Are we asking NATO to do more in Afghanistan?

Posted By Christian Brose Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 4:54 PM Share

By Christian Brose

Can someone explain this to me?

Despite the administration's call for more troop contributions from its allies, Biden avoided making specific requests for increased deployments. This is a tender subject, since several European governments have already said they are unwilling to contribute more soldiers.
Obama recently decided to send an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to join the 38,000-strong U.S. force in Afghanistan. He made it clear he is seeking similar additions to the 25,000-member contingent of non-U.S. forces in Afghanistan, many of whom are engaged in noncombat missions, along with increased commitments in money and supplies for the rebuilding effort that many experts say is just as important as the military campaign.
But Biden indicated at the news conference that the Obama administration is also willing to listen to European suggestions that Western goals in Afghanistan should be scaled back, saying they must be "clear and achievable."

So the Vice President goes to Europe (wasn't Secretary Clinton just there a week ago, by the way?), and with Afghanistan in dire need of a better U.S. and NATO policy, with 17,000 more Americans headed to fight there, with less than a month to go before the NATO Summit, and with presumably even less time before the "Af-Pak" policy review makes its prescriptions, Biden not only doesn't ask our allies to contribute more forces; he goes out of his way to solicit their views on how we can lower our sights and invite failure.

Am I missing something here?

I'm all for multilateralism. I'm all for consulting our allies and taking their views into account when making U.S. policy. But isn't the whole point to get results? Building bridges to America's friends and allies is a worthy endeavor, but they really should lead somewhere productive.

EXPLORE:EUROPE, AFGHANISTAN, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

WOLFBOY

7:23 PM ET

March 11, 2009

Clear and Achievable Goals

Mr. Brose-

Are you missing that we have been there for seven years, have evidently not achieved our goals yet, and have been losing ground for several years now?

I would suggest that it is hard to argue against "clear and achievable goals," particularly in light of this history, and that equating this to "invit[ing] failure" is nothing more than simplistic and empty rhetoric in the absence of any specification by you as to what would constitute success, and failure.

CHRISTIAN BROSE

7:50 PM ET

March 11, 2009

Re: Clear and Achievable Goals

For my specifications on what might constitute a successful approach in Afghanistan, I still stand by this: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/09/afghanistan_wrap_up_from_the_munich_security_conference

WOLFBOY

3:17 PM ET

March 12, 2009

Thanks for your response

Thanks for your response, Mr. Brose-

I read the previous post and better understand your position.

I would suggest, however, that you are making more of this than may be appropriate.

Declining to make "specific requests for increased deployments" is not the same as not discussing the subject.

We can hardly achieve a better NATO Afghan policy unless we are "willing to listen to European suggestions."

Having largely squandered our opportunities in Afghanistan while attention was focused elsewhere, it will be a long and difficult process to convince our allies of the merits of the approach you favor. I, for one, am encouraged that we are finally focused on Afghanistan, and am willing to withhold judgement for the time being.

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.