Explaining Reluctant Europeans in Afghanistan

1
Explaining Reluctant Europeans in Afghanistan

• Scott N. Siegel
• Assistant Professor
• Department of National Security Affairs
• Brown Bag Seminar
• April 15, 2009

2
The European Contribution to AfghanistanA Very
Brief History

• We are all Americans!Le Monde, 12.09.01
• Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF
• Disarm militias and eliminate Taliban and
  al-Qaeda
• Train national police force and army
• Provide security for elections
• Combat the narcotics/terrorism nexus
• British join in OEF and then French, Germans and
  many others follow through ISAF.
• ISAF Plan Move in 4 Stagesnever reaching the
  last

3
Troop Commitments (04.09)
4
Rising Difficulties and Debates (2002-2008)

• National caveats on the use of force.
• Capacity problems among European forces.
• PRTs little coordination among them, different
  organization structures and no coherent strategy.
• Counter-Narcotics Programs transatlantic divide.
• Merger of OEF and ISAF opposed by Europeans.
• Rise of Taliban attacks increases causalities.
• Other Problems Treatment of Prisoners in
  Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Germans playing with
  skulls Canadians tolerating torture by Afghan
  army.
• Bottom Line Disagreement over what the mission
  or purpose of troops should bedemocracy building
  and eliminating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda or
  State-Building and Economic Development and
  de-emphasizing democracy.

5
Current Events

• New Mission Under Obama
• Deployed 17,000 more troops in February for both
  counter-insurgency and development, 4000 more in
  March and perhaps 9,000 more, bringing total to
  68,000 by end of year.
• Expand the Afghan army and police forces
• Local development assistance
• Develop alternative crops to opium
• Bring in regional actors and link to issues in
  Pakistan.
• NATO Summit in Baden-Baden/Strasburg
• 5,000 more European troops for August elections
• No more troops for combat from any European
  source

6
Assumption Successful Occupation Requires 10
(min) or 20 (gold standard) Soldiers per 1000
Inhabitants 320,000-640,000 Total Troops S.
Jones, RAND

• So Why Wont Europeans Contribute More?
• Possible Explanations
• Free-Riding Behavior by Europeans
• Divergent Perceptions of the Terrorist Threat
  How to Respond
• Differing National Role Conceptions and Security
  Cultures
• Domestic Politics

7
Is There Something Unusual?
8
Divergent Threat Perceptions?
9
Divergent Methods in the War on Terror

• US (Bush)
• Military action abroad and external security
  focused
• Unilateral regime change and elimination of
  evil
• Sanctions and confrontation with state supporters
  of terrorism
• Suspension of human rights
• Europe
• Police and investigatory methods within Europe
• Favor diplomacy and incentives when confronting
  state supporters of terrorism can never fully
  eliminate it
• Perceive root causes of terror in poor
  socio-economic development
• Use the tools of international law and other
  legal methods to prevent, detect and prosecute
  acts of terrorism

10
Comparative Advantages? Military Combat vs.
Foreign Aid
11
European Aversion to Casualties?
12
Has Opposition Grown Over Time?Answer Yes, but
national variation and differences have not
changed.
13
Plus No Real Change in Public Opinion Support
14
National Security Cultures

• Germany
• Multilateralism and integration into
  international institutions
• Solve international conflicts through active
  diplomacy
• Strengthen the rule of international law
• Use material resources to advance economic and
  social development
• Maintain a strong transatlantic relationship
  while integrating with Europe
• Results
• Run a PRT in Kunduz and Feyzbad
• Participate in EUPOL and other police missions
• Refuse to engage in combat operations
• Sent 1000 more troops in 2008 (3640 total), but
  more will not come and will not engage in combat
• Run development conferences and provide
  development aid

15

• France
• Resurrect or maintain prestige in international
  affairs and help run Europe
• Not averse to using military force to bring back
  order, especially in former spheres of influence
• Committed to economic and social development, but
  skeptical of bringing democracy
• While historically challenged the US for
  influence in Europe (and the world), now fully on
  board with US in terms of interests.
• Results for Afghanistan
• Early combat troops sent and welcome
• Fights to bring womens rights and stop tyranny,
  but not willing to build the state or democratic
  institutions
• Gives aid, but relies on military power for its
  contribution

16

• United Kingdom
• Under Blair, strong commitment to bringing
  democracy and regime change
• Favors military intervention, whether under UN
  auspices or not, but prefers the former, and in
  its former spheres of influence
• Strong alliance with the US
• Under Brown, stronger commitment to combating
  global bads global warming, human rights
  violations and favors socio-economic
  developmentconverging towards the Continent.
• Results
• Immediate involvement in OEF
• 2nd largest troop commitment and taking the lead
  in Helmand Province
• Sent 300 more troops in 2008

17

• The Netherlands
• Strong supporter of multilateralism, especially
  NATO.
• Use of force to prevent genocide and engages in
  military interventions under UN auspices
• Strong supporter of the rule of international law
  and socio-economic development to solve global
  bads.
• Very concerned about international terrorism and
  possible links to Muslims within Holland.
• Results
• Sent troops early and now leads PRT in
  Uruzgancombining military and development
  objectives
• Favors reconstruction over counter-insurgency
• Wants regional actors brought in to solve
  conflict

18
Is There a Role for Domestic Politics?

• Left vs. Right?
• DE Only far Left and some Greens and Left SPD
  are against involvement, but no more troops at
  all (if they exist).
• FR PS tried to make it an election issue, but
  Sarkozy and UMP are immune to public opinion.
• UK Some restless members of Labour and Lib-Dems
  upset, but no change if Conservatives win in
  2009.
• NE Center-Right coalitions difficult to
  maintain, but Left cannot gain a majority.
• IT Renewal of mission and expansion of Vicenza
  temporarily brought down Prodi government
  Berlusconi will now send 500 more
• Other Factors
• Anti-Americanism?
• Anti-NATOism?
• Rise of Taliban attacks?
• Bottom Line Europeans contribute less because
  they choose to the fight the War on Terror
  differently AND because of American hegemony,
  controlling for whether additional troops are
  available.

19
How to do get more from Europeans?

• Demonstrate successmay lead to more public
  opinion support and troops, if there are any.
• Increase defense spendingnot likely at all now
  and no real incentives in place to do so.
• Give them leadership roles and rationalize PRT
  structures internationalize or Europeanize the
  conflict through UN and EU institutions.
• Work that Obama magic.