NATO Allies Want a Plan, Not a Plea
Spencer Ackerman writes:
From a White House press release:
Vice President Biden will travel to Brussels, Belgium next week to meet with the North Atlantic Council, the principal forum for NATO’s 26 member states. The purpose of his trip is to consult with allies on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to ensure that their views help inform the strategic review ordered by President Obama. The Vice President also will meet with NATO’s Secretary General, with senior leaders of the European Union and with officials of the Belgian government.
Whether NATO countries believe, like Canadian PM Stephen Harper, that Afghanistan is an American preoccupation and not a core NATO interest is something Joe Biden will literally find out.
I think this misconstrues the nature of NATO skepticism about recent U.S. requests. The skepticism from the NATO allies is, like the skepticism from the progressive community in the United States, driven not be a lack of belief that “Afghanistan” is a core interest but by a lack of clarity over what “Afghanistan” is. For reasons that are 100 percent the fault of George Bush and 0 percent the fault of Barack Obama, the new administration finds itself taking over a situation in Afghanistan that bears little resemblance to the one prevailing when our initial war aims were framed. Consequently, it’s become unclear what the American and NATO missions in Afghanistan really are. Hence the ongoing strategy review process. But unfortunately, in some respects Obama seems to be putting the cart before the horse in terms of making commitments of American resources and requests for NATO resources before getting clear about what we’re trying to do. What I think Biden will find it, is that insofar as the Obama administration wants to get substantial cooperation from allied nations he’s going to need to persuade them that he has achievable goals and not just a domestic political imperative.
51 Responses to “NATO Allies Want a Plan, Not a Plea”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“What I think Biden will find it, is [sic] that insofar as the Obama administration wants to get substantial cooperation from allied nations he’s going to need to persuade them that he has achievable goals and not just a domestic political imperative.”
I think that’s a pretty good insight. Obviously Obama campaigned on a very clear platform of “let’s disengage from Iraq and beef up our efforts in Afghanistan.” Now he has a domestic political imperative to carry out that platform, but no clear idea of what efforts, exactly, we should be beefing up.
Contrary to post 9/11 mythologizing, the Afghanistan invasion never had a clear rationale nor any reasonably achievable war aims. Invading was something everyone agreed we “had to do” despite the fact that it wasn’t clear that there was anything to be gained by doing so.
Surprise! There still really isn’t much to be gained.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
How do you reform a government and placate all parties involved when a substantial portion of that nation’s commerce is centered on the growing, cultivation and sale of poppy and opium? Substituting another crop hardly seems an answer. Yet it’s farmers, agrarians, you’re seeking to transform. What else can they do that reaps equivilant revenue? Brussel sprouts? Cabbage? Roses? I don’t think cabbage realizes quite what poppy brings. What other use for the land will the various gangs and private militias even permit? I don’t see our citizenry and political factions being satisfied at pronouncing the job done when heroin from Afghanistan flows into EU and American streets yet our militaries have declared victory.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I think a lot of the “progressive community” in fact is beginning to question whether Afghanistan, whatever it is, is a core interest of the United States, let alone NATO. Is it that we can’t allow it to become a “base” for terrorism? Why bother, when al-Qaeda is comfortably ensconced in Pakistan? Is it that we find the Taliban distasteful? Why fight a war over that? Do we suppose that Afghanistan, left untended, will destabilize the region? Well, make the argument — I haven’t seen it yet.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Why can’t we just leave? It seems some really love the idea of an America constantly at war.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Aaagh! I didn’t want all those italics! Only the first and last words of that chunk were supposed to be italicised.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I disagree. While I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan is different.
The basic concept of NATO is the same as that of the Hell’s Angels: An attack on one is an attack on all — and all alliance members will help kick the shit out of the attacker.
We were attacked on Sept 11.
IN my opinion, we should have settled Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s hash 7 years ago. We didn’t because of Bush/Cheney’s incompetence at COIN — if you want someone out there among 1 billion Muslims to drop the dime on where Bin Laden is, you really should not go out of your way to make every Islamic grievance Bin Laden states against you appear to be self-evident truth. Go out of your way to appear to be far worse of a threat to the world than Bin Laden.
Of course, Bush/Cheney really didn’t want to win the “war on terror” — it was too useful to justify massive defense expenditures in support of Big Oil’s agenda. Doesn’t mean that Al Qaeda is not still a threat that needs to be dealt with. Maybe not with extermination — maybe with negotiation on some things. But dealt with.
As far a nation building goes, forget it. Afghanistan has always been a hopeless shithole– and even if you turned it into a garden spot, there will still be many other shitholes on this planet in which Al Qaeda can hide. Cut a deal and leave Afghanistan’s fate to the people who live there.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“Obama seems to be putting the cart before the horse in terms of making commitments of American resources and requests for NATO resources before getting clear about what we’re trying to do.”
I’m not sure about that. Negotiations inherently have a lot of back and forth to them. If Obama starts with a fully developed plan, he’ll likely have to change the plan in order to get NATO to sign on. If he starts with an under-defined plan, he has room to give in order to secure NATO participation. In the end, it doesn’t matter. NATO will participate, and the plan will be a compromise between NATO and America’s interests. But the way he’s doing makes it look like like he’s compromising less. Nobody can say what Obama gave up to get NATO to sign on because nobody knows where Obama started from. It’s a smart ploy.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Don –
What is it you disagree with? Almost everybody thought the 2001 response to Sept 11 was correct, but incompetently conducted. Yes, we should have settled al Qaeda’s and Bin Laden’s hash years ago, but we didn’t. Now they’re not even in Afghanistan. The place, as you say, is not a great candidate for nation-building. In fact it’s rapidly deteriorating. So what the fuck are we doing there? Fighting a war against the Taliban? Why?
March 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
To be honest Matt. NATO allies want neither. They don’t want to send anymore troops to Afghanistan because its so incredibly unpopular at this point in each of their respective nations.
This is the problem with NATO…It is very quickly becoming irrelevant in the 21st century for a variety of reasons, not the least of which has been its expansion of both unreliable members and unrealistic objectives.
I’m all for continuing to push for more troops and a more realistic strategy in Afghanistan…but as the left is beginning to find out through experience…a change in tone doesn’t do shit to the very real differences that we have with our fellow members.
Since Obama came to office, it’s been one “hate to say I told you so” after another…
March 4th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“How do you reform a government and placate all parties involved when a substantial portion of that nation’s commerce is centered on the growing, cultivation and sale of poppy and opium?”
A recent FT editorial repeated a common sense suggestion some have made before: NATO should buy all the opium Afghans grow at whatever the prevailing market price is. Some of it could be used for legitimate medical uses and the rest could be destroyed, but this would accomplish a couple of things: it would stop antagonizing Afghan farmers and it would dry up a source of funding for the Taliban.
That said, it still leaves the question of what our mission in Afghanistan is supposed to be. Unlike Iraq, which has a reasonable chance of being a viable country when we leave in a couple of years, Afghanistan looks to be a ward of the NATO indefinitely, barring some sort of outside-the-box solution (e.g., divvying it up among its neighbors along ethnic lines, assuming they’d even want any of it).
March 4th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
NATO should be wondering why they agreed to this without an indictment. They essentially joined in the attack on a nation based on an unsubstantiated accusation.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
You say that the skepticism is 100% Bush and 0% Obama, but I actually have to disagree a little. Obama bears a little bit of responsibility for the skepticism. So far, his leadership in Afghanistan hasn’t had the time to amount to much, but he has enacted two major shifts: one, another escalation of troop levels, and two, widening a combat front in Pakistan. Since early in the primaries, he made it clear that he would fight the Taliban in Pakistan, whereas the Bush Administration was very clear that what happened in Pakistan was Musharraf’s turf.
The question that our allies will rightly begin to ask is, “Are we looking at a war inside the Pakistani border?”
March 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Sqeaky Rat,
To prevent them from retaking the country. The last time they controlled the country, they let bin Laden set up shop there.
You say al Qaeda is “in Pakistan.” Well, yes – they’re hiding out in rural villages in the frontier areas. This is quite different from having access to the territory, resources, and privileges of a sovereign government.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
new administration finds itself taking over a situation in Afghanistan that bears little resemblance to the one prevailing when our initial war aims were framed.
One would expect that after seven and a half years, stuff would change.
Regardless, it’s not the ’strategic drift’ that the allies had a problem with for the most part. It was the perception that they were sending troops in afghanistan so that Bush could send troops to Iraq.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
This one’s for Ackerman: “literally find out”? As opposed to figuratively? What?
March 4th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“literally find out”?
It’s a riff on a Bidenism; he (the VP) literally uses ‘literally’ in every sentence he utters. Has for literally years.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
As usual, Joe doesn’t think,
Yes, when the Taliban last ran Afghanistan, they let bin Laden stay there.
And they lost their rule of the country and had to hide out for the last seven years.
So what are the odds they let bin Laden do anything from their territory the next time around?
Not very high. And if they do, maybe next time we won’t bother with knocking off the Taliban, just GET BIN LADEN!
What part of that can’t you understand?
And since you can’t STOP THEM from retaking control of Afghanistan, whether overtly or covertly as they are doing, what’s the point of pouring more billions into an unwinnable war in a country that’s never had a stable government?
March 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Also, this notion Joe has that the Taliban are “hanging out in rural villages” as though they’re walking around barefoot in some flat plain area where the Pakistani forces or US forces could go in and clean house is just totally wrong on all counts.
The Taliban are part of a huge population of Pashtun, with numerous cross currents, different tribes, and connections to both the Pakistani government and various terrorist and criminal groups.
The Pakistan government has never been able to control the territories and never will. Neither has Afghanistan been able to control its border areas.
It’s far more difficult to come up with solutions to that problem than just throw in some troops. Every time the Pakistani government has done that, they’ve gotten their ass kicked and half their soldiers – who happen to be Pashtun – defect or surrender to the “enemy” – who happen to be Pashtun.
Dumping US troops in there would result in 35 million Pashtun kicking our ass for the next fifty years.
Get serious.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Wait, wait, let me guess…am I moron? Or is it imbecile?
Obviously, it’s one or the other. I dared to make an observation Hack the Great finds politically inconvenient.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Hack, does your certainty that only ignorance can possibly explain why someone disagrees with you stem from an inferiority complex, or are you just a fifteen year old?
What part don’t I understand?
The part where you think that an American withdrawal won’t be seen as a repeat of the Russians’ defeat, and confirm to the Taliban that they can stick it out, don’t need to knuckle under, and end up in control of the country despite ticking us off. You DO know that the Russians installed a friendly government, fought what became the Taliban, and THEN the Taliban retook the country and ruled however they wanted, right?
The part where you think the Taliban will consider the disposition of the United States towards them to be more important than the ties of religion, politics, hospitality, and kinship between their top leaders and those of al Qaeda.
And the part where you think that a Taliban government would let us “just get bin Laden” without using their military to stop us and protect him.
I don’t understand either of those things, probably because they’re not true.
Also, this notion Joe has that the Taliban are “hanging out in rural villages” as though they’re walking around barefoot in some flat plain area WTF are you talking about? True of false – the Taliban are in remote, rural areas. Why, that would be “TRUE.” Barefoot? Flat plains? Huh?
The Taliban and al Qaeda used to BE the government of Afghanistan. They controlled the cities, controlled the economy, controlled the military, had free passage over and controlled the territory, and had the powers and privileges of a sovereign government. Now, they are in remote frontier areas in one part of Pakistan with vastly fewer such resources at their disposal.
This idea that I think it would be easy, or have even suggested, knocking over the Taliban in Pakistan is entirely from your own imagination, Mr. Hack. You misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that they have much fewer resources at their disposal than if they were to retake Afghanistan.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Joe from Lowell –
The part where you think the Taliban will consider the disposition of the United States towards them to be more important than the ties of religion, politics, hospitality, and kinship between their top leaders and those of al Qaeda..
So what if they don’t? For Al Qaeda, the world is their playround. They’re already set up in Pakistan. What exactly is the point of spending thousands of lives and billion (or tirilions) of dollars on Afghanistan?
March 4th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
You DO know that the Russians installed a friendly government, fought what became the Taliban, and THEN the Taliban retook the country and ruled however they wanted, right?
I’ve said this before but remember in that timeline
1) USSR pulls out its troops, still lends nominal support to government
2) USSR *completely disintergrates* as a country 2 years later. conquently no more support at all.
3) 4 years after that Marxist govt in Kabul finally falls.
Even if we completely leave, we’ll still be able to pay attention (or pay someone)
March 4th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Squeaky Rat,
If having a safe haven and friendly government in Afghanistan was so unimportant to bin Laden, why did he give them millions of dollars and move his operation there?
Kolohe,
That’s fine, if it comes to that. It would still be better to leave behind a situation that has a chance of not requiring us to do this all over again.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Joe, you’re both a moron and an imbecile.
bin Laden went to Afghanistan because he believed in the fight there.
Is that hard for you to comprehend?
“does your certainty that only ignorance can possibly explain why someone disagrees with you stem from an inferiority complex, or are you just a fifteen year old?”
No, it comes from the fact that when a moron spouts bullshit with no facts to back it up with, it’s clear that ignorance is his issue – along with fucking pig witless stupidity.
And I happen to be turning 60 in a week or so.
Boy.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Gee, what a shocker; the guy who went to jail for a violent crime can’t read a dissent opinion without going apoplectic.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:48 am
bin Laden went to Afghanistan because he believed in the fight there
Holy crap, are you ignorant. In the 80s, he went to Afghanistan because he believed in the fight there. Then he left, and set up shop in Sudan. He went back to Afghanistan in the 1990s because he was kicked out of Sudan, and needed a place to go.
Seriously, you presume to lecture people as if you’re some kind of an expert, and you don’t know this? Good Lord!
Dude, read a book.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:50 am
How does somebody not know this? It’s been widely discussed, it was reported in the 9/11 Commission Report, it’s common knowledge.
Oh, right, it’s the Hack we’re talking about. You’re one of those people with an astounding capacity for not knowing things that don’t confirm your preconceived notions.
It must be a proud moment for an old man to realize he comes across as an adolescent.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:53 am
A hack full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Once, bin Laden went to Afghanistan initially to fight the Russians, Once kicked out of Sudan, naturally he would go there – he was welcomed there because of his previous support for the regime.
So what?
You’re the asshole babbling about shit he knows nothing about when he talks nonsense about bin Laden giving them millions of dollars just to set up a safe haven. He initially gave them money to support the war against the Russians.
No matter how much you try to spin it, the reality is that bin Laden had support in Afghanistan because of his belief in the fight there. WHEN is not relevant.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
A note on Stephen Harper – he and his party have been staunch supporters of the Afghanistan mission for several years. This statement is backing away from his earlier positions of total support for the war until it is done, one of the major policy points that differentiated him from the other parties in recent elections. The war is increasingly unpopular in the areas of Canada where Harper needs to make gains in the next (potentially soon) election, especially British Columbia, Quebec and Toronto. I would take this as a domestic political move on his part, not a step away from supporting the indefinite war.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I dont usually comment, but after reading through so much info i had to say thanks
March 14th, 2009 at 8:19 am
This is the first time I comment here and I must say that you provide genuine, and quality information for other bloggers! Good job.
p.s. You have a very good template . Where have you got it from?
March 14th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Great Post. I love anykind of news. Cheers for the information
March 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
i totally not agree with this.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
i totally not agree with this.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:32 am
i try to find something in your blog but seems like your search function doesnt work.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:32 am
i try to find something in your blog but seems like your search function doesnt work.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english is very poor but maybe i understand what you talk about. thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) i dnot think that i understand .. i hate english itis very difcult . thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) i dnot think that i understand .. i hate english itis very difcult . thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however in arabic when i read some thing like that i just say “raee” i donot know how to say it in english . thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however my english not that good but i think i get the point. thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
To start earning money with your blog, initially use Google Adsense but gradually as your traffic increases, keep adding more and more money making programs to your site.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however in arabic when i read some thing like that i just say “raee” i donot know how to say it in english . thanks
March 16th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however in arabic when i read some thing like that i just say “raee” i donot know how to say it in english . thanks