Have you met the French, Mr. Obama?

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.

Mr Drezner,

1) The mayor of Paris, called together a special meeting of American expats, and for the first time in French history, Americans were in the posh Town Hall celebrating Obama's inaguration, with the US ambassador (a Republican, duh), and Delanoe, the mayor of Paris. The French are in solidarity, with Hussein the Messiah, and the Mayor waxed green on the virtues of US democracy, and the Franco-American brotherhood, in which we have both spilled blood for one another. This is worthy of mention as an antidote to your anecdote. Even if it is slightly funnier than yours.

2) It is not up to Obama to convince anyone of the need for troops in Afghanistan. America has no conceivable long-term objectives in the country, short of making sure it is not a terrorist haven. No one, has suggested otherwise. The Long-War did not make room for nation-building in Afghanistan, at any stage.

3) It is not up to Obama to convince anyone in Europe of anything. It is up to Merkel, Brown, and Sarkozy, to hire Publicis, Saatchi, or BM, and turn public opinion.

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?

@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?

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?

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

Sure.

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

Sure. I doubt the germans feel a compelling need for us to defend them at the moment either, not from france, or belgium, or poland, or the czech republic, etc. Would russia invade poland and then germany? Would russia want to turn their trade partners into a smoking ruin they own? Maybe.

We do need some budget cuts. Let's get out of NATO and cut our military budget to reflect the reduced costs.

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 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.

Why we're continuing to provide for European Security in the absence of a Soviet Union threatening to come through the Fulda Gap when Western Europe could easily afford to put up the cash for an army is an irritable mystery to me.

Well, there's tradition. And then it provides us with places to park officers that gives them prestige and a chance to savor the fleshpots of europe without actually doing much harm. Alexander Haig spent some time there, for example.

And we wind up with warehouses and airbases there and such. If we were locked out of europe then sure as anything we'd want back in, and we'd have to find nations that would let us have bases, and it would turn into a european political football. This way it isn't particularly controversial, of course we have bases and armories etc sitting there, waiting to be used, thousands of miles closer to points south and east than they'd be if they were back in the US.

If you give up the idea that NATO is supposed to have a strong european force interfering with us, it kind of makes sense.

"And then it provides us with places to park officers that gives them prestige and a chance to savor the fleshpots of europe"

I've never heard THAT one before - military alliances as resources of Officer Holiday Hotspots! Good call.

One word: Brussels.

I don't claim that has much to do with policy. But it is a major perq for some officers.

I mentioned shifting from a full promise of retaliatory NATO commitment in the advent of war, we switch over to "merely" providing a nuclear shield to Europe while they do their own thing on everything else up to that point. We'd negotiate necessary airfields and what we need to keep the Germany hospital.

That could be a good alternative. I read that we've been moving out of western europe and more into eastern europe where things are cheaper.

Bah, what do we need European bases for? We have aircraft carriers, a good merchant marine and logistics system, and worldwide reliable supply lines.

That's a strategic choice. I don't consider myself qualified to decide how useful european bases are. We've been using them for a long time, but possibly we've only used them because they were there, maybe something else would have been better but got frozen out because we already had these.

"of course we have bases and armories etc sitting there, waiting to be used"

If I recall correctly, isn't it actually the other way around? The Europeans have equpped armies, but they're dependent on American supplies for their stockpiles?

I can believe that although I'm not expert enough to know how true it is. But those supplies are ours, and we use them as we want. Like, in 1973 we stripped them to supply israel, trusting that the USSR wouldn't attack western europe just then. And they didn't.

In any case, do you actually need this in the context of NATO?

No. It's the context we have them. 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. I don't claim it's an equilibrium we need, but we should carefully notice our alternatives before we get rid of it.

"The first rule of wingwalking: Grab hold of something else before you let go of what you're holding onto."

I like your arguments against NATO. I'll pay attention to arguments for it too, but I'd say you're ahead at this point.

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).