In a speech Tuesday, Defense Secretary Gates Tuesday said that NATO "faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems,” citing reduced military spending by members and wavering commitment in Afghanistan. Doth he protest too much? The US, after all, has been just as stingy about engaging in dialogue with NATO allies about the mission in Afghanistan. It is not at all clear, for example, what input they had on President Obama's decision to add an additional 30,000 troops to the mission. While Sec. Gates arguably commands the most respect of anyone in Obama's cabinet, it is somewhat disingenuous, as Fred Kaplan points out in this Slate piece, to expect that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization be the focal point of a missioni in Afghanistan. What's more, Kaplan explains, the inclusion of NATO at this point is arguably hindering the ability of the US to include additional troop contingents, since emphasizing the Alliance theoretically comes at the expense of non-NATO members who might also be interested in committing troops. These issues raise a broader question about what role remains for NATO relative to the European Union, and some form of reckoning about the Alliance will almost surely come after the mission in Afghanistan ends.
As a side note, not all European countries are dragging their heels on Afghanistan. The Wall Street Journal has a story out of Copenhagen showing that public approval for the Afghanistan effort remains equivalent to US levels. Media coverage has helped, the report says. "When troops say, 'We did a job and we did it good, and it is worth doing,' then it is very hard indeed for a lot of people to oppose, because those are the men and women who risk their lives," one former Danish officer said.
Posts
