France’s defence minister on Wednesday appeared to rule out any immediate reinforcement of French troops in Afghanistan if requested by Barack Obama, the new US president.
Hervé Morin said deploying additional French forces to the war-torn country was “not a question for now”.
France had, he said, already made the “necessary efforts” when it sent 700 extra troops to Afghanistan six months ago, taking the total to 2,900.
Mr Morin’s comments underline French and European reluctance to take part in a simple escalation of troop numbers in Afghanistan, despite widespread goodwill on the continent for Mr Obama.
France’s defence minister on Wednesday appeared to rule out any immediate reinforcement of French troops in Afghanistan if requested by Barack Obama, the new US president.
Hervé Morin said deploying additional French forces to the war-torn country was “not a question for now”.
Of course France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is eager to get off to a good start with Obama, so he's trying to soften that stance just a bit:
President Nicolas Sarkozy is eager to get off to a good start with Mr Obama and would not want to reject out of hand any possible French reinforcement, least of all on day two of Mr Obama’s presidency.
Mr Sarkozy is willing to contemplate sending additional French troops but the Elysée first wants to know exactly what Mr Obama’s intended strategy for Afghanistan is, said a diplomat.
Intended stategy?
More Europeans, of course.
Oh, he means military strategy. Uh, it's only day two, give him some time to come up with one.
But while hope springs eternal, I wouldn't get too giddy about the possibility of Europe committing more troops to the "good war", Obama or no Obama:
But while the poll underscores the considerable respect Mr Obama enjoys in these European countries, it also reveals the resistance he will face if, as strongly expected, he calls on Europe to do more in the fight against the Taliban.
Some 60 per cent of German respondents to the survey said they would not wish Berlin to send more troops to Afghanistan under any circumstances. Even in the UK, the second largest contributor to Nato’s mission in Afghanistan, some 57 per cent of respondents rejected calls for any more British troops to be sent.
In both France and Italy, some 53 per cent of people said their countries should not send troops. Only in Spain is there a majority willing to consider sending additional troop numbers.
All of that means that a) he has to come up with an acceptable strategy and b) he has to convince these countries who are NATO "partners" to part with more of their troops and send them to Astan. Hmmm. This is a little harder than just talking about it, isn't it?
I'm a bit confused though - I thought this was all taken care of with the pre-election swing through Europe? Are they saying that all those swooning Germans weren't on board with this? Are they saying that all this "change" stuff doesn't carry over to Europe?
But they love this guy!
True to form, it seems Europe would much prefer we remain their protective umbrella while our military and taxpayers bear the lion's share of the defense burden. That's what Americans are good for.
I mean how in the hell can Europeans afford their welfare-state bennies if they actually have to pay for and participate in their own defense or, heaven forfend, fulfill their part of their NATO responsibilities? It's a blood and treasure thing. Or in the case of Europe, a blood or treasure thing. They opt for the treasure.
Of course, when we actually deploy our military, they do reserve the right to bitch and protest about that. And you have to see their side of this - how can they rightfully torch 500 cars a night if their guys are participating in the war for heaven sake?
So welcome to the big time, Mr. Obama. They love you. They're glad you are where you are. You are the one they have been waiting for and they are tickled to death you're the prez.
At some time in the near future it will be evident to anyone with a brain that we should dissolve NATO. There is absolutely no interest for the USA to be beholden for the collective security to a bunch of nations unwilling and increasingly unable to help us in any material way.
According to Erb Decree #10 the Europeans will now change their behavior and participate in a broader more cooperative strategy (now the BUSSSSSSHH is gone).
They recognize that the US is in decline, and they are ready and eager to take up the struggle.
A question that maybe you military types could best answer:
Is it possible that the reluctance of European nations to commit more troops to Iraq stems from the fact that they have much smaller military resources than the US? I’m just guessing here, but France, Germany, etc. can’t possibly have more than skeletal armed forces. It just doesn’t seem a big priority for them as "enlightened" nations to maintain robust armies.
Maybe they realize the threat of Islamic extremism from within, and aren’t willing to overextend their ability to put boots on the ground if things turn ugly locally. Well, uglier than they already do (riots in Paris, etc.)
Not trying to make excuses for allies who should have our back (God knows we’d commit troops to help them quell a coup attempt, if asked), but rather trying to understand what may motivate them.
France and Germany have comperatively large concript armies. And the quality is high. They are mostly national defense forces (with the exception of the French Forign Legion), and they lack ability to project force (i.e., the logistics and transport resources the US has).
Germany in particular has been reluctant to send troops in for military reasons, they send their guys in to provide non-combat aid.
France isn’t so reluctant, and their troops (at least the Legion) have sometimes benifitted from relaxed rules of engagment, i.e., they can shoot the bast*rds at will. Back in the late 70s when the Legion decided to intervien in Africa to prevent the rape and murder of Europeans, they relied upon US transport aircraft.
Oh, and one point on the Euro conscript armies: like all such armies, they don’t necessarly make the best force for sending overseas for fighting, if it isn’t obvious that the fighting is very much in the national interest. I think this goes to the heart of their reluctance.
Afterall, France created the Legion for forign wars, to save the French conscripts for defending France itself.
My blog today argues the US should dramatically cut its military forces. They are not needed; the world has changed, large militaries do not protect us. The Europeans realize it is stupid to continue to fight in Afghanistan — and we should realize it to, and not needlessly sacrifice lives over there. There are other, more economical ways to engage in counter terrorism than to try to socially engineer a country we neither understand or have the capability to change. The lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan is that military power is of very limited use. If the Europeans are smarter than we are on that, then they’ll have fewer people killed, fewer orphans, fewer widows, and more money to spend on other things. Good for them.
Don, the Europeans, by-and-large, NO LONGER HAVE CONSCRIPT FORCES...France has been All-Vol since the mid-1990’s as has been the Bundeswehr, IIRC. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not politiically popular, ergo, the nations in Europe have been reluctant to commit ANY forces, volunteer or otherwise.
Beyond that, there are problems of Command & Control, who commands where and who/software problems, do we have a Strategy for COIN operations, and then hardware issues and logisitcs issues...European forces are very limited in their reach. It has been necessary to rent RUSSIAN aircraft to deploy NATO forces, as European forces don’t have the trans-continental lift capacity to deploy heavy eqipment, in any numbers, outside of Europe.
You want to defend the BRD, call the Bundeswehr, you want Germany to defeat the Taliban...."Not our job", and "How would we best go about that?" and "Can we get a lift to Afghanistan, because Mercedes doesn’t have the gas or luggage room we need to get there."
yeah because NOT fighting in Afghanistan worked so well PRIOR to 9/11 Doc...Geeez, do you even BOTHER to try to think these issues thru anymore?
The lesson of Iraq is we LOST, "I decree it, with my powers of godly powers of Political Science", right Doc...to quote your doppelganger...Yeah, Iraq, those wogs don’t need or want democracy, and they don’t have it and things have gone badly wrong there, they have, and don’t deny it! I decree it.....
Today’s contribution isn’t even risible doctor...
And the Europeans ahve better things to spend their money on, like Hamas and support for Palestinian graft and corruption, but if there is a problem in oh like say EUROPE...well, then better hope the US hasn’t cut it’s forces, because otherwise it’s ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, becaue the Europeans couldn’t even muster the fire power to deat Serbia.
And the Europeans have better things to spend their money on, like Hamas and support for Palestinian graft and corruption, but if there is a problem in oh like say EUROPE...well, then better hope the US hasn’t cut its forces, because otherwise it’s ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, because the Europeans couldn’t even muster the fire power to deal Serbia. Of course, they were merely near-Wogs, so their widows and orphans don’t count as much as good old white Europeans, right Doc?
I hope Ott Scerb can make fun of you, because today you’re just pathetic, not worth mocking. I have but small regard and contumely for you Sirrah…
My blog today argues the US should dramatically cut its military forces. They are not needed; the world has changed, large militaries do not protect us. The Europeans realize it is stupid to continue to fight in Afghanistan — and we should realize it to, and not needlessly sacrifice lives over there. There are other, more economical ways to engage in counter terrorism than to try to socially engineer a country we neither understand or have the capability to change. The lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan is that military power is of very limited use. If the Europeans are smarter than we are on that, then they’ll have fewer people killed, fewer orphans, fewer widows, and more money to spend on other things. Good for them.
Proving in one paragraph that you have not only no historical sense, but are unable to manage the obvious ’cause’ & ’effect’ linkages most adults can readily process.
Let me help you - I’ll give you simple examples. You should be able to understand these at a high level. This is how it works when one party lets the other provide for both.
Your children don’t need a house of their own, because you provide one. They don’t need to work because YOU do.
Now we move to the more difficult one, see if you can keep up... The Euros can afford to have ’police force’ militaries because WE provide the one they’ll call in when the fighting lasts more than a week. They have small military might because WE have a large one. There is no need for them to have larger ones becase WE have one. There is no need for them to spend their money on their military, because WE spend our money on ours.
Pax Americana baby. That’s what provides the framework for the ’changed’ world you think you’ve discovered.
"Afterall, France created the Legion for forign wars, to save the French conscripts for defending France itself." "The Cheese Eaters Surrenders Monckeys"
Its unbelievable the fun I have as a Frenchman to see the European’s history rewritted by American "Patriots" through their shortsighed ideology and their crass ignorance !!!!
I suspect that we have a situation of moral hazard here. I see it also in Taiwan, where people don’t take defense too seriously, because they know the US will defend them. Its like the blank check of WW I fame.
I would suggest in Europe we advise them that unless they provide so many forces, and accept missile defense, that we will conclude they are no longer any threat, and OFFICIALLY remove the nuclear umbrella.
OK, we probably can’t do that, but I would send up some trial balloons.
Note that France, the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, etc. actually do provide more troops and even fight. Its the Germans who seem to be the biggest shirkers...though this is sort of a success of WW II.
Paul H, why don’t you provide the correct information instead of snark?
I believe you may be on to something here. Something like the foreign policy equivalent of "Welfare Reform." Get those lazy bums off the military dole and working to defend themselves!
Well, the Bundeswehr has not abolished conscription.
And for all the huffing and puffing, and posturing and insulting, I really don’t see anything of substance denying what I said. The fact is warfare has changed, and the usefulness of a large military is suspect at best. I think the Europeans simply understand that and are engaged in smarter policies. We’ve been burned in Iraq, where we essentially had to give up all our goals just to get out of there (hopefully!) saving some face — even as Iran emerges as the true winner (bitter irony there). It’s not to say it’s a safe world, or that we don’t need any military — but our neo-imperial policy of spending half the world’s military budget and using death and destruction as a policy tool has proven very damaging not only to the people we kill and the lives we ruin, but also to our country.
Luckily, I think the public has learned that lesson, and we are finally on the right track. And frankly, despite your bluster here, I think history is vindicating my perspective, and trashing that of most of the commentators at this rather anachronistic site that doesn’t realize that the idea of unregulated markets, a militarist policy, or American exceptionalism has passed. It is a new era. You guys are on the wrong side of history. I knew this was coming, too.
I really don’t see anything of substance denying what I said.
Then you really are an idiot. Seriously.
All you did was decree that large militaries are no longer needed. That is your opinion. Fine. You then compared us to the Europeans who have smaller forces. Others in the thread explained that they don’t need a massive military when we take the responsibility to not only defend them but to destroy their enemies if they are invaded.
There was at least as much substance in arguing against your declaration as you made in decreeing it.
We’ve been burned in Iraq, where we essentially had to give up all our goals just to get out of there
Feel free to list the goals we had (with links directly to the White House documents — we’ve linked them before) so we can see which ones failed.
As a reminder, here were Erb’s predictions for Iraq:
1) Surge will fail. 2) Troops reduced "by 2008" 3) Bush will manufacture a "peace with honor" withdrawal and blame Iraq for any violence afterward 4) increased violence 5) Iraqi PM Maliki loses base of power to Sadr’s influence
Erb rocks in his uncanny ability to know what is coming.
JWG, as I’ve noted before, you people don’t really understand post-modernism. Especially the ex-military basket cases like McQ and Hollis.
You see, there are multiple truths, and logic can’t be used to decide among them. So when I posit the truth that Iraq is a total failure, then it is in no way contradicted by the litany of things you bring up. Those are a part of your truth, and they don’t affect my truth. QED.
All of my predictions have come true because there exists one truth out of the multiple truths in which they are accepted. Sadr really did defeat Maliki, and he’s going to become a powerful figure in Iraq and hand over control to his Iranian masters just any day now. The fact that you think differently doesn’t change my truth. I decree it.
As for the violence, it goes up and down. So, for example, after a day in which there were no attacks, if there was an attack the next day, the violence increased! See, you just have to look at the world through the holy writ of post-modernism, and with godlike powers of political science, and things look completely different.
In fact, I pity you petty rationalists who still think facts and logic mean something. We wise leftists have grown beyond such petty and mundane bounds, and we soar with beautiful thoughts of peace and harmony. That’s why we know intuitively that large militaries are no longer needed. We feel in our inner hearts that war is just icky and repulsive, so we work to make sure there will be no more war.
The absolute best way to do that is to get rid of large militaries, and just keep a token force that are more like police, really. Yes, if we did that, everyone would immediately see that the US has now joined the circle of truly civilized nations, and they would henceforth respect us and honor us, and never, ever attack us.
I’m sure you think there are vicious men out there who would attack us at first opportunity, and that we can’t let our guard down. But how will we ever know that those supposedly vicious men are really nice and cuddly if given a chance? We need to take the first step, and unilaterally disarm, and thereby prove that we have advanced consciousness about how icky war is. And they will look at us in our peaceful, non-militaristic society, and immediately feel shame at their own aggressive nature. You’ll see.
But that does not make me a pacifist, so stop saying that! It makes me enlightened and wise. Unlike you dense righties, many of whom have been so contaminated by experience as paid killers in the military that they are broken souls and basket cases that are a positive danger to society. Heck, sometimes I don’t even understand why an obvious basket case like McQ is even allowed to post his pro-military propaganda for the public. Some impressionable young man might be induced to take such illogic seriously and screw up his whole life by joining the military, when he should be taking courses in political science from wise leftists like me, where he can learn the truth. Well, one of them anyway.
Luckily, I think the public has learned that lesson, and we are finally on the right track. And frankly, despite your bluster here, I think history is vindicating my perspective, and trashing that of most of the commentators at this rather anachronistic site that doesn’t realize that the idea of unregulated markets, a militarist policy, or American exceptionalism has passed. It is a new era. You guys are on the wrong side of history. I knew this was coming, too.
You left out the words "by Imperial Decree, this day, January 23rd, 2008 in the reign of Scott Erb, expert guy"
"War has changed" - other famous quotes demonstrating no sense of history or human nature.
"This will be the War to end all Wars!" "The machine gun will make war too horrible to fight!"
We denied your entire argument because it’s based on fallacy and your decree of facts.
History takes longer than yesterday to become "history".
As for the insults...Think of the insults as theraputic attempts to slap down the inflation in your head.
It’s hard to believe that some people are seriously suggesting that the Europeans should be expected to clean up the mess left by the US. It was blindingly obvious to the rest of the world that Bush is a low-grade moron, not to be trusted with managing a tuckshop, let alone a country.
Now, after a million dead in Iraq, around 100,000 soldiers killed, disabled, and/or profoundly shell-shocked, in a war that the US was literally itching to start; trillions of dollars wasted and permanent bases established there; why on earth should the Europeans be expected to do the Yanks’ bidding and rush more troops to Afghanistan? They have more sense than that.
