.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Gates chastises NATO over Afghanistan

Robert Gates is headed to a NATO security meeting in Edinburgh where he plans to extend his very public chastisement of NATO allies over Afghanistan troop levels.

Maybe I'm wrong, but with the European view that the US made a mistake going into (and staying in) Iraq, publicly going after NATO partners for troops might not create the domestic pressure the US would hope for.

12 Comments:

  • Can't see NATO buying it. And I always get the impression Gates isn't totally happy with the tough guy stuff.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:06 AM  

  • No. But he did sign up for all this.

    He signed up to take these orders.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:17 AM  

  • Wonder what was going through his mind? I suppose after Rumsfeld they were looking for someone less abrasive. A quiet diplomacy type.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:08 AM  

  • The Bush Administration just shamed and shook down the allies less than two months ago. NATO will get tired of this strategy pretty quickly.
    The British military has been saying it's on the brink of collapse for a few months now. Generally, things have to be pretty bad before senior commanders make public statements like that.

    If Gates thinks that the Bush Administration has significant (positive) influence over European domestic opinion, then he is making a grave mistake. In virtually every case, the allies' governments face nothing better than very reluctant support for the Afghan mission, with most facing demands to scale back or set timetables.

    The U.S. has played the "you owe us" card with Europe for far too long and far too freely. Europe is willing to be helpful, but this kind of arrogant guilt-tripping does more harm than good.

    Aside from the Afghan effort, Bush has irritated NATO by promising NATO membership to Eastern European nations in exchange for support in Iraq, Iran, and over the missile shield. It's not membership that is objected to, per se, but rather the impression that the U.S. can get any country it wants into NATO regardless of the wishes of the other nations in NATO. And, of course, Bush's consistent efforts to isolate and provoke Europe's big energy supplier (Russia) in the name of NATO have won little praise in Europe.

    It's all about the arrogance. Lose the arrogance and people are willing to step up to the plate - maybe not at the levels we'd like, but they will be willing, at least.

    By Blogger Todd Dugdale , at 9:10 AM  

  • While not NATO or military related, the Europeans seem to have had just about enough of the Bush administration's monkey wrench tactics with regard to climate change. It's been asked before, but I wonder if we are now seeing overt shunning of America by our closest and longest historic allies. For some time our European allies have tried to use subtle, polite persuasion to move Bush's America back onto the track of Western Civilization. Now I wonder if we will begin to see more blunt and official criticism.

    By Blogger -epm, at 9:14 AM  

  • Good post todd (as usual). NATO has definitely had enough of the bribery and arm-twisting. The last domino to fall will be the UK. There's an element in the UK that enjoys a good scrap with the wogs. But not as much as they did in the beginning I think.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:30 AM  

  • Anon, I assume he believed he could influence policy from the post, and I do believe he went in out of some sense of duty, although whether that was to Bush or to his country is somewhat muddled.

    .....

    Todd, the shakedown for troops didn't really work two months ago either.

    As for the status on the ground, NATO has the ability to takeover any space it wants (arguably because the taleban/insurgents choose to melt away) but they lack any ability to hold that ground, partially from a limitation from the number of troops and partially because the population is now far more sympathetic to the anti-NAto forces.

    The core problem is that there are no Afghani forces at all and nobody in the country supports the Karzai government.

    To the NATO relationships, you're definitely on, but we should probably add all the politics over Iran to the mix. Technically, it's not a NATO issue, but on the European side, it's all the same players.

    And, I agree on the arrogance. I think that many governments in the world are just playing for time until Bush leaves on almost every issue. They know there's going to be major policy changes, so they're refusing to make any long term concessions of any kind.

    ....

    EPM, I assume you saw the post below where the Euros stood up Bush on his climate conference. A huge diplomatic snub.

    ....

    And, Anon, my money would be on the Canadians. They have really committed to Afghanistan as well.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:22 PM  

  • Yes I forgot about Canada. But you shouldn't read too much into it. Harper got elected and sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the NATO commitment. I don't think he could have got away with sending any to Iraq.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:28 PM  

  • I agree, and I may be wrong about the feeling of the Canadians towards the effort, but the Canadian soldiers have been involved in some serious fighting.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:43 PM  

  • Ooops ...I realize Canada's commitment in Afghanistan predates Harper.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:43 PM  

  • Yes the Canadian troops have taken their NATO commitment seriously but not many Canadians want to see more troops sent out there.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:46 PM  

  • By Blogger 柯云, at 7:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home