Europe?s civilian failings

By Tom Nuttall - 16 Oct 09

With Gordon Brown and, reportedly, Barack Obama both agreeing to up their respective countries' troop count in Afghanistan, Afghan watchers have understandably spent the past week focusing on the military component of the international effort (plus, of course, the nefarious activities of the Italians).

Yet, as with most large-scale interventions these days, Afghanistan also enjoys a significant civilian presence-police, rule of law experts, reconstruction teams and the like. And while the instinct in America is always to turn to the Pentagon first, we Europeans, with our far more subtle understanding of the complex nature of modern security challenges, are much better at deploying this so-called "civilian power" effectively-right?

Wrong. It turns out that the EU's much-vaunted "comprehensive approach" is chimerical-a figment more of an illusory European self-image than any reflection of our performance abroad. In a new report published by my think tank, the European Council on Foreign Relations, two security experts argue that Europe's overseas interventions are being hampered by three problems: an outdated reliance on models that worked reasonably well in the Balkans but that are utterly unsuited to places like Afghanistan; European governments' unwillingness to treat civilian deployment seriously and to live up to their commitments on numbers; and tiresome and debilitating turf wars between the various institutions in Brussels. The EU police training mission in Afghanistan is a good example: launched a couple of years ago, the operation was supposed to employ 400 European police officers; it has struggled to attract 250. And political wrangling and security concerns have stopped those police trainers from operating effectively-most police training in Afghanistan is now carried out by frustrated Americans.

With European electorates growing increasingly sceptical about the value of foreign interventions, civilian deployment programmes will look like obvious candidates for the chop to EU governments faced with a squeeze on public finances. Let's hope this temptation can be avoided.

This commentary is part of the author's Prospect blog.

1 Comments

The United States and Europe in Afghanistan:
Why should we stay

Early December (2009) was an affirmative week for the US led-Operation in Afghanistan.

Just as President Obama disclosed his decision, in response to General McChrystal’s strategic request, to increase the number of US Military personnel with the extra 30000 soldiers, on the other side of Atlantic, far from reluctancy and rather readily, Europe extended its hand to its American partner by agreeing to augment the number of its troops for implementing the Humanitarian missions in the various parts of Afghanistan.

Evidently in Afghanistan there is a prodigious need of a deeper unity between the US and Europe; an extended proficiency and strength among the Commanding officers and our Soldiers. Additionally, a need for objectivity and a logical prospective in the civil societies and the people of the region in order to be able to understand that contrary to what the media, with the technique of sensationalism for their sale uplift, are trying to impose on public perception, the political prognosis in Afghanistan is far from bleak.

In unity with the United States, Britain highlighted the extra 500 soldiers bringing the number of Britannique to the total of 10000, maintaining the largest troop in Afghanistan second only to the US. Rome is marching in preparation to maximize its troops, which it declared thereafter.

While le Chef de la Diplomatie Francaise Bernard Kouchner ruled out the status quo by acknowledging the possibility for the addition of deployment, Deutschland has already reshuffled its cabinet and placed the public pulse in the hands of its new Defense Minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg.
In the coming weeks his role will be particularly crucial as he steps in to convince the German parliament and the public. He has yet to combine his political rhetoric with the military might in order to justify, not only the German presence in Afghanistan, but also to make a case for multiplying the number of its soldiers on the ground.

With all these imperative layout plans, at long last, NATO could heave a sigh of relief.

It has passed almost eight years since the day that the United States launched an operation to remove the tyrannical system in Afghanistan and liberate the people of that land, who had been suffering for quite a long period, first in civil conflicts and later under the atrocities of Taliban rulers.

Yet it is diaphanously apparent that despite the fact that the security remains to be a bit in turmoil, despite the fact that there is still social derangement, the general structure of the country, in a very positive way, has changed since its liberation.
Though slowly Afghanistan is advancing towards Democratization. The local people are already benefiting from the many Humanitarian projects that the US and the NATO forces have implemented thus far.
In the historical scope, it is evident that in any parts of the world where there has been a step towards a better society, there had been a price which was paid for it.
Neither the United States nor la France—and truly not any other countries in the world has ever actualized Freedom and achieved Democracy without the bravery, sacrifice and perseverance of their people.

It would be unthinkable—rather facile and implausible to envision that the essential changes that we are implementing in Afghanistan, in order to help them to establish a democratic government will be without casualties on both the US-NATO forces and the local people sides. It will be na?ve to think that war against tyranny will be casualty-free with the rapid obtained results. And this is the fact that Politicians have to make it clear to the general public while expecting them to comprehend the mission in Afghanistan and adhere to it.
For we are not there to court them politically or exercise the military excursions but we are there, in that land—Afghanistan, for a noble cause, the Humanitarian one.
Because we are: Liberating Afghanistan;
Assisting the local people to get their country back on the right path;
Helping them to be Free from traces of darkness by providing them every means for the general and the higher education;
And leading them to have a Democratic country under the rule of law.

Putting aside the Humanitarian aspects of this operation, strategically, we can be assured that the US-EU operational framework in the Afghanistan region will work towards, not only the completion of Democratization in Afghanistan, but also it will pay off for the security of United States, Europe and the entire region.
We will accomplish our mission in Afghanistan as we are helping it, instead of being the camps for extremist, to become a stabilized and a secure country that could contribute to the world.

The constructive changes in Afghanistan might not be noticeable at this very time, yet in due course the World will see the results of the Knightly measures that the United States and Europe did take for liberating that region from the theocratic oppression and the brutality of the tyrannical system.

Thus the US and Europe should maintain their positions in Afghanistan until the insurgency is defeated; the corruption is annihilated and the rightful Democratic government is in place.
And equally important, until the people of the region are able to take responsibility of their own country.

With these principles in the framework of our policies, hence we have to accredit this Humanitarian operation and all our soldiers who are engaged in it.

Catherine Stella Schmidt
Political Philosopher
Author of
A Philosophical Enquiry into the Concept of Liberty
Discourse on Empire
Sublime and Beautiful Europe and the United States

Catherine Stella Schmidt | USA | 23 Dec 09, 23 Dec 09 EST | www