Anders Fogh Rasmussen Going Rogue?
There have been a number of indications of this, but this video NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen posted on his blog seems like the clearest instance yet of the former Danish Prime Minister publicly pressuring Barack Obama to accede to General McChrystal’s troop request:
It’s not clear that this really matters; Rasmussen doesn’t have any relevant formal authority and I’d be surprised if U.S. public opinion turned out to hinge on the views of a Danish politician nobody’s heard of but me. That said, as Spencer Ackerman says it’s a interesting development anyway simply because there doesn’t seem to be any real precedent for this. The way NATO works is that the General or Admiral in charge of U.S. European Command also serves as Supreme Allied Commander, and then a European politician gets the top civilian post. His job is primarily to do cat-herding on the continent and serve as a spokesman for NATO policy, not to weigh-in on live political controversies.
18 Responses to “Anders Fogh Rasmussen Going Rogue?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 25th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
As a danish left-winger I can only say: all sales are final!
About Anders Fogh Rasmussen bottomline is that he is a politician, not a bureaucrat, who has been used to being the biggest fish in a very, very small pond. He is just not going to handle the ocean well.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
As a danish right-winger I can only say that AFR is self confident enough to want to use the power of the NATO gen sec post to actually push his policies.
He was never a person to just roll over and surrender meekly. When he wants something he will usually get it… just saying
But I think you overreact to his address, there’ll be ample room for negotiations along the way.
/Limagolf
October 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
… seems like the clearest instance yet of the former Danish Prime Minister publicly pressuring Barack Obama.
Pressure? Perhaps the decision has already been made and Rasmussen has been charged with pre-selling the case to the Europeans.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Hmm, third time trying to post, wtf?
Does it barf on links to his home page?
(well, I happen to work at the company who wrote that flash app, so I cheated a bit.)
Too bad they keep messing up the aspect ratio on uploads.)
October 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Great. Since that’s so important to him, he can go persuade the other NATO countries to provide the troops. Good luck with that.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
He doesn’t have to convince the American public. He has to convince Barack Obama.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Barack Obama is slowly preparing american public opinion for defeat in Afghanistan.
Just like Clinton in Somalia (or when he allowed genocide in the Balkans and Ruanda).
I was 100% wrong when I wrote on this leftist blog that according to his first decisions in office Obama decided to act as a state man. He is just a demagogue, and a coward. The coming american defeat in Afghanistan for lack and failure of political will be an astonishing development.
During his campaign, then-incumbent Obama had promised to reinforce the troops deployed in the region. But President Obama must now choose between those who – as his vice-president – call for a reduction of troops, and those – as his advisor for national security and Secretary of State – calling for a counter-insurrection campaign by numerous reinforcements.
One of the dangers is none other than the confusion between different levels of war, especially for a low intensity conflict. Without going to excesses of democrat Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara, who validated and select each ground target bombed by U.S. aircrafts in Vietnam, leaders of the Obama administration seem to spend more time looking at the mechanics of the campaign of Afghanistan and the forces involved than the ultimate strategic factors.
The generals now in charge of Afghanistan, McChrystal and Petraeus seem obviously to have learned the right lessons of Vietnam – not those of the generation Powell / Schwarzkopf – and have proven themselves in Iraq. Presumably they have analyzed the current situation of Afghanistan and established a valid operative approach. But if their political masters mix military mechanics instead of assessing its impact and needs, and thus provide a real coherence between troops and their perception among the populations concerned, if they focus on the implementation of strategic directions instead of giving them about, if they confuse the ends with the means and direction of the campaign with its effects, so we can hardly be optimistic about it.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Matt’s arrogance about the exact role of Europeans in NATO aside (something he seems to share with neocons and McCain), it is hard to see what is so controversial about Rasmussen’s video. Did you watch it? He only says that NATO is here to stay, and Obama has already told us that he won’t reduce the number of troops.
More importantly, it is clear that the decision has already been made, by Obama, to send more troops. He only forgot to mention it to the American public.
Finally, don’t underestimate the influence of Danes on opinion poll firms.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Matt, your last half dozen posts have been exceptionally insightful. Keep it up.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Barack Obama is slowly preparing american public opinion for defeat in Afghanistan.
Outside of sterilizing the country with B-61 gravity bombs, I fail to understand how staying Afghanistan was ever going to result in anything but defeat.
And, actually, you’d have to sterilize a substantial part of Pakistan, seeing as the Pushtun haven’t ever recognized nor will they ever recognize the Durand Line.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Yes, but that’s exactly the kind of thing that makes murderous cretins like “Fleur” salivate.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:43 am
We have interests in Afghanistan that it would be nice to successfully pursue.
I have been on the moon for the last five years. Would someone please tell me what these interests are?
TIA
October 26th, 2009 at 10:07 am
My friend, I think that you are a victim of military/political propaganda.
Before the shift drafted by George W. Bush, the military bureaucracy had indeed developed some theories about wars without casualties, through sole technology etc. and so-called surgical aerian strikes. The reason is known : a deep reluctance to send troops on the ground.
They spread the sanctimonious notion of a quick “flash war” (I am not sure of the translation, “guerre éclair” in french, or “Blietzkrieg” in german).
Even the great Bush sent mixed signals about it in the war against terror (he talked about a “long war” but the public got the feeling that operations will be fast and boys home very soon, names likes “shock and awe” didn’t help to clarify it).
Let me tell you this, my friends : there is no such thing as a clean quick war. Wars imply blood and tears, sacrifices, attrition, destruction of the enemy.
Actually, if you look at the whole military history, successful Blietzkriegs are the exceptions. It is very rare that you can win only by maneuvers, movements and surprise. For instance, there were the Six-Day War between Israel and Arabs in 1967 or the 100 hours of fights against Iraq in 1991.
But thoses were exceptions. Exceptions that contributed to maintain a certain kind of illusion in the greatness of israeli or american “superpowers”. A cliché that pleases the military bureaucracy a lot. But I repeat it : those were not conventional warfares. Those were not promises for future easy and quick victories.
So now we come to Afghanistan and Iraq.
And what do we hear ?
Always the same song : a simplistic reference to Vietnam and the use of the word “quagmire” (we heard the same thing in every possible other conflicts : Somalia, Balkans, wars in Africa,…), troops stuck in the mud, operations going from bad to worse, a present desaster and, finally, like it was en evidence, the necessity to stop it as soon as possible. This is the ideology that lead the infamous Clinton to leave Somalia, to allow ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for 2 more years and to have no interest in Ruanda’s genocide.
BUT the concept of quagmire does not make sense in asymetrical conflicts : low intensity operations (like those in Iraq or Afghanistan) takes place necessarily slow, and the lack of immediate victory does not mean failure. An in-depth work is required, with first a slow destabilization, a progressive isolation of the enemy, and secondly an increasing integration of its own forces in the social environment that we are responsible defend, protect and standardize. This requires a strong commitment. And those pleading for disengagement and sole maneuvers and technology etc. are 100% wrong.
Contemporary militaries remain poorly equipped, in terms of doctrines, structures and resources to meet these challenges, but it has always been the case, or almost. Thus, that did not prevent insurgency, guerrillas and other non conventional mouvances to regularly bite the dust against an opponent certainly stronger, but also more intelligent and more flexible than they are. There is no quicksand for those who agrees to immerse themselves in a conflictual environment and to remain there as long as necessary.
As long as necessary.
—
p.s.: please could you avoid the easy insults on everyone who develops an opinion different than yours (or your gurus) ; I fint it very depleasant to be insulted when I share my arguments. Thank you.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Shorter Fleur Delacour: “Generals are ALWAYS right.”
October 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Argh, now it’s not even the right embed for the show in question. (Go back two or three shows.)
change the http://www.kyte.tv/f/ch/336390
to http://www.kyte.tv/f/ch/336390/589470
October 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’ve heard of Rasmussen for years now because I read The Economist.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
A better title for this post would have been, “The Fogh of War”.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:05 am
I found your blog on google and read a few Thanks for the information you mentioned here, I’m looking forward to see your future posts. Cheers !! Please come visit my site City Guide Las Vegas when you got time.