As we prepare to place more of our troops at the mercy of Russians and jihadis in Pakistan who will lie astride our supply lines into Afghanistan, the head of the NATO organization is berating the Europeans for not supporting us:
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a staunch supporter of U.S. calls for more European troops in Afghanistan, referred to a joint call this week from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy to strengthen Europe's role in NATO. He said it was a good idea but would not come without cost.
"I'm frankly concerned when I hear the United States is planning a major commitment for Afghanistan but other allies are already ruling out doing more," he told a gathering of world leaders and top ministers at the Munich Security Conference. "That is not good for the political balance ... and it also makes the calls for Europe's' voice to be heard in Washington perhaps a bit more hollow than they should be."
We make some noises about global warming and Guantanamo Bay and the Europeans are still less than willing to stand up:
Germany has argued that its military is already too far stretched to commit more troops beyond the 4,500 now in the relatively calm north of Afghanistan. Instead, it has said the focus should be on future civil reconstruction, in conjunction with military security.
The French parliament voted in September to keep 3,300 French troops in the Afghan theater, but has no current plans to increase the French contingent.
These are the major countries that remain non-players. Germany's armed forces are "too far stretched" to allow them to deploy more young men to Afghansitan where they polish their medals, drink beer, and snack on sausages trucked and flown in at high cost through tenuous supply lines? Yeah, we should be eager for more of them. I feel sorry for the German troops, who certainly have the tradition and potential to be effective combat troops.
France is tapped out at 3,300 troops. They at least have fought a bit in Afghanistan. Although their less-than stellar performance has perhaps given the Germans pause about simply letting their forces fight. It remains to be seen whether the bloody nose the French army got will lead them to learn combat lessons to fight better (which they are certainly capable of doing, I'll make no snide comments here) or whether the lesson they learn is to stay in their barracks and avoid making trouble for themselves.
I have no doubt that the French and Germans, as well as other nonfighting NATO forces, provide some useful services as the situation stands. But I'd rather phase them out and use Afghan forces or contract security forces where possible instead.
If not that, at least look at the missions these NATO forces carry out and see if they can be done with fewer of their forces. Why burden our supply lines needlessly?
And why let the Germans and French (and Spanish and others) pretend they are contributing to the common defense more than they are?
The NATO secretary-general may dream of more European commitment to Afghanistan, but I'm worried that NATO will accept the illusion of helping over the reality. We might actually get more NATO troops in the coming year. But their main role will probably be to keep the German troops company in the safer areas of the north. Is this what we want from our allies?
