NATO members’ reluctance to assume a larger role in Afghanistan is partly the legacy of U.S. military protection, which allowed Europeans to stress social programs over defense for decades, the Greek ambassador to the United States said.
“For 40 years, you have a system [of] not bothering about military, security and stability expenses,” Vassilis Kaskarelis told editors and reporters of The Washington Times. “Because these issues were handled by the United States after World War II … everybody was happy.”
Mr. Kaskarelis, 60, served as Greece’s ambassador to NATO from 2000 to 2003, before a five-year stint as his country’s top envoy to the European Union.
The Obama administration is weighing whether to send thousands of additional American troops to augment the 68,000 already in Afghanistan. Other NATO members are contributing about 40,000 troops. Only Britain has agreed to send more. The Netherlands and other nations have announced that they intend to withdraw troops in the next two years.
European nations have been watching with concern the Obama administration’s prolonged deliberations over Afghanistan strategy and have been waiting for Washington to make up its mind before announcing their own troops decisions.
U.S. commanders, meanwhile, have complained that some European forces have rules of engagement so restrictive that it makes it difficult for them to conduct combat missions.
Mr. Kaskarelis said during the interview on Friday that most European governments support the war in Afghanistan but lack the military infrastructure to contribute as equal partners.
“They don’t have the capabilities, because in the last 50 years, the U.S. offered an umbrella in terms of military, security and stability,” he said. “You had the phenomenon [in which] most of the successful European economies — countries like France, Germany, the Scandinavians — channeled all the funds they had on social issues, health care, pensions, you name it.”
Mr. Kaskarelis noted that this system grew out of the wreckage of World War II and that without U.S. aid, his own country “wouldn’t exist today” as an independent, democratic state. But to readjust is difficult, he said.
“Can you imagine how a government can sell such … an idea to its general public without having a revolution? They cover the expense of the hospital, but to say, ‘We won’t cover 100 percent of your medical expenses, we will start covering 80 percent, because the other 20 percent [will be used] to upgrade our military capabilities to be used in NATO and Afghanistan. Can you imagine this?”
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “The Return of History and the End of Dreams,” agreed with the ambassador’s analysis.
“The Europeans have lived in a very benevolent situation for decades in which the United States provided a security umbrella under which a very happy lifestyle — including high government expenditures on domestic health and welfare programs — were made possible,” he said.
“It’s difficult to imagine that European publics could be persuaded to give up this deal, and few European politicians are urging them to do so.”
Mr. Kaskarelis faulted the George W. Bush administration for giving the impression that it could wage war and peace in both Iraq and Afghanistan without much assistance from other nations. He was particularly critical of the U.S. decision to offer contracts for Iraq reconstruction only to U.S. firms after the 2003 invasion.View Entire Story
'Your papers, please' must never be heard in America
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
The “Silver Tsunami” created by aging Baby Boomers is hitting America. Let’s explore how we adjust to it, enjoy it and defy negative expectations about age.
A carefully guided tour through the confusing world of modern bookselling and publishing.
Reflections on raising families in a holistic way -- with a focus on nutrition and alternative health.
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall