This may be a story that only Matthew Yglesias and I care about. But check out this video that NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen put on his, uh, blog ahead of the Bratislava defense ministerial this week. It amounts to public pressure on Obama to back McChrystal. “It is my ambition that we will support the overall approach set out by Gen. McChrystal,” says the former Danish PM. “Because I believe it is the right long-term solution for Afghanistan, and because it is a significant contribution to our own security to prevent Afghanistan for once again becoming a safe-haven for terrorists. We should not assume that the Taliban will not harbor al-Qaeda and other extreme elements if left alone.”
It’s my understanding that the thinking in NATO capitols is that — real talk — whatever utility to European security it offers, Afghanistan is most important because America thinks it’s important. Accordingly, European leaders have tried in their public remarks not to say anything that the Obama strategy review might ultimately obviate. And then, by contrast, here’s Rasmussen making his views public.
What effect will this have? I don’t know. The traditional arrangement in place is that NATO’s military commander is always an American and its civilian leader is always a European. It’s never been a job with juice, as it can’t command NATO member-states to do anything. So it’s not clear that Rasmussen can do much more than just saying he thinks McChrystal is right and Europe should stick with him. Indeed, there’ve only been a handful of media stories that have even focused on Rasmussen. So he may be at the limit of his reach.
But still, right? Is there a precedent for this? I’m straining to think of one. Javier Solana was European Union foreign-policy chief, a position with significantly less institutional incentive to placate the U.S. than the NATO S-G does. (Solana was NATO secretary general in the 90s.) And even though Solana doesn’t substantively agree with anything the Bush administration did, his criticism was rather muted. If I’m forgetting something, please remind me, but it looks like Rasmussen has decided to pressure Obama, regardless of the traditional role of the S-G.
Login Here




9 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Did this happen before or after McChrystal’s speech to the NATO defense ministers outlining his recommendation to President Obama?
and Nato will further contribute troops to further this strategy? I mean combat troops?
Dozens
The McChrystal report recommends something like a 60% increase in US troops. Gordon Brown recently conditionally offered an additional 500 troops to the second largest ISAF contingent (9000 UK troops) in Afghanistan or something like 6% more troops. Is Denmark going to offer 60% more forces on top of their 690 troops in ISAF? Is NATO? If not, Anders Fogh Rasmussen is talking out of his ass. You can’t agree with the McChrystal report when it comes to a US surge of forces and then offer force increases that are one-tenth the recommended surge from your own pool of forces. That’s taking a hawkish political stance while outsourcing the potential political backlash.
isn’t that the way it always is?
joejoejoe: One could, on the other hand, argue that since the US dumped NATO holding the hot potatoe for eight long years in Astan, you might feel some sort of obligation towards your allies in helping them out. Lets make this clear: The current situation in Astan is a direct result of Donald Rumsfelds light footprint strategy, and his open lying to the allies about what resources the US would commit. Contrary to popular opinion, NATO had a window of opportunity for at least three years to do some serious work on behalf of the Afghanis. Rumsfeld made a lot of promises, then told everybody to hold while he did a quick invasion of Iraq, from where he would return approx 6 months later all overed in rosepetals.
In other words, the US FUCKED UP. Rumsfeld betrayed his allies, putting all his money in a bet for a flagwaving welcome in Baghdad. I know that this is seen as a impossibility by many US citizens, that you can ever make mistakes, but it is what it is. This is not a war about victory anymore, its a salvage operation. Sure the Euros suck, but the US knew that going in.
Hey, good to see you back.
Money quote: “NATO will consider the addition of ground forces when the time is right.”
Easy to agree with a strategy when you have no skin in the game. Asshole.
“Easy to agree with a strategy when you have no skin in the game”
I agree with that statement. We see it so often from our media “pundits” and elected representatives. Ready to bomb people or send people to be killed but none of them wants to take an *actual* part in it. They must think that it is a video game.