Why Won't Europe Do More to Help Our Troops on the Battlefield in Afghanistan?

By Mike Griffith, Staff Writer

As a veteran, I can only shake my head as Europe has once again refused to shoulder its share of the combat burden in Afghanistan, which means our troops will continue to bear most of the combat load there. 

During his recent visit to Europe over the last few days, even President Obama could not persuade our NATO allies to send more combat troops to Afghanistan.  The White House has bravely tried to put the best face on this disappointing response, but the fact is that European leaders have only agreed to send some additional trainers and some temporary forces to help with upcoming elections.

Specifically, NATO nations have agreed to send 1,500 to 2,000 troops to help train the Afghan army and 3,000 troops on temporary deployments to help stabilize the country before the August elections.  In contrast, we are sending an additional 20,000 troops to Afghanistan.

From the Huffington Post:

European leaders enthusiastically praised President Barack Obama’s new Afghan strategy at a NATO summit Saturday but held their ground on a central disagreement and offered only military trainers and extra security forces for upcoming elections.

Violent anti-war protests that marred the alliance’s 60th anniversary celebrations were a stark reminder that much of Europe has no appetite for the other, costlier half of Obama’s Afghan equation: more combat troops. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/04/france-germany-endorse-ob_n_183110.html)

From the Times Online:

Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent’s leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.

The derisory response threatened to tarnish Mr Obama’s European tour, which yesterday included a spellbinding performance in Strasbourg in which he offered the world a vision of a future free of nuclear weapons. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6032342.ece)

Many people hoped that with the election of Barack Obama as President, European leaders would be more willing to carry more of the combat load in Afghanistan.  But, sadly, this is not proving to be the case.

President Obama said most of the right things in Europe.  He showed humility and candor about previous American arrogance and at the same time criticized European anti-Americanism.  But, he discovered what President Bush found year after year: Europe is unwilling to shoulder its share of the combat load in Afghanistan, even though Europe has suffered two horrific terrorist attacks since 9/11.

This means our troops will have to continue to do too much of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan.

—————————————-

Visit Mike Griffith’s Real Issues Home Page