Penny Wise and Pound Foolish?

The planned Dutch withdrawal of their small contingent from Afghanistan is leading to talk of a fraying alliance.

The talk is mixing up cause and effect. Recall that the far more serious French withdrawal from NATO's military structure in 1966 did not wreck NATO. But the mere withdrawal of a small Dutch force from a distant war can do worse damage?

And yet NATO efforts continue to revolve around getting members in Europe to build niche capabilities that can be deployed overseas to help us. This is what is killing NATO. Too many countries think they have no dog in this fight in Afghanistan. I think they are wrong, but I'm not a European voter.

For the stress we place on NATO, what do we get? British and Canadian troops fight with us and endure serious casualties, but nobody else--even those who fight--tip the scales as much as these two countries as far as seriously helping us.

We should stop asking NATO to help us in Afghanistan. NATO should be geared to defending the continent from internal and external threats. Our interest in NATO should consist of the long-standing goal of preventing the continent from being controlled by any hostile government--and that means the Kaiser, Hitler, the Soviets, or Brussels (the Europeaan Union). We would be in a world of hurt if the economic, scientific, and military power of Europe was directed against us.

If NATO's Afghanistan mission causes Europeans to shrink from participating in NATO and turning to the EU, we will have suffered a strategic loss. It would be better to have a NATO strong and secure on the continent and uninterested in minor contributions to overseas (out of area) missions that cause more damage to our alliance than help.

By all means, we can ask individual countries to help us; and I'd bet Britain and Canada--and even France--would help us just as non-NATO Australia helps us. But whether a country does or does not help would not be a matter that frays NATO ties.

I'm happy with a NATO that preserves our gains in Europe made at such high costs through two World Wars and a Cold War. This alone is valuable and allows us to focus resources on the rest of the world without worrying about this very important continent. Why risk that gain by insisting on minor help that costs far more than we should be willing to pay?