President Obama, and many of his supporters (well, the supporters who haven't already turned their sights on losing the "good" war), assumed that if only an anti-Bush could make the request with language skills not burdened by a Texas background, the Europeans would swoon and sign up for war.
So close:
France and Germany fully endorsed President Barack Obama's new Afghan war strategy but continued to firmly resist U.S. demands for more combat troops on Saturday in a rift that overshadowed symbols of unity at NATO's 60th-anniversary summit. ...
"We trust him," Sarkozy said. "We were expecting and waiting for the words we heard."
However, both Merkel and Sarkozy stressed the need for Afghanistan's government and security forces to shoulder an increasing share of the burden. They gave no sign they were prepared to send more troops. Both countries believe civilian aid and training for police are what is needed to stabilize Afghanistan.
The words they liked, I guess. The Europeans "fully endorsed" America continuing to fight in Afghansitan. But they won't do more to help. And that talk of needing more Afghan security forces is true but beside the point. Right now we need more NATO troops to fight while we build up appropriate and affordable Afghan security forces.
I mean, ultimately, it would have been better to have enough French troops to liberate France in 1944--but they didn't have them, and so others stepped in. And it would have been better to have more German troops to defend West Germany from the Soviets during the Cold War--but they didn't have them, so others stepped in. We (and others) didn't shrug our shoulders and lecture the French and Germans on the need to shoulder more of the burden.
The Europeans are right behind us, in other words. As usual.
Look, at one level I appreciate the point our allies are making. We do need to make the Afghans capable of doing the job. I am very uncomfortable about sending too many more troops into Afghanistan at the end of our shaky supply lines.
But the point is, President Obama endorsed an open-ended surge into Afghanistan to fight the enemy until our Afghan allies can stand up. The point is that President Obama asked our European friends to help during this time. The point is, many of our president's fans told us the mere fact that President Obama and not President Bush made the request would alter the answer. And the point is, the Europeans are not responding as we were promised.
And the point is that I want to win even if I don't quite agree with our approach.
UPDATE MINUTES LATER: NATO says they will send 5,000 personnel. We are heralding our "success":
About 3,000 of the personnel will be on short-term deployments, sent in to provide security before the pivotal elections this summer, said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Another 1,400 to 2,000 will provide training for Afghanistan's national army.
"If we don't get the security around the elections right, a lot of the other things we want to do won't matter," Gibbs said.
NATO leaders also agreed to create a $100 million trust fund to assist Afghanistan's army, with $57 million of it coming from Germany.
So a micro-surge of polling station guards for a short time and some more trainers who will no doubt all serve in safer areas. And some cash.
That this is called a great success saddens me more than anything. Sure, I'm glad the Europeans will do something. But let's not get carried away. The Europeans have scribbled some crayon marks on a napkin and we're doting on them like they created a Rembrandt.
Meanwhile, our real allies who actually fight with us--mostly the British and Canadians, but also the Dutch and Australians on smaller scales--quietly do their job without a presidential spokesman patting them on the back. Our actual fighting allies might wonder why they fight and die when they could get more praise from our administration by teaching the new Afghan staff officers how to shake the toner cartridge to get more miles out of the office photocopier or writing a check.
