Center for a New American Security

Yesterday we noted the difference between the Times and the Guardian over European commitments to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The two big Sunday newspapers in the United States, meanwhile, were more downbeat. Headlines from The New York Times and The Washington Post were, respectively, "Europeans Offer Few New Troops for Afghanistan" (online) and "NATO Backs Obama's Afghan Plan but Pledges Few New Troops" (A12).

Both U.S. papers just cited are, roughly speaking, center-left papers. So if the perception of their reporters and editors is that Europe is not fully backing its American allies in Afghanistan, it is safe to assume that's also the opinion of more conservative media in the United States. (Such as the Wall Street Journal, which does not publish on Sundays.) And Guardian readers and editors should be aware of that, because this perception, I would argue, has long-term consequences for NATO and the trans-Atlantic partnership.

Update: Not really related to the post, but A.A. Gill has an amusing op-ed in today's NYT. Highlights:

You often wonder what visiting dignitaries make of your country; American presidents must think that the whole world is in a constant state of riot. Wherever they go, CNN is full of angry banners, burning flags and tear gas. I went and joined the London riot. It was depressingly flabby, and half-hearted. Not so much a demonstration as a queue of arcane special pleading groups, ranging from anarchists for bicycles (who all waited politely at the traffic lights) and one-world vegans. Altogether, they looked like a collective of European street mimes.

And:

The truth is that the French have never really got over being dumped at the altar of the “special relationship.” It should have been them. It was after all, the French who gave you the Statue of Liberty and the keys to the Bastille and who think Jerry Lewis is funny. What did the English ever give you? Muffins and a burnt White House.

If I'm not being accused of being some wild-eyed reactionary (see yesterday's post on policing and the G20), then I'm being accused of being a godless liberal. A few weeks ago I wrote the following:

It's all well and good when some cartoonish clown like Ahmadinejad or Bush is in charge. When a conciliatory moderate is in charge but your interests still aren't alligned, that's when you see the real differences -- and you can't blame all your disagreements on the other side.

The reaction from parts of the readership was that I had been spending too much time in think tanks. "Andrew Exum is quickly becoming the Jim Cramer of foreign policy," one reader wrote. I have no idea what the hell that even means and don't follow the analogy, but I know this: it sure doesn't sound good.

Anyway, today, in the Washington Post, I read the following:

George W. Bush did the Europeans a huge favor by giving them the best excuse for inaction in transatlantic history.

Look, I don't know who this "Robert Kagan" guy is (or if that's even his real name), but it's obvious he is a raving left-winger who hates George W. Bush and America. So please, by all means write into the Post and let them know you do not approve of this pinko-communist they have on their op-ed page.

Update: This person in the picture below may or may not be Robert Kagan. It could also be Tim Hudson, though, judging from the hat and throwing motion.

Well, that was quite a day. After enjoying the inauguration with several of my favorite fellow veterans -- all names to watch in the coming few years, incidentally -- I skipped the inaugural ball because a) Lady Muqawama remains in Palo Alto, doing her equations, and I didn't feel like flying solo and b) I've got work today, dammit. Serious work!

Speaking of serious, there is an article in the New York Times today on the way in which the war in Gaza has played out in France, which has a large North African population. About a year ago, a prominent UK defense intellectual traveled to Washington, DC and met with an equally prominent defense intellectual turned U.S. public official. Our British friend noted that it was harder for Europeans to actively support the war in Afghanistan -- much less Iraq -- because of the way it affected tensions in the large immigrant communities of Bradford, Birmingham, and my old haunt in Walthamstow. By prosecuting unpopular wars in Muslim lands, the Brit argued, we're running the risks of stoking the flames of insurgencies at home. The American response was, basically, a disinterested shrug: "It's not our fault you lot have had limited success integrating your immigrants into society," came the response, "and 'how things will play in Leyton' should not have an effect on collective defense requirements such as NATO obligations in Afghanistan. Your domestic political issues are your problem."

Now, you do not have to have an opinion about whether or not the concern raised by our British friend was legitimate. When the Brit related this story to me, I -- then hanging my hat in the 'Stow -- immediately understood both sides. On the one hand, you can do like the American and essentially tell the Europeans they're in this mess because they -- unlike we suddenly morally superior, Obama-era Americans -- can't integrate immigrant communities better. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that disgruntled immigrant communities in the nations of Western Europe are finding their voice politically. (Perhaps an indication they are growing more integrated into society.) And perhaps NATO planners should consider how that will affect both collective defense requirements and also the unpopular-in-Europe war in Afghanistan.

Thoughts from the crowd?

[I'm sure the one blogger who has not abandoned me, Londonstani, has some particularly good thoughts on this.]