The NATO Divide: Why the United States and NATO Aren't on the Same Page in Afghanistan

by Spencer P. Boyer & Caroline P. Wadhams

Facing a barrage of bad news coming out of Afghanistan, U.S. policymakers and military leaders are finally realizing that the mission in Afghanistan is under threat and that more resources, troops, and attention are required immediately. Yet, bogged down and overstretched in Iraq, U.S. officials recognize they can't do it alone and are urging NATO to fill the gaps. They have tried browbeating, cajoling, guilt-tripping, and even cross-Atlantic road shows to convince NATO countries to step up. However, in order for America to be effective in garnering more support, it must first understand why its allies are so reluctant.

To begin with, NATO is merely a collection of countries with their own unique histories, security problems, and domestic political concerns that they bring with them to the decision-making table. NATO will do no more and no less than its member states choose to do. And these governments are driven by the wishes of their people, who are increasingly skeptical about the mission in Afghanistan and any association with the United States.

According to a recent newspaper poll in Germany, only 29 percent of Germans favor continuing the NATO deployment. An April 2007 poll in Canada found that the majority of the population supported withdrawing Canadian troops before the end of their mandate in February 2009. And despite the Dutch government's recent troop extension in Afghanistan through 2010, a poll this month indicates that only 24 percent of the Dutch agree with this decision.

The reasons for this reluctance are rooted in policy and philosophical differences, as well as political fear. First, many publics see the Afghanistan mission as a U.S. operation in general, and Bush's war in particular. With U.S. credibility and President Bush's popularity at all time lows in capitals around the world, this association undermines support for the Afghanistan mission. Furthermore, the Bush administration has been so effective in conflating Iraq and Afghanistan in the U.S. "war on terror" that those NATO publics who oppose the war in Iraq have come to view the mission in Afghanistan as guilty by association.

Second, many NATO populations see the war in Afghanistan as over-militarized -- leading to excessive civilian casualties and alienating Muslim communities in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including those in Europe. German leaders in particular believe it would be political suicide to increase their engagement in Afghanistan due to Germany's post-World War II reluctance to use military force and their concerns over the nature of the mission in Afghanistan.

Third, many Europeans and Canadians have a different philosophy on the use of force and are generally more ambivalent about engaging in military activities than Americans. As the mission in Afghanistan has evolved into a combat mission, NATO member countries have become increasingly reluctant to engage. A German Marshall Fund poll from this year found that while a majority of Europeans (64 percent) supported contributing troops to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, only 30 percent supported committing troops for combat operations, compared to 68 percent of Americans.

Fourth, many NATO populations believe they are being asked to pick up the pieces after the United States ignored their offers of assistance and sidelined them following the September 11 attacks. The United States initially refused NATO assistance in 2001, believing an international force would complicate operations. They also ignored pleas for further help by the Afghan government and the international community for years, believing the mission was accomplished in Afghanistan.

There are no easy answers, but the United States can do more to demonstrate to the world that Afghanistan is a priority and help change public opinion in Europe. U.S. officials must move away from statements such as those of Admiral Mike Mullen in his recent Congressional testimony: "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must." This only shows NATO populations in Europe and Canada that we are not serious about the mission, and makes them more dubious of the whole enterprise. America also needs to lead by example by committing more of its own resources to Afghanistan

The United States must also help European and Canadian leaders make the case to their populations that this is not America's war, but an international mission. This means ceding some U.S. control through empowering an international envoy to coordinate the efforts of the international community, placing all U.S. troops under a unified command led by NATO, and engaging in more consultation and coordination with the international community.

Finally, U.S. leaders must help their counterparts make the case to European and Canadian audiences that success in Afghanistan is imperative to their national security interests, not just America's. If Afghanistan becomes a failed state and haven for terrorists again, we could all pay the price.

Spencer P. Boyer is Director of International Law and Diplomacy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington D.C.-based think tank.

Caroline Wadhams is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress, and co-author of the report The Forgotten Front, which addresses U.S. and European policy in Afghanistan.

Comments

[maldux]

Mr. Boyer could perhaps acknowledge that Australia, unlike NATO is "on the same page" as the US in Afghanistan.

[peterg76]

Unlike Iraq, in Afghanistan the US has achieved its objectives: oil pipepline routes. Which is why the US walked away before the "liberation" of Afghanistan was even half finished.

Now, the current government is better than the Taliban, but, think about it, that doesn't say much. It's like saying during the Cold War that US imperialism was preferable to Soviet imperialism. But the current Afghan government is not exactly enlighened and, since the elections during the occupation were not free, it is not legitimate.

[PoliticalAnimal]

Continue torturing innocent civilians and we will have to pull our troops away from your corrupting influence. Stop the torture and we'll fight by your side. It's your choice ...

[JimReed]

Why are we in Afganistan? The initial reason was supposed to be we invaded because they were too slow in turning OBL over to us. But we demonstrated when we had him pinned down and then turned away to invade an uninvolved country that we weren't really after him anyway. It makes sense because capture or killing of OBL would have prematurely ended our WOT. So now we are left with no legitimate reason for being there either. History is going to have a real job trying to explain this.

[Lafinurbis]

These wars (Iraq, Afganistan, on terror, on drugs, etc) are not meant to be won, just sustained. The ilusion of an undefined victory and a (relatively) low cost for the US is what makes that possible.

[socks1]

Terrorism is a tactic, one which one wins against, by winning the ideological battle over the most correct means of gaining ones goals. There is no way to shot a better idea into anothers head. It is done with reason and better morals and tactics.

One major problem, the Americans have, is in not acknowledging the ways we have contributed to these unneccessary invasions, and false claims of rebuilding Afganistan and Iraq.

Rebuilding a nation cannot be accomplished with profiteers raiding the coffers used to pay for actual rebuilding. If you pay someone for not doing anything, then nothing will be built. And that is how America has spent all those $Billions and $Billions of American taxpayer money.

What has been accomplished is an emptying of the national treasury into private pockets and under the veil of secrecy, so that there is no accounting for where it has gone.

The day after 9/11, the whole world and major portions of the Islamic world, as well, would have gone to great lengths to help us change the minds of radicle forces who resort to violence. Then, with little fanfare but much significance and power, terrorism would have been shut down, from within its own base.

But many Americans in seats of power in the Bush Administration wanted to control the middle east thru force of arms, bugger what anyone thinks. So here we are.

Unless you are willing to put a bullet in the head of anyone who doesn't think like you do, then give up the idea you can change anyones mind with bullets. It is a childish fantasy, held by musceled morons.

[MilwaukeeDan]

Mr. Boyer, good post, but I fail to see the need for a post Soviet Union NATO. Its sole purpose was to protect Western Europe from Soviet agression, that threat ended in 1989. You state, "If Afghanistan becomes a failed state,terrorist haven,,, we could all pay the price". The majority of the Islamic and African world are failed states and non-democracies, any one of them could become a terrorist haven, are we suppose to control the whole world?

[biwee]

Nato was conceived as a political and military union to join and protect the USA and Europe against the Soviet Bear's further expansion after WWII. It worked very well. However, the use of Nato forces in Yugoslavia was a great departure from the original concept. Since the Balkans are in Western Europe's backyard, the ethnic violence attendant with the breakup of the Yugoslav federation was a European problem to solve, not Nato's. Now, the presence of Nato forces in Afghanistan is simply ridiculous....and most member countries are figuring that out.

[maldux]

You don't see fit to mention the contribution from Australia. Perhaps you are unaware of it. Prime Minister Rudd has just returned from Afghanistan. His visit was covered in all the major US media outlets. Where were you?

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Likely, while you two were getting this story accomplished, Mr. B, the story has also come out that OUR country's NOT exactly seeing eye-to-eye with another NATO partner, only in Iraq. And, little or NO communication seemingly took place about whether a NATO partner SHOULD even be allowed to attack a country - that's 'supposedly' under OUR protection.

The questions beg then to be asked:
With the Cold War now gone and Russia a supposed nuclear ally, what exactly IS the current charter and purpose of NATO, and does it indeed still have meaning to justify it's price-tag to OUR tax-payers?
Just what 'specific' threat or enemy still exists that creates the need for such an organization, with it's OWN charter slighly different from, and perhaps in conflict with, that of the United Nations?

And, perhaps MOST importantly;...

After ALL of the years that WE kept Saddam well contained by enforcing strict NO-FLY zones, do we REALLY have someone in the administration trying to tell us(and expecting us to believe) - THAT a NO-FLY ZONE for unidentified aircraft NO LONGER EXISTS, ...maybe that we don't STILL have continuous 'AWACS' in the area, or perhaps that we didn't KNOW shortly after the Turkish jets left the ground?

Uh-huh, ...sure.

NATO allies NOT talking to us or even attempting to agree with us and just doing whatever THEY want? Where on earth would they learn such terrible anti-social behavior???

I wonder...

[KyleAtwell]

"many Europeans and Canadians have a different philosophy on the use of force and are generally more ambivalent about engaging in military activities than Americans."

Apparently some NATO allie's philsophy on force is that it is never necessary. It is very frustrating for Americans when we are told we rely too heavily on force, when the truth is that the peacekeeping and reconstruction missions would not be possible without the military operations that provide an environment of stability, and prevent the Taliban and other extremists from obstructing reconstruction efforts.

There was a discussion about the need for force in Afghanistan in an article called "War for Dummies: Step 1, Fighting is Necessary": http://www.atlanticreview.org/archives/936-War-for-Dummies-Step-1,-Fighting-Is-Necessary.html

Here is a quote from it: "What frustrates Americans is not only that Germany (and other Europeans) want to cherry-pick the popular and less-dangerous reconstruction projects (though that plays a major role in American and Australian frustration) - but also that these same allies give the impression they are on a higher moral ground than those who are taking on the most dangerous, and equally necessary, combat missions."

[realitytrumpsbull]

So, the real battle isn't in Afghanistan, it's
for public opinion in Europe? What a JOKE this
whole thing has become. How's your Halliburton
stock? How many more years, how many more
hundreds of billions will be minted off and
handed to the fatcats?

It's long past time to downsize the military,
I think Paul is right, bring all the troops
home. End the soap opera, end the neverending
jobs program, cut the 'defense' budget, and
clean house in Congress, too.

[raptor]

Correction:
Oh what a splendid little war. For a descrption of British troop life in Afghanistan, see
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article3086933.ece
And we wonder why they continue to curb their enthusiam for this going-nowhere or going backwards war. Karzai, the puppet mayor of Kabul.

[NorCalNative]

Spencer, this American citizen regrets the militarism of Fortress America. I think the U.N. is correct to withhold aid to President Bush and this administration of belligerent warmongers.

The use of military force for anything other than self-defense is problematic to me. Europe is right to be wary of this administrations' "pre-emptive" ideology.

I noticed the French studies in your BIO. Any thoughts on this year's TDF winner?

[nomobull]

YOU CAN NOT EXPECT TO TELL SOMEONE TO BUG OFF THEN EXPECT THEM TO COME RUNNING JUST ON YOUR SAY SO MR BUSH WHEN THE BOAT STARS SPRINGING HOLES.