What is common in the United States, is rather rare in Germany: Expressing support of our soldiers in Afghanistan.

While most US critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make extra efforts to distinguish between criticism of the strategy/purpose of the wars and the service of the troops, such differentiation usually is not made in Germany. I have never seen a car with the bumper sticker "Support our Troops."

"A spectre is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism." Those were the words of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 and their predictions turned out to be highly accurate, as we all know. Now the spectre of communism is haunting America and the end of the world is near.

The conservative media is scared shitless by this spectre and accuses Obama of turning the land of the free and the home of the brave into Russia/Europe/communism/socialism.

Who is to blame that we are not winning in Afghanistan? Karzai, Obama, NATO, the Europeans, or Jimmy Carter again? Afghanistan's President Karzai was criticized a lot lately. Now the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens comes to his defense and puts the blame on NATO. He makes the dubious claim that:

Matters went abruptly south in Afghanistan after several years in which they had gone swimmingly well under Mr. Karzai, including a thriving economy, girls back in school, people having access to health care and so on. The answer has a lot less to do with Mr. Karzai's performance than with NATO's.

"Abruptly south"? "Swimmingly well"? Oh please! Perhaps Stephens was like most of the US media so fixated on Iraq and domestic politics that he ignored Afghanistan.

I agree with DoDo's conclusion from the Obama speech in Berlin:

The Obama campaign achieved its main goal: the media the world over is talking about cheering German crowds giving an enthusiastic welcome. On a closer look however, we get a more differentiated picture.

This differentiated picture also becomes obvious in the video clip below the fold: Interviews with attendees of the Obama speech, filmed by yours truly:

The G8 used to be criticized as an evil capitalist group of powerful countries that determines world politics and economics without legitimacy like the UN. There has not been much of such criticism at this year's summit in Japan.

"For the first time since 2003, a consensus is emerging in the EU on the need to do more for Iraq," write Daniel Korski and Richard Gowan of the European Council on Foreign Relations and add: "There is a risk that the United States will not take advantage of this opportunity."

At my day job at Atlantic Community, we have published quite a few interesting articles on US-Polish issues. Polish perspectives are under-reported in the German and American mass media, but they are important because Poland is one of Europe's bigger countries, is considered very Pro-American and was seen as the primary "New Europe" country, a term that is less frequently used these days, but is still controversial.  

We need an International Afghanistan Study Group, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, but with representatives from Europe and Asia as well.

To save the NATO mission in Afghanistan, we have to conduct a thorough, frank and honest evaluation of all our political and military strategies in Central Asia. We have to debate fresh and controversial policy alternatives, which include negotiations with the Taliban, the replacement of the Karzai government, military incursions into Pakistan, the involvement of Iran and Russia as well as complete NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan. Every option has to be put on the table and discussed on its merits.

Traditionally, the British prime minister's first foreign visit is to Washington, but Gordon Brown chose dinner with Angela Merkel instead. Is this the beginning of the end of the special relationship between the UK and the US?

Yesterday I wrote a diary about Losing Afghanistan, incl. a poll for the question Are the EU countries contributing enough to Afghanistan?

However, so far many comments criticize US policies (that's appropriate) and only few discuss the policies of European countries and the role European countries play within NATO (that's a shame).

Jerome made two great suggestions to prevent losing in Afghanisan:

# Legalize drugs in the West. Half the problem instantly solved

# Increase fuel taxes by 1$/gal every quarter for 3 years. The Arab world, djihad and Afghanistan will fall into the same "who gives a shit" category as Africa as far as most of the "civilised" world cares.

I am in favor of legalization. However most European lawmakers are against it and I don't see any significant movement to pressure them to legalize drugs. Legalization does not seem to be a big issue on Eurotrib either or did I miss many diaries?  

Jerome also wrote "Afghanistan has never been Europe's to lose in the first place." I am not sure what that means. I do think Europe can make a difference (positively or negatively) and European NATO members have a responsibility due to the NATO treaty and the invocation of article 5 after 9/11. Besides, Europe has been the biggest consumer of opium from Afghanistan for many years. The Taleban have only tackled the opium growing in 1999 or 2000. Before that they made a lot of money with opium as well.

Now the opium problem has increased again:

Reuters AlertNet - AFGHANISTAN: Opium harvest set to increase by 60 percent - UN report
"Afghanistan's opium harvest is set to increase by nearly 60 percent this year due to a massive jump in cultivation in the insurgency-hit south, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says.
UNODC's Annual Opium Survey found the area used for opium cultivation had reached a record 165,000 ha in 2006 compared with 104,000 in 2005. Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world's opium, which mostly ends up in the heroin markets of western Europe and Russia."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/d037e072e25983e66f5ef527b1fff7f3.htm

Since Afghanistan's opium is mostly consumed by Europeans, it is Europeans how finance the warlords and fuel the fighting. (America gets most of its drugs from South America, not from Afghanistan.) Does not this mean that Europe is responsible for the suffering of so many Afghans before 9/11 and today as well?

I think it does. There are two options:
a) Legalization.
b) Sending more troops and increasing efforts of reconciliation between warlords/tribes etc. and increasing reconstruction in Afghanistan, i.e. stabilizing the country, providing alternatives to growing opium.

I would prefer legalization, because it would rob the warlords of the money to buy arms and employ combatants. However most Europeans are against it. Thus the alternative is option b).

Of course, some people prefer option c): Blaming it all on the United States. That's so common in large parts of Europe.
And someone might argue that if only Europe legalizes drugs, then Afghanistan drugs will be sold in the US. Well, 1. I think it would take the Afghans a lot of time to get into the US market.
2.If Europe produces its own drugs (due legalization) and does not buy any drugs from Afghanistan anymore, then world market prices should fall...

Is there an option d)???
What should Europe do in regard to Afghanistan?

P.S.: Comments and ideas concerning yesterday's diary about Losing Afghanistan, incl. a poll for the question Are the EU countries contributing enough to Afghanistan? are appreciated. Please read the articles recommended in that diary first.

"The American ambassador to Kabul has accused European members of Nato of jeopardising the future of the alliance by refusing to send troops to Afghanistan, or banning their forces from entering areas with heavy fighting." writes the British Telegraph:

Germany's former Foreign Minister Fischer started teaching at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School. The cause of the 9/11 attacks was not U.S. foreign policy, but the lack of modernisation in the Arab world, he explained at a discussion to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Prof. Fischer, however, is concerned that U.S. mistakes increase the conflicts. His candid advice according to the German Der Tagesspiegel was: "To defeat the beast, don't feed the beast."
He said more or less the same, but less outspoken in the NYT, as Dialog International reports.

***Back to diaries

John Palmer thinks:

The European Union may - just may - be on the cusp of unveiling a foreign and security policy towards the most explosive issues in the middle east which marks a significant break with the strategy followed so far under the leadership of the Bush administration. Although the new EU strategy is as yet being pursued tentatively and with a desire to avoid provoking Washington, American neo-conservative ideologues are already scenting a major new transatlantic rift.

Over in the comments section of "To defeat the beast, don't feed the beast", Migeru wrote: "I think UNIFIL is more likely to piss off Israel then the Lebanese. It already has." and in a another comment added "We saw a couple of days ago Israel is unhappy that France and Italy will actually be deployed armoured vehicles and anti-aircraft missiles."
 
I would like to see that comment thread discuss what the best way is to reduce terrorist attacks in Europe in the long term. I would appreciate your suggestions in that thread.
 
Let's discuss Migeru's comment in a new thread, i.e. here:
 
I think, Israel got a good deal by having European troops as babysitters at its Northern border. Thomas Friedman thinks so too in a recent NYT column: