Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


NATO’s defense establishment speaks up on Afghanistan:

NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and on their own governments to commit more military and civilian resources for the mission to succeed.

….Although the broad acceptance by NATO defense ministers of General McChrystal’s strategic review included no decision on new troops….

I guess my first, cynical reaction is: wake me up when anyone in Europe agrees to actually send more troops.  Until then, I’m not sure I care what their defense ministers think.

That’s my second reaction too.  But my third reaction is a tiny bit of cautious optimism.  In the end, I don’t think Obama can withstand Pentagon pressure to send more troops to Afghanistan, and if that’s the case then additional NATO support increases the odds of success.  Even if it’s mostly peacekeepers and civilians — hell, maybe especially if it’s peacekeepers and civilians — it makes a difference both in terms of raw numbers and legitimacy.  So a bit of pressure from the the European defense establishment is helpful.

On the other hand, to return to my first and second reactions, the Times notes this at the end of the story: “At the same time, though, some allies with forces in Afghanistan are cautiously discussing how and when to end their deployments there.”  Big surprise.  Overall, I’d say the odds of Europe having more troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2010 than they do now are pretty slim.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate