NATO and Afghanistan
NATO's defense establishment speaks up on Afghanistan:
NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and on their own governments to commit more military and civilian resources for the mission to succeed.
....Although the broad acceptance by NATO defense ministers of General McChrystal’s strategic review included no decision on new troops....
I guess my first, cynical reaction is: wake me up when anyone in Europe agrees to actually send more troops. Until then, I'm not sure I care what their defense ministers think.
That's my second reaction too. But my third reaction is a tiny bit of cautious optimism. In the end, I don't think Obama can withstand Pentagon pressure to send more troops to Afghanistan, and if that's the case then additional NATO support increases the odds of success. Even if it's mostly peacekeepers and civilians — hell, maybe especially if it's peacekeepers and civilians — it makes a difference both in terms of raw numbers and legitimacy. So a bit of pressure from the the European defense establishment is helpful.
On the other hand, to return to my first and second reactions, the Times notes this at the end of the story: "At the same time, though, some allies with forces in Afghanistan are cautiously discussing how and when to end their deployments there." Big surprise. Overall, I'd say the odds of Europe having more troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2010 than they do now are pretty slim.