(Updated) Afghanistan: Does Anyone Else Detect a Trend?
What the hell is going on with European countries who pay lip service to the notion of fighting the War on Terror in its bread basket — Afghanistan and the border with Pakistan — but won’t provide more troops and other resources?
The war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. The war in Afghanistan is the right war at the right place at the right time, but the U.S.’s erstwhile European allies have cold feet. So cold in Rome that there is a real chance that Italy’s paltry 1,800 troops may be withdrawn.
More here.
Meanwhile, the Strategy Page says that the Taliban are vulnerable. Although it does not say so directly, it makes the case for piling on in Afghanistan, not starving the NATO mission as those European governments seem determined to do.
29 Responses to “(Updated) Afghanistan: Does Anyone Else Detect a Trend?”
They would rather stand by and let us do it,while criticizing us.
Afghanistan is a tragedy. Here is a country that really was crying out for help, a war that needed to be fought, and international commitment to fighting it. If the Iraq war hadn’t gotten in the way, we could have concentrated on Afghanistan and really pushed democracy there, besides maybe capturing Bin Laden (oh yeah, remember him? The media seems to have forgotten him entirely). It still needs to be fought, and I think that Europe, having acknowledged the need from the beginning, should be more dedicated than ever, since US forces have been, shall we say, “distracted”.
I think withdrawing from Afghanistan is a punitive measure to punish the US for Iraq, which Europeans overwhelmingly disapprove of. The problem is that while you’re punishing the US, you hurt the Afghan population, that isn’t to blame for any of the mess.
Spain left Iraq (where it never should have been anyway) but we still have 800 or so troops in Afghanistan, with no plans to leave anytime soon. Yeah, 800 is a little pathetic, but we aren’t exactly a huge nation (though I’d send at least 5.000). Interestingly, while 90% of Spaniards disapproved of our presence in Iraq, our presence in Afghanistan is uncontroversial.
Lynx:
Maybe a foreign policy wonk would be better qualified comment on the story behind the story, but I share your view that there is an element of retribution for the Iraq war in the actions — and inactions — of these countries.
The Spainish government comes in for special condemnation because its people have suffered at the hands of terrorists in the Barcelona bombings and other incidents. It should be in the forefront of fighting these bastards, but political correctness would seem to trump that.
It’s all so bloody tragic.
Important note which seems to be ignored by every single American who decides that it is much easier to criticize an entire continent at once than separating individual European countries: the Netherlands sent more troops a few months ago to one of the most dangerous provinces of Afghanistan: Oruzgan.
How about Americans showing us some respect and gratitude for our continued support? How about Americans thanking Prime Minister Balkenende and former Secretary of Defense Henk Kamp for going through with this mission, despite quite some criticism?
You may not realize it Shaun, but you are including every single European country when you write “the U.S.’s erstwhile European allies have cold feet.”
Cold feet? A couple of our soldiers were targeted by terrorists just a short while ago. Before that they went to battle against Taliban full force. They’re fighting constantly. They are trying to win the war there by a combination of fighting and winning the hearts and minds of the people. How about giving our soldiers a little darned respect?
I have to agree with Michael that you can’t just say “Europe” the way you say “the US”. Every single one of the member states of the EU are sovereign nations and differ, sometimes radically, on their position. Hell, Poland is a member state and it still has troops in Iraq even. Each country has it’s philosophy on the subject and you can’t just offhandedly say “our European allies are doing suchandsuch” because it’s very nearly impossible for all EU countries to do the same thing, a habit that is sometimes maddening, since more cohesiveness would make us stronger.
As for Spain and it’s issues, you have either misunderstood the matter or suffer from the all too frequent belief that Spaniards are cowards for leaving Iraq after the bombings. Either way let me inform you:
1. The bombings were in Madrid, not Barcelona.
2. We’ve had (and continue to have) issues with terrorism before, but it’s domestic. There is plenty of blame to go around on that front, because of the absurd softness on the issue on the part of government, but it has no bearing on opinion or action against Islamic terrorist.
3. We left Iraq because the new government had promised it in elections and went through with their word. Polls situated opposition to our presence in Iraq at 90% BEFORE the bombings. We didn’t suddenly lose our taste for the war, we never wanted it.
4. Despite the bombings Spain continues to have troops in Afghanistan (and Bosnia, and Lebanon), so I don’t see why our government should be in for “special” criticism, especially if the subject is Afghanistan. We’re there, we aren’t leaving, so what’s the problem?
Michael:
Time and space do not allow the praise that your government and countrymen deserve for their commitment in Afghanistan. You are correct that I and others paint with too broad a brush when we talk about “Europe” as if it was a monolith.
But guess what, it is a monolith to an extent. Can you say EU and NATO? On the whole, the response of “Europe” to the 9/11 attacks and the growing specter of global Islamic jihad has been puh-thetic, and nowhere more so than in France and Germany. So there.
MvdG: This American is very thankful to them and to all other heads of state who’ve stuck with the mission in spite of criticism.
I do think Shaun has a point though, about EU and NATO. As long as the Netherlands is part of those, they will get lumped in with the criticism of the rest of Europe to some degree. To some extent, it’s what we face in the US as well: people who don’t support the Iraq war, for example, are in the uncomfortable position of being criticized by the rest of the world for the US govt’s decision to invade Iraq, even though this wasn’t their choice.
That said though, I do think that the courage of individual nation’s leaders should be noted and the statements critical of EU and NATO should always note these exceptions. And, obviously, the sacrifices of the military from all nations should always be honored rather than leave room for inferrence that it is ‘not enough’.
Europeans have been very supportive of the fight in Afghanistan, despite constant rhetorical attacks by the Bush administration for not joining in the war with Iraq. France, in particular, has been villified by the Republican Congress and conservative punditry, but has had thousands of troops on the ground since 2002.
You might have mentioned that the Bush administration spends about 10x more for the failed mission in Iraq, has repeatedly taken U.S. resources from the Afghan front to support the war in Iraq, and, according to news reports, is about to do it again to support the surge in Iraq:
This is why I find the Europeans so contemptable. Their excuse for not helping and supporting us in Iraq is that they believe the war was a mistake. Yet clearly the war in Afghanistan is justified, and yet they are retreating even from their. It’s quite obvious that the Europeans are cowards who lack any resolve whatsoever to win the war against the islamic fascists. This attitude on the part of the west is what further emboldens and encourages terrorists. They know all they have to do is keep the war going long enough to weaken our resolve and get us to retreat. Thus they win by default.
I absolutely respect and am grateful to the Netherlands and its brave soldiers. Certainly not all European countries can be lumped together. After reading your post I regret painting with a broad brush. I should have said I find certain European countries attitudes and behavior objectionable in the war on terrorism.
So Europeans are horrible for lacking support in Afghanistan? Oh wait, we’re sorry, not all Europeans, just the ones that havent given support, like Germany and France. Oops! Turns out Germany and France BOTH have forces in Afghanistan. In fact, before denouncing “Europeans” or even “most Europeans” for their attitude in Afghanistan, maybe you should just look up the international force that includes:
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
United Kingdom
Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Croatia
Finland
Macedonia
Republic of Ireland
Sweden
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
Gee, looks like the Europeans are kinda present, after all. So go bug Bulgaria, why don’t you?
Laura and Shaun thanks for doing something positive with my comment. I was annoyed, to be frank, because – among other reasons – my nephew serves in the airforce, has gone to Afghanistan and will most likely return soon. So, the way certain Americans speak about
‘Europe’ is very, very frustrating.
I’m with those who criticize certain European countries, but one must differentiate. Also… see the other comments by Lynx for instance.
The way I read ‘Europe’ on this is that, notweithstanding NATO command, the war in Afghanisran is still seen as an American war.
America has become radioactive politically, because Europeans feel that the threat of terrorism has been increased by the war in Iraq, and they are afraid.
I believe that, maybe, the US should do more to separate the two wars in diplo-speak. The opposite has been true so far. By shoving too many individual groups with widely differing agendas under the unified umbrella of ‘the war on terror’ we also unify scepticism and outright opposition to any endeavor with US fingerprints on it.
“On the whole, the response of “Europeâ€? to the 9/11 attacks and the growing specter of global Islamic jihad has been puh-thetic, and nowhere more so than in France and Germany.”
Bullshit! What happened to your memory, Shaun? Or didn’t you pay attention to the news in 2001 and 2002? Chancellor Schröder went out of his way, risking a rift with his party base, in instantly promising Bush full german support for the war against the terrorists. And, indeed, Germany was part of the Afghanistan coalition, even though Germans are very hesitant at sending troops to war. Actually, Afghanistan was the first time we did this (all prior missions were purely peacekeeping duties)! And not only did we support the reconstruction efforts financially, our troops are still on duty there.
And it also seems to be forgotten that the important conference that resulted in national and international backing of Kharzai took place in Germany and Schröder and Fischer worked relentlessly to get a consensus out of all those differing interests. Without their efforts, it’s possible there wouldn’t be anything like a national governement in Afghanistan today. All of this seems to be forgotten because Germans didn’t support the Iraq adventure and even publicly rooted against it.
Yeah, I know, nobody likes a smart ass guy who has been right.
“puh-thetic”? What’s “puh-thetic” is the lousy way you’re spinning history here, Shaun.
“Chancellor Schröder went out of his way, risking a rift with his party base, in instantly promising Bush full german support for the war against the terrorists.”
I have to add, Schröder wasn’t alone, there was an overwhelming surge (pun inteded) of pledges for support for the US, and those nations stood by their promises. If Bush would have truly seized the opportunity, he could have used the opportunity to create an international anti-terror force and infkluence national security laws in their favor. However, Dubya instead was determined in showing the US strength, even at the cost of embarassing friendly nations by refusing them a participation in the action against Al quaeda, however small their role would have been.
No, Shaun, no “puh-thetic” response at all. The world rushed to the US’ side, but in stupid pride, the US governement refused the help. Don’t trust me that this is the truth, dig for yourself, news archives are full of reports on this.
Gray:
Excuse me, but it’s 2007. Germany came out of the gate strongly in the fight against terrorism. That is now ancient history.
Ancient history Shaun? Well, I know internet time is different, but I wouldn’t call September ancient history. Germany continues to be, outside the UK and US, one of the biggest contributers to the Afghanistan effort. It might even be the biggest, so calling it “ancient history” is you not doing your homework.
We have a German, a Dutch and a Spaniard on the blog and all three have shown you that, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, you’re dead wrong about their countries lack of support. If there was a mean old Frenchman here, he could inform you that France is also in Afghanistan. It’s that easy, you’re wrong about European commitment to Afghanistan, because you’re mixing it up with it’s commitment to Iraq and thereby swallowing a very popular Bush talking point.
Lynx and Gray: I agree. The focus of so many Americans have become Iraq… they confuse Iraq for Afghanistan, consider it to be part of the same war I suppose. Many European countries don’t. They see them as two separate wars, one worthy of support, the other not.
“That is now ancient history.”
Pls support your slogan with some facts, Shaun. We’re still going strong in the fight gainst terrorism. What makes you think this is ancient history? That we don’t support the US in their Iraq desaster???
“There are about three dozen Taliban commanders in the south, and if enough of them can be taken out of action, this years Taliban offensive will collapse.”
Btw, Shaun, these are pipe dreams. As long as the Taliban have widespread support in Pakistan, in fact so strong that Musharraf has all but abandioned national sovereignty over the border regions, they will always find a safe heaven there, enabling them to prepare the next offensive. There are even reports that Pakistani intelligence agency ISI still secretly supports the fanatics.
Gray:
Please note that I am not saying that if X number of Taliban commanders can be taken out then Y will happen. That is the view of Strategy Page, which mouths the “victory is just right around the corner” mantra with the regularity of the comings and goings of the seasons. I read and share posts on blogs like this (hence my reference to Black Five, etc.) because it is important to know what people with that mindset are saying.
My own view is that had the Iraq war not been such an enormous distraction and drain on troops and resources, things still might not be a whole lot different in Afghanistan. But, as I wrote in my Daniel Pearl post the other day, we’ll never know, will we?
“Please note that I am not saying that if X number of Taliban commanders can be taken out then Y will happen.”
Well, you linked that story and didn’t criticize it’s conclusions. I acknowledged that this isn’t coming from you by saying ‘these are pipe dreams’ instead of saying ‘your ideas are’, or something like that. no misunderstanding, pls.
“My own view is that had the Iraq war not been such an enormous distraction and drain on troops and resources, things still might not be a whole lot different in Afghanistan.”
Indeed, indeed. 100% ack.
“But, as I wrote in my Daniel Pearl post the other day, we’ll never know, will we?”
But we can be very certain about this if we look at the evidence. No reasonable doubt left.
“Indeed, indeed. 100% ack.”
Oops, sloppy reding on my side! No, quite to the contrary, things would look much better in Afghanistan if the US would have a massive presence there. Border security would be much tighter, effectively limiting the Taliban to Pakistan. This would lead to other problems, sure, but Pakistan is much more better equipped in dealing with this than the weak governement of Kharzai.
Btw, thx for weighing in, Lynx, and for your kind words about my country. I really appreciate this show of european solidarity! Good job.
Gray:
I admire your absolute certainty about things. As it is, I become less absolute and more uncertain with every passing year.
That is why when I started my own blog I made an effort — and continue to make an effort — to stir in voices and views other than my own. This is because sometimes people like the bloggers at Strategy Page have things to say that resolutely anti-Iraq war folks like myself should hear. I kinda think that is why I’m a pretty good fit with Joe’s menagerie at TMV most of the time, although some folks still try to pigeonhole me.
“I admire your absolute certainty about things.”
It isn’t absolute, and I’m only certain on things where I think the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing towards one conclusion.Take my statement about Afghanistan’s borders, for instance: Can there be any reasonable doubt that a massive US presence would tighten security?
On the other hand, where did you get the idea that Afghanistan wouldn’t be more secure with more US troops available for hunting the Taliban? There’s not much population that has to be secured. Unlike in Iraq, the majority of troops could be deployed at the border. Where’s evidence that supports your view?
You know that I’m on your side on the argument very often. Even friends can struggle about a controversy now and then, no big deal. Still, to understand your point of view I really would like to see some facts supporting it. Imho your statement on European countries paying only lip sevice for the war on terror is based more on intuition than on facts.
No prob Gray, it’s easy to have solidarity when the issue is so easy to check on and link to. But if you want to thank me, you can answer the post above about national identity in Europe. I’d love to know how Germans see this issue and I bet they have some of the same conflicts of Spaniards-
Gray:
On the other hand, where did you get the idea that Afghanistan wouldn’t be more secure with more US troops available for hunting the Taliban? There’s not much population that has to be secured. Unlike in Iraq, the majority of troops could be deployed at the border. Where’s evidence that supports your view?
I’m not going to get into a factual mano a mano with you. As in my facts are bigger and better than your facts.
What I will say based on extensive reading on the history of Afghanistan from ancient times through the Great Game to the present is that Afghanistan is ungovernable. Always has been, always will be.
The question then is how to secure Afghanistan so it can go about its substantially tribal way of life without being bedeviled by the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Implicit in your statement is that you see foreign troops being in Afghanistan for years and years to come doing border duty. That is unacceptable. What would have been acceptable — and where our “facts” certainly jive — is to have put the full might of the U.S. military into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks and not have it siphoned off by a war in Iraq that never should have been declared.
As we also agree, only then was there a chance that the Taliban and Al Qaeda could be routed, or the remnants that reincorporated in Waziristan would have been a negligible threat to Afghanistan’s stability.
Finally, no amount of boots are going to prevail over the Islamic jihad against the West. Not in Afghanistan and not anywhere else.