Will Obama renew the transatlantic patnership?

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Thursday, December 4, 2008 - 4:16 AM Share

Alex Massie throws some cold water on the idea that the mere act of electing Barack Obama will lead to more cooperation with Europe on key trouble spots like Afghanistan or Iran:

Perhaps Obama really can persuade European public opinion. But since, as matters stand, no-one thinks there's a military solution to the Afghan problem I'm not quite sure what Obama can offer to make the mission any more appealling. Put yourself in Danish or Portuguese or Italian shoes: what's in it for you? Why would you join a mission no-one thinks is winnable? (Maybe a new strategy can change that, but that too is something that remains to be seen.) It isn't simply Iraq; it's the growing perception that many people feel they have little to know idea why, nearly seven years later, we're still in Afghanistan. What are we actually doing there? What can we actually realistically hope to achieve?.... It would be lovely to think that Obama can bring a new period of transatlantic harmony. But it just isn't the case that American interests are necessarily the same as European interests. The Security Card trumped everything during the Cold War but these are changed times. And there were, in any case, always more differences than seemed the case then too, these days they're much clearer to see. A new President may find it difficult to change that. Or, to put it another way, he may need to give something up himself to advance American interests in other areas.

Alex is right to point out the centrality of common security interests to transatlantic security cooperation. I don't think the divergence of interests is as great as he thinks, however, in part because Obama's strategy allows his to display credible commitments that Bush could not. On Afghanistan, for example, the problem the Bush administration always had with getting more allied support was the perception among many allies that the U.S. wanted NATO help in that theatre so they could focus on Iraq. If Obama pursues his graduated withdrawal strategy and expanded soft power capabilities, however, he's going to be able to ask for European help while simultaneously augmenting U.S. forces and resources in the Afghan theater. States are much more willing to cooperate when they sense a serious commitment by the lead actor. Contra Alex, I think a lot of European foreign policy elites do see the security and foreign policy benefits of doubling down in Afghanistan -- if anything, events in Mumbai merely reinforce that belief. Their concern has always been with the lack of U.S. focus and resources in the region. By committing greater resources -- which has been Obama's message for some time now -- I think he can square the circle with the Europeans. [Of course, note that this is all highly dependent on the stability of Iraq. Either Iraq maintains its current level of stability, or Obama must be willing to reallocate troops away from Iraq despite a worsening security situation there.] I tried to make some of these points last night in a discussion of this topic on TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paikin, but I was blinded by Jeff Kopstein's hearty California glow. Nevertheless, true groupies can watch it below:

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, OBAMA, SOFT POWER, TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

MITCHELL YOUNG

9:14 AM ET

December 4, 2008

Contra Alex, I think a lot of

Contra Alex, I think a lot of European foreign policy elites do see the security and foreign policy benefits of doubling down in Afghanistan — if anything, events in Mumbai merely reinforce that belief.

I have no idea who is behind the attacks in Mumbai, but I am willing to bet that there is no operational connection to Afghanistan, zero, zilch.

On the other hand, UK papers have reported that 'Britons' are among the attackers, much of the immediate planning for 9/11 seems to have been done in Berlin, the 3/11 bombings in Spain were committed by 'immigrants' who had lived in Spain for several years I believe, the attacks in Glascow were from highly skilled immigrant doctors -- much in demand in the UK to shore up the Health System, the 7/7 attacks in Britain were carried out by children of immigrants radicalized in the UK itself. The film maker Theo van Gogh was killed by the child of immigrants from Morocco who held joint Dutch-Moroccan citizenship and was a member of the Hofstad group of Islamic radicals born or raised in the Netherlands. I could go on...

In so far as the traditional populations of Europe are facing a threat to their security, and indeed to their societies, it is emanating from within. This Afghan stuff is just smoke and mirrors.

ROB

5:27 PM ET

December 4, 2008

Causation is a common problem

Causation is a common problem among pundits. For example, it's difficult to argue that the problems Europeans had with Afghanistan were because of Iraq when those problems surfaced prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Because of this, regardless of what happens in Iraq, Obama will have a very tough time trying to get more from Europe in Afghanistan. Irrespective of elite opinion, most Europeans just don't see it as a pressing issue, certainly not one for their countrymen to die over. And this weird situation, where the enemy can simply cross the border into Pakistan and they become untouchable (except by Predator missiles), adds to the lack of perceived seriousness about the conflict.

And then there's the financial situation; which any rational government would take as a reason not to expand any overseas military engagements.

OBAMA AND EUROPE

6:13 PM ET

December 4, 2008

[...] Kaplan and Matt

[...] Kaplan and Matt Yglesias are sure he will but Alex Massie isn’t so sure. Dan Drezner thinks Alex too [...]

NAGARAJAN SIVAKUMAR

3:38 AM ET

December 5, 2008

Even though i was rooting for

Even though i was rooting for McCain to win, Obama's election will have one very good effect - it will openly expose European fraudulence on this issue. The Iraq war was a very convenient excuse for them not to do any thing and indulge in Bush griping.

The rules of combat for NATO troops are truly a joke. They do everything possible not to to fight the Taliban - only Canadian, British troops have been of any help. Obama's requests will be met with huge and empty promises of building civilian infrastructure and doing next to nothing on the military front.

The Europeans know that it is indeed a waste of blood and time to have their soldiers fight in Afghanistan as long as Pakistan acts according to its geo-political calculations and the US goes along with it.

There was a time when Obama was distorting McCain's 100 year war to the hilt - it may now come back to haunt him - how long will the US stay in Afghanistan ? Would that be as long as it takes for the Afghans to run a government without US help? Good luck with that - the current Government is corrupt and will collapse as soon as the US forces leave

I think European nations are smart enough to realize that US efforts in Afghanistan are ultimately an exercise in futility if the terrorist safe havens in Pakistan continue to exist. They are not going to do anything that Obama asks them to - where is the leverage for Obama anyways ? They are only going to do what they think is in their best interests - some thing that is not going to be achieved by putting their soldier's lives at risk when one of their so called allies is Pakistan.

With allies like the Pakis, who needs enemies ? The only thing that i am curious to see is how soon the US realizes that it really cannot do much about Afghanistan no matter how many troops are there.

ZEPHI FRIEL

9:03 AM ET

December 5, 2008

The international excitement

The international excitement for the election of Barack Obama as the President of the United States could potentially be a useful tool to get more states contributing to efforts in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, after the suspense leading up to election day, and celebration of historic events- reality will hit a globe of citizen's with short attention spans.

Drezner is discussing the subject of whether or not strong, European nations will contribute to American efforts in Afghanistan from a realist perspective on both systemic and individual levels. Each country must consider what is necessary for them to maintain their power and stability while also considering their security- and then deciding upon military action. This subject operates on a systemic level because involves the actions and decisions of many countries working together and also on an individual level because Drezner is considering the relevance of Barack Obama's election and his future strategies as President.

Drezner and previous comments all raise important and vexing points. Obama has won the Presidency... now what? Bush's administration messed up. Alot. But I actually believe that most countries will be more supportive of the United States because our President is reaching out to the international community and emphasizing the importance of cooperation and multilateral action... because it has been proven to be much more effective. Also, I think most of Europe, at least, understands the threat of terrorism and the need to make sure all organizations contribute to fighting terrorism around the globe.