I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Here a short response to some of your points.

My criticism really extends to Europe as a whole, which seems unwilling to build the military force required to police it’s own neighborhood, much less engage in the kinds of nation-building and peacekeeping much of Europe favors so strongly.

I am not sure, whether Europe is that much interested in nation-building and peacekeeping. For instance, there is much much more pressure in the US by citizens and politicians to intervene in Darfur. Americans constantly call for the UN to send peacekeepers, while not that many Americans want to send the US military into Darfur.

In Europe, there is not as much pressure from citizens and politicians. Darfur is a much smaller issue over here. Yet, the EU is sending troops to the region. Not the US. In this case, it is the Americans who talk and call upon “the UN” to act, i.e. expect others to do the job.

This is from Reuters from Oct 15:

The European Union gave the green light on Monday for a force of up to 3,000 troops in eastern Chad and Central African Republic to protect civilians from violence spilling over from neighbouring Darfur.

Ex-colonial power France will provide roughly half the U.N.-authorised force, whose tasks include protecting refugees and facilitating humanitarian supplies. Its mandate is for a year initially and the mission is due to start within weeks.

French diplomats say roughly a dozen European countries have offered to send troops or equipment, and Brussels is also consulting with non-EU countries over contributions.

More at Reuters.

You write:

The simple fact is that there is the perception among some in America that Europe is all too happy to shed American blood to defend it’s interests, but not its own blood – in other words to have its cake and eat it too.

Regarding the Balkans you are right, but those wars did not result in many US casualties at all. Not much blood was shed.

Europe did not ask the US to go into Iraq. Europeans are not calling upon the US to intervene in Darfur or Zimbabwe or in North Korea or elsewhere.

I agree with you that many Europeans don’t feel much of an obligation to share the burden. In Afghanistan for instance. And that is a disgrace. That is a problem for NATO. It is, as I pointed out in my post, a total lack of solidarity that Germany refuses to go into Southern Afghanistan to help the US, Canada, Britain and the Netherlands.

However, I also think that the German government might have some justified points, when it does not like US tactics in Southern Afghanistan, which lead to high civilian casualty rates. There is a small chance that Germany would contribute more, if it were more involved in strategy and decision making processes. But that is a hen-and-egg problem.

So my disagreement with you is only that I do not think that Europeans call upon the US to intervene here and there, and “eradicate the taliban” etc.
Americans make those decisions by themselves. And afterwards they complain that they don’t get support.

Yes, the Europeans could not handle the Balkans by themselves in the early 90s and were complaining when Clinton was reluctant to help.

But: I don’t think the US got involved because of charity and a do-good attitude. Rather I think, that Clinton’s team was very concerned about the spreading instability, more wars, refugees and about Russia reasserting influence in South-Eastern Europe.

Thanks for your response.

I agree that a tribal solution is necessary – a difficult prospect considering the issues with the border. The Taliban is actually a social movement though it’s based in tribal structure.

I would not agree with the term “eradicating” the Taliban – it seems that is a word the article uses as is not one that’s commonly used in my opinion. As in most COIN fights, the best way is to co-opt the membership and kill/capture the hardliners who won’t.

I also understand the difficult position Germany is in with respect to it’s history. However, I would point out the German leadership should have taken that into account before committing to the mission. My criticism really extends to Europe as a whole, which seems unwilling to build the military force required to police it’s own neighborhood, much less engage in the kinds of nation-building and peacekeeping much of Europe favors so strongly.

As for NATO, despite my comments, I’m a strong supporter and a firm believer in collective security. However, the US must move away from being the “necessary” nation and for that to happen Europe needs to step up to the plate and develop the capability to act with more independence. I’ve heard a lot of Europeans complain of American exceptionalism and paternalism – well if Europeans don’t want America to be the big Daddy anymore, they to take the necessary steps to take a larger role. The simple fact is that there is the perception among some in America that Europe is all too happy to shed American blood to defend it’s interests, but not its own blood – in other words to have its cake and eat it too.

I think that’s the gist of the sentiment. Most Americans don’t want to abandon Europe or NATO, but we don’t want to be responsible for 90% of the effort either.

the US moved on the Balkans because the Europeans wouldn’t

The Europeans couldn’t!

* * *

Europe, America is increasingly tired of pulling your dead weight in the military arena.

Europe for decades has free-ridden militarily and effectively chosen to spend the money saved instead on unsustainable entitlements that dwarf and make even less sense than ours (not that it prevents lefties here in the States from wanting the same) and facing much worse demographic and even immigration problems than we have and will have.

i realize that the message has not resulted in a reaction.
If the message was harsh in public, however, that would put ‘finished’ to any hopes of improvement,.

The world reacts badly when we preach and threaten. This, at least, leaves the door open.
In Afghanistan, it’s we who need them, remember, because the US is not going to abandon NATO there, no matter what.

I spent 3 month in Bavaria in 2002, I noticed empty US bases and talked to many Germans about US German relations.

“A firm ‘not satisfied’ is just right for getting everyone’s attention.”

Such statements have been made for about two years, but many European countries (for instance Germany) still do not send troops to Afghanistan.

Germany contributes very little, but even this little contribution is very unpopular. Most Germans are in favor of pulling out.
In consequence, the German government does not dare to go against popular opinion and provide help to our North American allies.

“Where is the support in Bosnia and Afghanistan?”

There are not any US troops in Bosnia anymore.

EUFOR: On 2 December 2004 the European Union launched a military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina – (EUFOR – Operation ALTHEA.
This followed the decision by NATO to conclude its SFOR mission.

I admit that I expressed myself poorly when writing “there is no such entity as “the Taliban”.”

You are right, when you point out “There is a group that calls and identifies itself as “Taliban” and that group is one of the hostile actors to the US, NATO and Afghan government.”

I appreciate it that you describe the Taliban as “one of the hostile actors.” Many media outlets unfortunately use the term “Taliban” for all groups hostile to the West and the Afghan government.

Since you served in Afghanistan, you know about the complex system of loyalties of Afghan tribes. There is only one core group of Taliban that could be called an entity because of its command structures. This core group is not soo big and powerful. Other Taliban are supportive of this core group, but not 100% loyal. There is not any clear top-down command structure outside of the core group of Taliban. Thus, I believe, there is an opportunity to divide and conquer “the Taliban” by seeking negotiations with some. That is difficult, but might be better than dreaming about “eradicating the Taliban” as if they would be some kind of insect that you can get rid of once and for all by using the right pesticide.

“We wonder what you think a military force is for when you do almost everything you can to keep it from doing actual military operations”

In our understanding a war is supposed to be the very last resort for absolute emergencies. We don’t like wars of choice, but only support wars of absolute necessity. #The military is for the defense of our homeland rather than for trying to bring democracy and freedom to countries on the other side of the world. What’s the point of hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, if they take refuge in Pakistan?
Our military is for unlikely and absolute emergencies rather than as a tool for “normal” politics. We Germans have started too many wars. We are tired of wars and want to keep out of them as much as possible. Might not make sense to you, but that is majority opinion here.

Thank you for your comment. I hope my response helps to clarify my point a bit.

General response to the above comments: The US is not a leading member of NATO for charity reasons. The purpose of NATO was supposed to be (and might still be) to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in Western Europe. I am not aware of a single member of congress, who calls upon the US to leave NATO, but when I read US blogs I get the impression that many Americans want their country to pull out of NATO. Why is not any of your politicians campaigning on that platform?

Europe will get the message.
We know what the message is.

Spitting and sputtering would only ensure that those addressed would not listen but would leave thr room plotting a revenge slap in the face.

A firm ‘not satisfied’ is just right for getting everyone’s attention.

Why no cries from the Right on NATO’s ineffectiveness?

Good question – I have no idea.

And it’s not that our European NATO partners have to ineffective – the problem is that they choose to be.

So what is an international alliance to do when a war it’s committed to has become so unpopular in member states, it can’t get their governments to pony up necessary equipment? The 21st Century answer: outsource it. The Financial Times Deutschland is reporting that NATO is planning on outsourcing air support for southern Afghanistan, an area of some of the most intense fighting. The alliance is intending to contract for some twenty helicopters.

Ironically, the most experienced contractor in providing helicopter services in combat situations, including Afghanistan, is Blackwater Aviation. With growing unpopularity at home, perhaps here’s an opportunity for Blackwater to find support in Europe.

Moving on to the post itself:

Let’s ignore the fact that there is no such entity as “the Taliban” that could be eradicated.

Having deployed myself to Afghanistan on two occasions let me just tell you that you’re wrong. There is a group that calls and identifies itself as “Taliban” and that group is one of the hostile actors to the US, NATO and Afghan government.

Besides, the United States appears to be much more invested in Kosovo’s independence than the EU countries are. I doubt that the US would move its troops from Kosovo to Afghanistan.

Oh, we will. Our Army is currently broken and if the Europeans will not honor their commitments, then they can attempt to deal with the Balkans themselves. I say “attempt” because so far Europe has been unable to engage in independent military operations in a country in its own back yard that’s roughly the size of Ohio without major US assistance.

Please suggest an alternative for the phrase “not satisfied.”

Europe, America is increasingly tired of pulling your dead weight in the military arena. We wonder what you think a military force is for when you do almost everything you can to keep it from doing actual military operations. We’ve kept our commitments to you for 1/2 a century, and continue to do so which costs us a lot of treasure and often some blood as well. If you’re going to make commitments, you bloody well should try to keep them.