Behavior like this is like manna from heaven for those who argue against the use of multilateral efforts in international problems. One does not have to be a Rumsfeld to point out that you can't expect America to constantly check with its allies before making any moves, while you yourself are unwilling to take on any risk. I'm still not sure what security is gained by keeping thousands of Americans stationed in Western Europe.

I'll be the first to criticize the Europeans, but in this case they seem to rightly believe it's not in their interests to get involved in a failed nation-building attempt in an area of the world with tenuous supply-lines, and where the enemy can simply cross an international border into Pakistan and become untouchable.

I'd love it if this forced Obama into a rethink of NATO, but it's hard to fault the Europeans for not wanting to join us down the rabbit hole.

@J Thomas -

"Give them a mission they believe in and they'll sign on. The problem is only that there has been no reason to think that more troops will iead to good results."

So THAT's why the Germans refuse all combat missions - they don't 'believe in the mission'. Well that's alright then.

I have a few missions I have absolutely no belief in. Including defending Germany. I believe the Russians ought to be allowed in to demolish Berlin and raise beets for borsch on the land. So let's opt out of the defense of Germany (all of Europe to the Dutch border) because it's a stupid mission no American should ever have believed in.

Or do you think alliances may extend further than the easy and the popular, perchance?

Maybe their attitudes will change if they can get some of the kinds in Command and Control over NATO forces in Afghanistan worked out. As is, probably not. Which is a shame - plots tracing back to those not-so-friendly mountains in western Pakistan have shown up in Europe.

As is, Afghanistan will probably become an American war, more or less. This is particularly the case if/when Obama sends more troops there, which will make it easier for European states to justify cutting back on their own troop contribution.

I have a few missions I have absolutely no belief in. Including defending Germany.

I actually agree with you to some extent. The US should have disbanded NATO in 1992-93, not long after the Warsaw Pact ended - NATO was made specifically to counter the Soviets after World War 2, and the Soviet Union was dead.

Do you really assume Mr. Drezner, that the leaders of the world, need the information of a Foreign Policy ignoramus, to "convince" them about their own interests?

If you think his foreign policy suggestions are worthless and irrelevant, why do you even bother posting on his blog? Go start your own blog for everyone to ignore.

The countries of E. Europe still have three choices, fall back into a client state relationship, have a credible defense guarantee including nuclear forces (NATO), or develop their own nukes. Disbanding NATO means that there are two choices remaining and does it really need to be said that it is in the US interest that no further nations go nuclear?

As for the realists pining for "our SOB" to keep a lid on, this is just kicking the can down the road and ensuring that we end up in a worse state long term. President Bush was correct to note that such plans for stability did not create a very stable world.

While we are training up a decent Afghan military culture beyond tribal militias, the people of Afghanistan are training up an Afghan political culture, something that should take about 3-5 electoral cycles before emergent competence is likely to start becoming visible if E. Europe and Iraq are any guide. The Afghan system will not look like anything else in the world (the people there are unique) but the incentive structure of free elections will ensure that even a return of the Taliban would be livable.

Were Pakistan to disintigrate and the Taliban succeed in enlarging Afghanistan with the acquisition of the NWFP, the Taliban might ride the resultant good will from accomplishing a major national goal of the past century into legitimate electoral power. So long as elections were to continue, the Taliban would be trapped by the system and forced to moderate to continue in power. This is the only game in town if what you want is "Heads, I win. Tails, I win" and who doesn't want that?

I will posit one additional reason France and Europe as a whole wishes to stay out of Afghanistan: all those "youth" burning cars, destroying store fronts and attacking police. Have you noticed it is now against the law in Denmark to point out - using the Koran and video of Islamic Clerics within Denmark - that Islam is a danger to Denmark? With population growth rates well below replacement (or as in Germany's case, actually negative) and with their primary source of cheap labor coming from Islamic nations that have no intention of integration I believe Europe has chosen a quiet surrender. Afghanistan would ruffle too many feathers, best to withdraw, keep quiet and wait for the end.

Of course the French and Germans aren't going to send any more troops. Obama's election and inaguration didn't change their perceived self-interests.

Nations don't act based on friendship. With the exception of the US, they act based on their perceived self-interest. The US occasionally acts based on "If we do something nice for them/what they want, they'll like us or do what we want." and that never works.

> disbanding NATO, you let loose the furies of Europe.

Now I'm scared. Not.

> Read Brzezinsky's Grand Chessboard- he's quite frank about it.

And we're supposed to believe him now because he learned from his mistakes?

> Plus, NATO is a reasonable force in world politics. It has the potential to develop into the international community's military arm.

Without US transport, NATO can't even get to Northern Africa.

NATO (sans US) can't develop into anything because the member nations won't commit significant resources. The EU is happy to say that it's rich until it comes to actually spending its money on military capability.

However, there is a silver lining. This keeps reduces their political clout, and that of the "international community". For all the US' failings, the EU is consistently worse.

Yes, I know that the EU fans will be upset by the above but it's true.

If the EU wants a place at the table, it should earn it. Here's how. Pick a problem - there's no shortage. Handle it without US assistance. Pick a bigger problem and repeat.

> Disbanding NATO means that there are two choices remaining and does it really need to be said that it is in the US interest that no further nations go nuclear?

If the Euro nations are as good and stable as their advocates claim, why would their going nuke raise legitimate concerns for the US? (I note that the UK and France already have nukes, so presumably the concern is over Germany or some sort of joint control.)

Given their past behavior, Euro nations/NATO won't go nuke. They lack the will.

NATO doesn't necessarily fall apart if the USA leaves it. It does become much weaker unless europeans decide to build up their military. NATO might still have british and french nukes, which would give those nations an actual purpose for their nukes.

Yes, it does. NATO since the end of the Cold War has been very much the US's baby, which is why they've opposed any serious effort by the European Union to build up their own military apparatus separate from NATO control. Witness their reaction when the EU committed to building up a 60,000-man-minimum force under a unified EU command and independent control, whereupon the US demanded that this force "not conflict with NATO" and "not duplicate or usurp any role of NATO" - which is a good way of effectively killing the EU force.

If the US pulls out of NATO, NATO will be effectively dead - the EU would quickly move to solidify and develop the central EU military force, and the Brits (part of the EU, but with a kind of stand-offish attitude) would try to work out their own security arrangement, like what they tried to do right after World War 2 (when they saw themselves as the "third power" between the US and USSR).

disbanding NATO, you let loose the furies of Europe. Read Brzezinsky's Grand Chessboard- he's quite frank about it.

I think Brezinzski's wrong on this one. It's not as if there aren't alternative security arrangements, and the French proposal for an independent European military power effectively combining their strength with Germany's goes back to the Gaullist era.

The countries of E. Europe still have three choices, fall back into a client state relationship, have a credible defense guarantee including nuclear forces (NATO), or develop their own nukes. Disbanding NATO means that there are two choices remaining and does it really need to be said that it is in the US interest that no further nations go nuclear?

Personally, I'd prefer to give the Eastern Europeans (or to be more specific, the Poles) nuclear weapons and a means of using them defensively. Nukes are a great way of scaring off intervention from conventionally stronger neighbors, and Poland could use the possession of those nukes to forge ties with the other Eastern Europeans.

Plus, NATO is a reasonable force in world politics. It has the potential to develop into the international community's military arm.

i would be more impressed if you of course you hadn't spent most of 2003 mocking the french because of the
way they failed to support the invasion of iraq.

A foreign policy move that you thought was simply the best thing that could possibly happen.

So do tell , where are those WMDs? Or those links with AQ?

And now strangely enough the French harbour grave doubts about an american FP position and you still mock them.

Luckily you've tenure now....

If we pulled out of NATO we might find that we've outworn our welcome in western europe. And we might not feel the need to be there much anyway, or maybe we'd want to. What we have now is a sort of stability that no one has wanted to destabilise yet.

That's a good point. My main reason for doing it was to eliminate an expense, and more fully enable our forces to shift around to meet new priorities (whether they be in the Middle East, East Asia, or whatever).