This is from a recent speech given by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Conference of European Armies on Oct 25/2007:
"Said differently, our progress in Afghanistan is real but it is fragile. At this time, many allies are unwilling to share the risks, commit the resources, and follow through on collective commitments to this mission and to each other. As a result, we risk allowing what has been achieved in Afghanistan to slip away."...."While there will be nuances particular to each country’s rules of engagement, the "strings" attached to one nation’s forces [JK: several nations have these, including caveats that more or less forbid them to enter combat] unfairly burden others, and have done real harm in Afghanistan. As you know - better than most people - brothers in arms achieve victory only when all march in step toward the sound of the guns."....
..."For example, a widely recognized benchmark is for Allies to spend 2 percent or more of GDP on defense. Yet currently, only 6 out of 26 NATO members have met that goal." [JK: and some of those are the nation's smallest members]....
"As it stands today, non-U.S. NATO nations have more than 2 million men and women in uniform, yet we struggle to maintain 23,000 non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan. This is partly a function of how NATO militaries are organized, and partly a matter of resources - but it is mostly a matter of will and commitment. The same is true for equipment and other resources. Consider that earlier this year the U.S. extended its Aviation Bridging Force in Afghanistan in Kandahar because the mightiest and wealthiest military alliance in the history of the world was unable to produce 16 helicopters needed by the ISAF commander. Sixteen.
Meeting commitments means assuming some level of risk and asserting the political will necessary to deploy armed forces beyond one’s borders - fully manned and equipped, and without restrictions that undermine the mission. In Afghanistan, a handful of allies are paying the price and bearing the burdens of allies to create the secure environment necessary for economic development, building civic institutions, and establishing the rule of law. The failure to meet commitments puts the Afghan mission - and with it, the credibility of NATO - at real risk. If an alliance of the world’s greatest democracies cannot summon the will to get the job done in a mission that we agree is morally just and vital to our security, then our citizens may begin to question both the worth of the mission and the utility of the 60-year-old transatlantic security project itself."
Which leads to the natural question: just what is NATO, or Europe, really worth these days?
The short answer: it's worth something, but not much. If this is the best level of help Europe can offer in a crystal-clear case like Afghanistan, then the truth is that they are not dependable, or even very useful, allies.
Which does not make them totally useless - but does need to inform our calculations.
NATO troops deployed in less volatile areas of Afghanistan (mostly in the north) relieve the USA of the need to deploy an equivalent number of troops to low-priority areas. That's something.
The NATO Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), meanwhile, have provided a future model that moves us closer to a successful Cuban-style strategy that combines armed soldiers and international aid in a single, deployable package. That's worth something, and very necessary in a world where NGOs aren't willing to have a presence in the kinds of places they're most needed - and/or become the "Toyota Taliban" where they are present. NGOs do bring some value, and they should be used when possible, but a backup needs to be available as a 'Plan B' or even a 'Plan A' in some cases.
The PRT-type model then needs to be expanded in the US military, and also encouraged abroad by constantly and publicly grinding Europe's (fake) professed ideals against the need to do more along these lines. When they do pony up, the USA should praise them and then learn from them, as well as from American experiences.
NATO training forces can be useful, though in truth similar results can be had from paying firms like DynCorp and cultivating a set of arrangements with INTERPOL. Still, if some of this can be had by pressuring Europeans rather than spending tax dollars, great.
In southern Afghanistan, the British, Australians, Canadians, and Dutch have fought well, and that whole area has become a sort of "commando's olympics" for forces from across NATO and beyond. That combat has improved all of the armies taking part in terms of training and equipment, which is a plus, and highlighted the weakness of certain popular equipment types. The Special Forces in particular have an impact unrelated to their size, and need to be meshed in with PRTs at a doctrinal level in NATO.
On the geopolitical front, these countries' presence in Afghanistan also gives them a direct stake in Pakistan's ongoing descent into its status as Taliban Afghanistan II in its western regions, and eventual failed state status. Since people (and hence, the earnings they send back) are Pakistan's #1 economic export, a direct irritant in their relationship with other countries besides the USA has potential value because other complainers have a handy lever. Still, that value is only realized if it results in concrete pressure on Pakistan; until it pays off, it's just a type of bet.
On the minus side of the ledger, besides the low level of actual equipment, money, and troop commitments, we have the recent Dutch experience. Their forces fought well, and hammered the Taliban militarily over several hard-fought days. Only to see a weak ministry at home revert to 'Srebrenica mode' and instantly reverse every gain.
It's a familiar scenario, and the reasonable bet is to expect similar weakness from most NATO countries in similar situations. The suicide complex runs deep there, and civilizational confidence is vanishingly low. That's reality.
Given this ledger of plusses and minuses, the reasonable expectation for Europe & NATO is that they can be depended on only to send very limited numbers of peacekeeping forces in relatively quiet areas. Challenging them to do more, engaging their navies to participate in ocean policing and counter-piracy, and making US commitments dependent on their performance not their alliance, is worth some forbearance, and even some sacrifices. But only in proportion to the (fairly low) actual upside they represent.
Looking for other sources of help, on the other hand, is pretty obviously an imperative. While working to stiffen whatever spine NATO has left and make them as useful as possible for as long as possible, the limits must be acknowledged and real help sought. It's pretty clear that real force multipliers will be found beyond Europe - either via Asian and Middle Eastern partnerships based on hard-edged goals and driven by true realism (as opposed to the wishful pap currently peddled in its name), or via organized recruitment of auxiliary forces like a Foreign Legion who can assume many "European duties" more reliably, while broadening the local cultural and linguistic expertise available to commanders.
Europe is not worth much of anything. It costs too much political effort at home to keep them on board. NATO is a dead duck, might as well write it off.
America can and should have forces configured to address any combination of foreseable threats in the future. That should include conventional, non-conventional, and nuclear conflicts. We'd be better off focusing on our own needs and increasing spending -- and withdrawing protection from Europe.
Europe is intent on committing cultural suicide anyway ... the latest Labor Party study wants to eradicate Christmas and replace British customs with foreign ones. Europe is nothing but a burden. Their "soft power" doesn't work and their beholden to Islamist electorates at home anyway.
Europe could potentially mobilise a big force, if they wanted to. Lots of technology too.
The main value of NATO to US hegemony is that it keeps europeans from thinking of themselves as an independent force that might do so. As long as they're our allies they'll stay weak. If they got independent then they might get strong and become a serious competitor.
If they got strong while remaining our allies they would demand a much larger say in things. It feeds the outrage to think about them not doing their share to achieve our goals, and it's pleasant to imagine them getting stronger while giving us unconditional support, but it's been a big accomplishment on our part to keep them neutralised so cheaply.
The complacency of the EU seems pretty deep-set. I'm not sure what drivers exist that would get them to crank up militarily in a significant way.
What drivers are there? Water wars? Food riots? The BURNING desire to drive US troops out of EU bases? I don't know.
The last really impressive thing to happen militarily in Europe, in my view, was how the French executed their nuclear weapons testing just as Die Wende was coming to fruition in Germany. Coincidence? Maybe not. I think they were sending the reunified Deutschers a message, sotto voce: "Psst. We have nukes, you don't -- please do think that over."
But of course, that's a ridiculous idea, right? :)
Europe has been and always will be a free rider off of the American protection/presence there. But I do see the need for an American presence in Europe due to strategic airlift requirements and relative closeness to "hot spots" in Africa and the ME.
The EU is putting a wedge between NATO and the EU countries purposely; all their hype about a "rapid reaction force" will never come to fruition. Like mentioned before, they want to promote their "soft power" while appeasing the likes of Russia.
They also have to pay many handouts and entitlments to their young unemployed and their growing elderly, minarets to build, and American tech companies to sue.
Don't deploy the missile shield, who cares if Iran wants to nuke Western Europe (probably never will, just Israel), just put some radars there. While any male US soldier would love to be stationed in the CZ and PL (if you been to either of those places, you'll know what I'm talking about), let them see how far "soft power" will get you.
Europe politically is rapidly decaying, paralyzed by a welfare state builded to stop Communisn, which is supported by funds that ought to be spent in defence.
NATO may have a role of coordination among European countries in limited tasks related to common defence in or around Europe, such as the NATO minesweeper force, but beyond that, deployment of European forces is risky.
J (#4)
They also have to pay many handouts and entitlments to their young unemployed and their growing elderly, minarets to build, and American tech companies to sue.
Young unemployed receive a few handouts, on the contrary, the welfare state has been undepinned making the adjustments over the young people and immigrants. Europe, especially Western Europe, is moving toward a society of have's and have not's, privileged persons, usually older because they were granted during the 1950's and 1960's, and the ones that pay for such privileges, young people and immigrants.
Then I ask: who would fight in a war? Who would give up some of his money to finance it? Young people that see that they are second class citizens? Or older ones that enjoy incredible state subsidies?
Europe is dead, politically.
However, it is still a big market, and an enclave that would be taken as hostage by rogue states such as Iran. That is the reason of the missile shield.
Well, is this worth anything: UK forces Afghanistan = c.7,700.
Granted, this is only about a third of the number US forces in-country, but a significant force all the same.
The central problem with the Continental European members of NATO is that France is outside the military structure, and unwilling to subordinate its forces to non-French command; while Germany is deeply pacifistic and its forces in any case not structured for expeditionary operations.
(On German pacifism, I'm inclined to say long may it last.)
And few govts. are willing to take any risks that may have political downsides in the partisan games.
In Britain, where the govt. was willing to take these risks, the Afghanistan deployment has been criticised by pro-Conservative commentators perhaps even more than from the left.
Essentially the value of NATO to the US is the same as it was in 1949 (and the same holds for Japan): denying any present or likely potential hostile Power control over one of the main global centres of industrial-technological capacity outside the USA.
BTW Jim Rockford #1:
"...Labor Party study wants to eradicate Christmas..."
It's by the IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research) think-tank; they've got connections with Labour, true enough, and it's a troubling sign of how the right-on left are thinking (for want of a better word), but it's NOT a Labour Party policy document.
Or likely to be so any time soon.
If it gets within a mile of being proposed to Parliament, let alone passed, you can paint me red and call me a radish.
Joe,
Interesting read, a lot to chew on here.
I think you are correct and it is time to take calculations regarding the alliance. I am not so sure that Afghanistan will ultimately decide the fate of NATO, rather define its limitations.
I am unaware of any historical evidence where security operations has determined the effectiveness of a defense organization. It seems to me NATO will be defined by its defense obligations to members of the charter, not by its contribution to forward operations in the role of security.
It is because Afghanistan attacked the US that a serious review of strategic partnership requires attention. I think such a review sends the appropriate message, as in the case of both Europeans and the US, actions ultimately speak louder than words.
Europe to me has always seemed a political quagmire for the US. We continue to prop up its weak military spending, while it continues to focus its money that it should spend on its own protection on doomed to fail social experiments. Does anyone really still believe that socialism is a viable system of governance (besides the ivory tower set)?
The collective response to militant Islam in Europe says a lot about where its headed in the future. The whole Mohammed cartoon affair really exposed most of the EU nations as terrified of the furious Islamists that they have allowed to fester like a boil within their own borders.
As for NATO, it has about as much worth today as the UN.
I have been saying for some time that the Kosovo operation of 1999, was a horrible mistake... not because we essentially fought on behalf of Muslims (disconcerting in hindsight, but not my point), but because we missed a golden opportunity to FORCE European politicians to confront head-on their own weakness in confronting armed fascism and the threat it posed to the EU and the continent as a whole.
Here is exactly what the US should have said about Kosovo. "We absolutely believe the Yugoslovian nightmare (remember how bad it was mid-90's??) can only be confronted militarily, and we support that 100%. We will help with intelligence. We will help with transport. We will offer loud and public diplomatic support. We will even crack open our checkbook. But we will NOT fire one bullet, nor drop one bomb. We will not. YOU (Europe) will. You will. And when kids get killed, and the wrong embassy gets bombed, and soldiers and pilots die, YOU will take the heat, YOU will explain it in the UN, YOU will argue it in the newspapers and on TV, and YOU will get out a well-needed billy club and smack your sanctimonious academics, journalists, and activists over the head and explain to them that their little utopia does not come without a price.
YOU will do these things. Not us... again. You will. You." (And we would've offered one hell of a lot more moral support than we got circa 2004.)
Had we done this in 1999, I truly think our entire relationship over Iraq would be radically different. We would have respected Europe more for their courage, and I have no doubt that they would have been far more understanding of our similar actions against tyranny elsewhere in the new century.
But it was not to be, and an opportunity to get our 26-year old son out of the house and standing on his own two feet, not to mention getting him to begin to question his nitwitted, age-early 20's contempt for "the Man" and his "capitalist oppression trip totally bumming my high", etc etc, was lost.
I won't blame Clinton. I certainly did not see the contours of that argument at the time. But that does not make it less so.
J Thomas: "If they got strong while remaining our allies they would demand a much larger say in things."
And they would have earned it, and that would be ok. It would be troublesome, of course, but it would be worth the trouble. And because the effort and costs would be shared more strongly, it would be a say coupled with price and real responsibility in the decisions.
Which avoids the corrupting effect of say without responsibility. Anyone who has worked in an organization of any size should grasp the importance of that last bit instinctively.
John Farren: The fact that the 23,000 includes 7,700 Brits (and about 2,200 Canadians) makes things even starker. 23k-10k = 13k European troops. 13 thousand.
"The central problem with the Continental European members of NATO is that France is outside the military structure, and unwilling to subordinate its forces to non-French command; while Germany is deeply pacifistic and its forces in any case not structured for expeditionary operations."
If Germany is deeply pacifistic and can't contribute much (I think they spend about 1.2% of GDP now), then why, exactly are they of any value as an ally when military matters are discussed? Why is their input important?
While that could have been argued as a theoretical point in 2003, in 2007 the Afghanistan experience makes that point very concrete.
As for France, if they insist on their own command they can be handed a sector or two and told to go for it. That's not necessarily a barrier in these kinds of operations.
J Re: "soft power"... Poland and the Czech republic certainly have a lot (don't overlook Croatia, either), but unless you're planning to drop calendars, it can't really be deployed abroad.
I would, however, be a brilliant marketing campaign in the USA: support our allied troops, fighting with you in XYZ... buy this calendar! Raise their profile as dependable allies, and make a lot of money for their USO equivalents too.
Joe Katzman #11:
re. Germany "...why, exactly are they of any value as an ally when military matters are discussed? Why is their input important?"
They're not. It aint.
It's political grandmothers footsteps, not military value.
Some other figures on total ISAF numbers in Afghanistan: a NATO PDF gives a total of 41,144; less 15,108 US forces ISAF gives 26,036.
Also IIRC there's another 10,000 odd US forces in Afghanistan outside ISAF on training/support missions.
The problem is, a whole load are just penny-packets, or their deployments (e.g. the large numbers stationed at Kabul or Mazar-i-Sharif airports) and rules of engagement designed to minimise the risk of casualties for domestic political reasons.
Both Germany and Italy have explicity refused to allow their contingents to engage in the anti-Taliban operations in the south-east.
Germany has some 3,000 troops in Afghanistan and Italy 2,000 odd; but for military purposes they're about as much use as a chocolate ashtray.
France has about a thousand; and I suspect wouldn't take on a sector command if you offered Sarkozy the moon. Domestic political downside is too big.
UK govt. would certainly like other Euro-NATO to help out in Helmand for both operational need and political cover against critics of Afghan operations right and left.
But they're not going to go to the wire with the Euros on this 'cause it plainly aint going to happen.
My personal opinion (since 2001) is the UK should have increased defence budgets to a level capable of supporting a full divison+ overseas operational force for long haul deployments in additional to the current "crisis deployable" corps.
Chances of this anytime soon: slim to none. Chances of our needing it: uncomfortably high. Politics squashes strategy. 1920-1939 redux.
Longer term, though, Afghanistan is IMHO mainly a holding operation until the dice finish rolling regarding both Iran and Pakistan.
Back to NATO: it's remaining importance, unless and until the Continentals sort out their issues, is a negative one: resource denial.
For the US to be constrained by NATO on key strategic issues would be putting the cart before the horse.
One of the benefits of NATO is that it prevents the U.S. from sliding into isolationism. Even if the contributions of many of its members are largely symbolic, I don't think Americans have much of an appetite for far parts of the world if closer parts of the world seem uninterested.
I think it depends very much about wich allies your speaking of.
My country, The Netherlands, has been very commited to the NATO allaince and served in a lot of conflicts. Most notable the current mission in Afganistan Uruzgan. Every hour I hear a lot of commercials for the airforce and/or army because the need people. Unfortiantly, like most EU political losers, our cabinet want's a lot but doesn't like to pay.
A big part of the problem is relativ powerfull army's like France, Germany and Italy that deliver about nothing. The Netherlands is looking at allies for months now to find any support for Afganistan after the first period is done.
Well if you look at it the Dutch polical elite has always wanted to belong to the Anglo American empire. And now they have a hard time to find any non American / Canadian allies to help.
Yeah Europe is pacifistic in post ww2 nature, and the politcal elite in general doesn't take action on anything except raising taxes. But I think it is unfair to tread all Europe in the same way, some of us are doing a lot. Well hell the whole world does the same thing about Africa as if it is one country...
Its kinda disheartening that all of Europe combined has ponied up less troops than died the first day of the Battle of the Somme, almost a hundred years ago. Heck, the Germans managed to cough up a couple thousands troops in 1904 to wipe out the Herero in Africa, you'd think they could manage a few more for a good deed.
Maybe we've sold this deployment wrong. If we framed it as a penance for colonialism we might get a better response in Europe.
Ewt, I have noted the Dutch contributions under NATO's positives. They're high quality troops, and their PzH-2000 self-propelled howitzers have been especially helpful. Unfortunately, see also the link re: the Dutch politicians giving every gain away.
We can, and should, acknowledge the Dutch military's sacrifice and contribution, which have been very much above their weight. But we do have to see the negatives and the positives together, and see them clearly. Even if we'd prefer to have an unalloyed good story to tell.
Deductions must be made to the European contribution for the ransom money given to terrorists by Italy and Germany (and South Korea) and the victory given the terrorists by Spain.
The EU contributed to fund Yassir Arafat and the Palestinian authority when they supported attacks inside Israel. That is, Palestinian terrorist were some kind of European civil servants.
Regarding Spain, well... it is far worse than it was published.
Andrew X (#10)
I have been saying for some time that the Kosovo operation of 1999, was a horrible mistake... not because we essentially fought on behalf of Muslims (disconcerting in hindsight, but not my point), but because we missed a golden opportunity to FORCE European politicians to confront head-on their own weakness in confronting armed fascism and the threat it posed to the EU and the continent as a whole.
I disagree. Europeans simply would have done nothing whilst the Kosovo population was massacred and Albanians get more radicalized by Muslim Jihadists coming from other European countries and Northern Africa, as it happened in Bosnia a few years before.
As usual, America did what it had to be done. Furthermore, in that war there was a significant, though not decisive, European military contribution. I think it is not the right example to explain the issue.
@ #16
But we do have to see the negatives and the positives together, and see them clearly. Even if we'd prefer to have an unalloyed good story to tell.
We certainly need to see the negatives and positives togerther, and see them clearly. And in no sense was my post meant to wash away the point of other points. I regard myself as an concerned and informed citizen and absolutly hate to see the current Europe. It is ineffectively run by a politcal elite that destroyed the sovereignty of all nations in the EU. And the way it stands now it is very hard for a EU nation, let alone the EU, to have a foreign policy clear enough to do anything like being a relaible and equal partner in an international project like Afganistan.
This means ... tank crews are exposed to too much danger to dispense with their body armor in favor of cooling vests, regardless of the heat?