Dan Drezner makes the case that Obama has good prospects for improving the trans-Atlantic relationship, especially regarding Afghanistan:
On Afghanistan, for example, the problem the Bush administration always had with getting more allied support was the perception among many allies that the U.S. wanted NATO help in that theatre so they could focus on Iraq.It has long been my belief that the biggest problem the Iraq War presented for the Afghan operation was not that it directly drew resources from the latter, but rather that it poisoned the trans-Atlantic relationship, thus making it harder for European governments to domestically justify more robust deployments. Obama isn't going to work magical changes in the hearts of Germans or Spaniards, but he can help remove the perception that Europeans are dying in Afghanistan so that the US can carry out its pet war in Iraq. And that, combined with various stylistic changes and shifts on issues ranging from torture to the environment, could work wonders for the trans-Atlantic relationship.If Obama pursues his graduated withdrawal strategy and expanded soft power capabilities, however, he’s going to be able to ask for European help while simultaneously augmenting U.S. forces and resources in the Afghan theater. States are much more willing to cooperate when they sense a serious commitment by the lead actor.
Contra Alex, I think a lot of European foreign policy elites do see the security and foreign policy benefits of doubling down in Afghanistan — if anything, events in Mumbai merely reinforce that belief. Their concern has always been with the lack of U.S. focus and resources in the region. By committing greater resources — which has been Obama’s message for some time now — I think he can square the circle with the Europeans.
--Robert Farley
