercy of the current Russian autocrats. However, the central and western European nations made it absolutely clear that no military action or aid would be provided. A somewhat similar situation appears to exist with respect to Iran -- which obviously has the technology to launch a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, and looks close to having both the technology and materials to build a small nuke that such a missile could carry. However, central and western European governments do not appear willing to even confront Iran with strong, effective, economic sanctions.
In the current situation, it does not appear that our European allies will do much more in Afghanistan than they are already doing. Maybe a few more troops -- although Canada is pulling out despite Pres. Obama's popularity there -- but no major changes to the rules of engagement that severely restrict their respective militaries' operations.
Given these restrictions -- both on troop numbers and on allowed operations and use of force -- I don't see a successful strategy that depends on significant help from central and western European military forces. And, I don't see the US adopting tactics even anywhere near as violent as the Soviets used (unsuccessfully). Accordingly, either the US engages in an "unwinnable war" since its political leadership is unwilling to authorize what may win, or a change in strategy and tactics is needed (very possibly a very unconventional change). This means someone familiar with the nation and culture needs to provide guidance so that something that likely will "overcome the will of the enemny to resist" is developed.
You appear to be familiar with Afghanistan. What do you propose?
There's a lesson in there,if you think about it.
Dude, you are waaaay off message. Don't forget that the ABM has absolutely nothing to do with Vladimir Putin or the Ukraine or any other country that might be somewhat proximate to Poland, it is to guard against an attack by Iran.
No, seriously, it's in the manual I'm telling you. You can use the Bush manual or the Clinton manual, there's no difference.
OK they are still in the 13th century and we are trying to drag them into the 14th century. That said, why did so many of the Afghan people vote? Why were many, including old men, in tears over the opportunity to vote? Unlike here where 50% of the citizens are just too busy or whatever to vote, they took their lives in there hands to do so. They must have some awareness and respect for freedom or they would never have done so.
They also had a significant force fighting the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, long before we went in. So, the point here is that this is not the Afghans defeating us as an invading army. A significant number of the population want the government they have and so voted.
We don't know how that will turn out. It would be nice if Obama had a plan. He doesn't. He is repeating the early Bush mistakes. We should never send in our military without a plan, goals, defined mission etc. He should also have gone to the bases of the troops he is sending overseas to fight and tell them in person, as Bush did. Also, he might think about not cutting the Pentagon's budget as he is planning to do. We can spend billions for a train so folks can get from LA to Vegas to gamble, like they have a real problem doing that now, but we can't fund the new fighter jet for the military which would provide new jobs right now and provide a real stimulus to the economy while providing the military with what it needs in the 21st century. Shades of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Heaven help us.
Regarding Europe, they have as much if not more to lose by a resurgence of
Al Queda as we do. They seem to want us to fight this battle for them as we have so many others. Odd how the French are so good at injecting themselves in places like the Ivory Coast or Rwanda, to the detriment of the native people, when there is money to be made, but they can't fight for their own defense.
Maybe, we should at least be able to stop paying rent to France for our
WWIl soldier's graves. If we must continue fighting their battles and saving their sorry behinds, maybe they could at least stop charging us for our soldier's resting place. No?
Should read their hands...
Sorry. Some of us just can't learn that preview is our friend.
"Maybe a few more troops -- although Canada is pulling out despite Pres. Obama's popularity there -- but no major changes to the rules of engagement that severely restrict their respective militaries' operations."
Just a footnote. A couple of years ago the Cdn Parliament set 2011 as the date for withdrawal of Cdn combat troops from Afghanistan. That predates Obama.
When Obama has developed a plan, presumably this will be shared with the Cdn govt- at present a minority Conservative. The govt will present it to Parliament.
I expect any extension/expansion of the mission would be considered and voted on at that time.
It is therefore premature to deduce anything about Obama's powers of persuasion from the fact that no change of policy has been instantaneously announced. I bet Obama understands the process for Canada and could explain this if asked.
Not sure of the outcome. A majority of Cdns favour withdrawal of our combat troops. An extension would probably reflect Obama does have clout north of the border where his approval rating is in the 80's.
No, seriously, it's in the manual I'm telling you. You can use the Bush manual or the Clinton manual, there's no difference."
The reason Gates was hesitant is because Joe Biden was just over in Europe and basically said everything is on the table. We just want to friends with ratbags like Russia, Iran, Syria et al.
The Russians do not want BMD in Europe despite it being protection against Iran.
If everything is on the table, it means the Russians want the unspoken threat of missiles available, just in case it's necessary. Having ABMs around vitiates the threat, which means their missiles are off the table.
Biden wants to give the Russians the privilege of the threat, just in case.
That's unfair. I don't know what Biden wants, nor, probably, does he. This whackjob is going to give the Russians their threat because he can't stop running his mouth without connection to his or anybody else's brain.
Dear Mac:
I think you're referring to Sec of State Dean Rusk's remark -- I think it was Rusk and not the Ambassador to France. And, I believe that it was during the Kennedy Administration (although Rusk was SoS for both JFK and LBJ).
Anyway, when DeGaulle said he'd be ordering all US (&other NATO) troops to leave France, Rusk quipped something like: Does that include the US Troops buried in France?
I don't think, however, there was actually a plan to disinture and bring the Soldiers back to the US. (It's too convenient for American pols when P.O.ed at France to point to a pix of all the crosses, and too good a boondoggle trip to fly to France at taxpayer expense for some ceremony honoring US war dead).
Which is why the strategy of bombing them into the Stone Age won't work -- it would be an improvment in life style.
Yes, I was aware that the Canadian Parl. had set an end date on the deployment of Canadian Soldiers to Afghanistan. However, like any law enacted, it can be repealed or amended. Whatever Pres. Obama's popularity in Canada, I don't see that translating into Canada's Parl. voting an extension after 2011. I only see that changing if Obama Administration comes up with "a plan" which starts showing some success. "Surge 2" is not a plan. The Surge in Iraq was much more than sending more troops. In Iraq most of the problems are caused by "foreign fighters" or people like al-Sadr, who are supported by (puppets of ?) Iran. Thus, the Iraqis themselves are interested in defeating them (especially when defeat of them is linked to a US withdrawal).
In Afghanistan the various tribes that live in Afghanistan and Pakistan view the "border" as only a line drawn on a map by a bunch of British and other foreigners in London. Merely adding 17,000 or 30,000 additional US Soldiers (or Soldiers from other nations) won't change this view. And, while the Northern Alliance was very effective in Northern Afghanistan, that's because it was composed of different tribes than those living in Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. Further, Pakistan has now given the Taliban a valley to control and operate out of -- but, will still object to US violations of its sovereignity.
These types of issues were not encountered in Iraq. Accordingly, a very different strategy is needed for Afghanistan. (Which, given the cultural history of recreational drug use in Central Asia -- the words Assassin and Hashish have the same root -- maybe getting all of the Taliban stoned may be a viable strategy. Like I said, I'd like to hear some proposals from someone who understands the history and cultures of the area.)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.