Rasmussen: Afghanistan Proves NATO Solidarity, Not Weakness
James Joyner | September 28, 2009
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the Atlantic Council that, while NATO's Afghanistan mission shows some "very real problems" within the Alliance, the fundamental lesson that should be taken away is the remarkable "solidarity" of 28 diverse nations fighting together for a common purpose.
Rasmussen is painfully aware of the "frustrations" being expressed by many in America: "the restrictions some NATO nations put on their forces; by the time it takes NATO to take decisions; by the reluctance of some countries to send more forces to the mission, even for training." He continued, "Let me be very clear. I understand those frustrations. I am already working hard to address those very real problems."
Still, he believes, "America is losing sight of what NATO is" and how much it does. He points out that "all 28 NATO member countries are taking part" in the mission and "proving their staying power every day." He notes that there are "35,000 non-U.S. NATO forces in Afghanistan — 40 percent of the total." He believes this fact is not getting enough visibility in the American press or the debate taking place on this side of the Pond.
He continued, "While body count is no measure of solidarity, it is, unfortunately, a symbol of commitment. Over 20 countries have had their soldiers killed, some in large numbers." Therefore, "I will not accept from anyone the argument that Europeans and Canadians are not paying the price for success in Afghanistan. They are."
Even aside from their contributions on the battlefield, the secretary general emphasized how much the rest of the Allies are doing on the reconstruction and development front and declared that "the U.S. can not afford" to bear these costs on its own.
Rasmussen warned: "Talking down the European and Canadian contributions — as some here in the U.S. do, on occasion — can become a self-fulfilling prophesy."
Now, the fact that 28 countries are participating in the war (actually, more than that because some non-NATO partners are in the Coalition as well) does not mean they're participating equally. Here are ISAF's most recent totals on deaths which, while not a measure of solidarity, is one of commitment:
The United States, United Kingdom, and Canada account for 1199 of the 1422 deaths, a whopping 84 percent. Further, 2009 has already had 377 deaths, more than any previous year. The percentage of the overall troop commitment by the United States has been increasing during that same period, meaning the casualty trends will be even more disparate. We're simply, as Senator Richard Lugar put it earlier this afternoon, "a 2-tiered alliance."
The only saving grace in this regard is that 84 percent is not 100 percent. NATO, as pretty much everyone acknowledges at this point, is in this war almost completely as a favor to the United States. Few still regard it as having much bearing on their own security; many never did. The United States would have fought this war on its own after the 9/11 attacks. And some would argue that we rebuffed NATO's help in the very early going, figuring it more nuisance than help. So, perhaps the "glass 16 percent full" view is the correct one.
James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council.
Comments
Dear Mr Joyner,
Let me blunt - your use of statistics is highly disengenuous, either that or your understanding of them is poor.
For example, the casualty figures are not NATO-specific. You have clearly copy-pasted them from the website icasualties.iorg. While otherwise absolutely excellent, this website has one flaw - it fails to distinguish between ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom. Two completely distinct operations, two completely distinct and separate UN mandates.
US forces under ISAF have sustained some 300 fatalities, the remaining 550 have been under OEF. The same principle applies to other OEF countries although in very small percentages. In any case, you may wish to redo the maths here because when you remove OEF fatalities from the equation you'll find that your figure of 84% looks highly, highly dubious.
Moreover, you say this reflects on nations' commitment. Estonia has suffered 6 fatalities from a total of 300 troops in Helmand province - indeed, they have been in that highly dangerous part of Afghanistan for longer than US troops have. That might not sound like much to an American but to an Estonian it's considerable. Those 300 represent a verylarge percentage of their deployable forces, perhaps even a higher percentage of their deployable forces than that of the US forces under ISAF.
America might be (by far) the biggest contributor to ISAF in terms of simple numbers but it's all relative. Britain has deployed a greater percentage of its armed forces than any other ISAF nation. Denmark has suffered the most fatalities per capita.
Of the 2.8 million men and women in uniform in Europe, only 2% are deployable as combat troops in out-of-area deployments like Afghanistan. Defence reform is a pressing issue in Europe and a bigger debate that I don't wish to address here. My point is that, if you do the maths and also take into account other contributions to NATO (Balkans, counter-piracy, territorial defence) and also to UN and EU missions, you could argue that European nations are in real terms making significant contributions to the ISAF mission and - proportionately - even more than the US. Moreover, they have been doing so since 2003 while the US was side-tracked into an ill-conceived and mismanaged war in Iraq.
Now, I completely agree that there are other factors - for example some European nations refusing to deploy to certain areas of Afghanistan - which are causing dismay among the American public. I accept that and I understand that. All I'm saying is that, when you look at the facts I've quoted, your article here is highly misleading and its conclusions must be seriously questioned.
Your quote "NATO, as pretty much everyone acknowledges at this point, is in this war almost completely as a favor to the United States."
At the very, very least you could try and provde some evidence for this: who is "pretty much everyone"? The fact is that this statement is highly offensive to those nations who are contributing as fully as possible and especially to the many ISAF personnel who have been wounded or killed.
"Few still regard it as having much bearing on their own security; many never did."
Not only do you have a poor grasp of facts and statistics, you clearly have a very, very short memory.
Dear Cyp,
These are Afghanistan-only figures. The U.S. has lost many times 850 in Iraq.
My statement that "NATO, as pretty much everyone acknowledges at this point, is in this war almost completely as a favor to the United States" is based on spending most every day for the past two years reading articles, attending conferences, and hearing speeches by senior officials on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ditto, "Few still regard it as having much bearing on their own security; many never did." Read the public opinion polls and the statements of NATO leaders, including the two most recent Secretaries General. It's arguable that the people are wrong because, as Rasmussen says, their leaders are doing a poor job of communicating. But that doesn't make the statement inaccurate.
Dear Mr Joyner,
"These are Afghanistan-only figures. The U.S. has lost many times 850 in Iraq."
What is your point here? Why bring Iraq into this all of a sudden if, as you say yourself, we're only talking about Afghanistan? I pointed out that the 850 figure includes American OEF casualties and that you were injecting a statistic from a non-NATO operation into a discussion about a NATO-led operation. Moreover and more seriously, you used this statistic to call into question the commitment of NATO Allies.
Now how does your sentence in any way address my point about the distinction (and your failure to grasp it) between ISAF and OEF?
"My statement that "NATO, as pretty much everyone acknowledges at this point, is in this war almost completely as a favor to the United States" is based on spending most every day for the past two years reading articles, attending conferences, and hearing speeches by senior officials on both sides of the Atlantic."
With respect, exposure to these issues through articles and conferences is one thing. Following the decision-making process is quite another. In Europe, some people might agree with you, it's true... but many would disagree and take serious issue with your statement. I say this with confidence based on my own experience every day for the past two years. As I said, your statement is offensive to those countries who have made great efforts and punched above their weight in Afghanistan. Worse, it's offensive to those who have put themselves in the firing line.
"Ditto, "Few still regard it as having much bearing on their own security; many never did." Read the public opinion polls and the statements of NATO leaders, including the two most recent Secretaries General. It's arguable that the people are wrong because, as Rasmussen says, their leaders are doing a poor job of communicating. But that doesn't make the statement inaccurate."
Rasmussen is right, communication is very poor. Also, you are right, that in itself doesn't make the statement inaccurate. To suggest that 'many' people never thought that NATO had a bearing on security is historically inaccurate though. I think you'll find that during the Cold War many people did perceive NATO as their security guarantee - hence my comment about re: short memories. I accept that - to a certain degree - this has changed since but it varies greatly in different countries. This is a wider debate than Afghanistan though. My point is that your statement was vague and dismissive and it doesn't do that wider debate justice.
Post new comment