Denmark in ISAF
Danish Defense Minister Søren Gade with Robert Gates (Denmark MOD photo)
The news that NATO defense ministers are prepared to back a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan seems a little bit weird given that we’re in the middle of a debate about what to do here in the United States. Something I noticed in Europe was that NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark, actually seemed considerably more hawkish in his rhetoric on Afghanistan than Barack Obama is.
And it actually turns out that Denmark, which until recently was under his leadership, was, in fact, putting more effort into Afghanistan than the United States was. Denmark only has 700 soldiers in Afghanistan of whom 26 have been killed, but Denmark has about as many people in it as Cook County. Scaled up to America’s population this would be as if we had had about 1,400 soldiers killed out of a 38,000-strong deployment. Of course in a war absolute number count and Denmark is still a small contributor. But part of the context for what happens at these meetings is, I think, the fact that NATO’s civilian chief is a guy who was the architect of what’s been, for his country, a pretty major war.
8 Responses to “Denmark in ISAF”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Anders Fogh Rasmussen was a tool of George Walker Bush and a beneficiary of the post-9/11 anti-immigration sentiment among the working classes. He appears to the right of Obama because he is, in fact, to the right of Obama on many issues. As prime minister he opposed new tax increases, opposed government support of green energy, enthusiastically supported the Iraq War, and embraced a libertarian approach to government regulation. If he is “Danish” it is irrelevant.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Given that NATO in general and Rasmussen in particular don’t make a move without orders from the US, I think that tells us how this “debate” in the Obama administration will end: more war.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
sounds like another reason to like Northern Europe!
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
If NATO is willing to put their money and manpower where their mouths are, then we may have a viable strategy going forward in Afghanistan, but of course I don’t mean “hundreds” or “thousands” of additional manpower, but “tens of thousands”, America shouldn’t have to provide all these additional troops, 40,000 additional American troops isn’t going to be enough to enact any legitimate COIN strategy in Afghanistan (neither is 60 or 80 thousand), and the Afghanistan government really has to demonstrate itself to be a legitimate COIN partner that both we and the people of Afghanistan can believe in. All of that, and NATO must guarantee they will follow through for at least 20 years.
Outside of all that, which still to me seems clearly fanciful if not impossible (at least to determine what our chances would be for success, let alone kick off with all these factors in our favor), if the strategy is to hold the line and at least maintain stalemate, while we continue to engage in counter-terrorist activities, the costs for doing so need to be clearly articulated, and credible theories about possible emerging elements that would somehow make it all eventually worthwhile elucidated.
It’s a tough sell if you do it honestly and honorably, and consider me a skeptic, but at least then an additional 40,000 troops might make sense (i.e. for stalemate leading to other advances down the road, not for a COIN strategy that has any chance to “win”, whatever that means).
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Of course, when assessing strategy, costs and investment, as well as pragmatics, it’s much easier to argue against any such increase in troops and investment in Afghanistan, as surely we can accomplish more productive things for the security and prosperity of this nation (and world) then pouring money hand over fist into an incredibly risky endeavor with little to no chance for actual success in the next decade or two, if we stuck around that long.
Here, we must deal with the opportunity cost of what we’re doing, and how much of this is merely budget and macho inertia emanating from the Pentagon, who obviously are pretty narrow-minded and have almost no credibility as far as strategic wisdom or insight over the past several decades, instead really just seeming like an out-of-control bureaucratic cash cow with an elevated propensity to lie to their employers and themselves about the importance of their missions.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
[...] clap for Denmark. Here’s another argument to establish a common European foreign policy. Denmark has put itself [...]
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Just today the number of fallen Danish servicemen rose by one. A Danish soldier was shot and killed at a Bazar near the Green Zone in the Helmand Province.
Despite the many casualties the Danes still supports the War, according to the latest polls. Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen might be on the hawkish side of President Obama on Afghanistan in his rethoric, but his neoconservatism is par for the course in the Danish political arena. Even “Socialdemokraterne”, the main opposition party, is fully behind the strategy in Afghanistan and urges other European countries to send more troops.
This is not surprising, though. Denmarks foreign policy is very closely connected to the U.S. Mr. Fogh Rasmussen has said this himself on many occasions. One of his main arguments as Prime Minister for sending Danish troops to Iraq in 2003 was this: “It is always in Denmark’s long term interest to stand with the U.S.”
I see the rethoric of mr. Fogh Rasmussen on Afghanistan and the broad support in the Danish parliament as a sign of their conviction that president Obama will continue the main strategy in Afghanistan – with extra troops or not. And I think they are right. In the analysis of the President’s intentions. I’m more skeptical when it comes to the policy.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
what’s been, for his country, a pretty major war.
Do you mean “pretty” or “major”? If you mean “major” : Iém not sure.
Time passes, but I think what counts over there as a “major war” is still a chink in the ages pyramid, average height going down for a few years and maybe some cities bombed to rubble.