Philip Gordon, the American assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, visited his European clients earlier this month in order to ask for more European cooperation. The United States has elected a president all but universally admired in Western Europe's most influential circles. If they like the man so much, why is there not more enthusiasm for the Obama administration's foreign policy? Where are more European NATO troops to fight the Taliban and keep al-Qaida from making a return? "Europe," Gordon said, "is as vulnerable as we are, if not more so."

At this point, most of his European auditors are likely to have tuned out. Vulnerable to what? He said that "since the 11th of September (2001) Europe has been struck more often than the United States by terrorists who have their refuge in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

It is true that there have been more bombings or attempted bombings in Western Europe since 9/11 than in the United States (where there have been none). But it has not been al-Qaida, or Taliban from Afghanistan, who have committed them. They have mostly been the work of estranged Muslims who live in Europe, with grievances of their own.

The only successful terrorist bombings in France during the past quarter-century were carried out by Algerian Islamist sympathizers to punish France for keeping up relations with an Algerian military government then attempting -- by brutal measures -- to put down an even more brutal Islamic fundamentalist campaign indiscriminately killing Algerian civilians. This was long before anyone outside security circles had ever heard of al-Qaida.

The Madrid train bombings and the attacks on the London Underground were copycat affairs inspired by 9/11, but according to security and police sources were local affairs having nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and his friends residing in the Afghanistan badlands.

What was Mr. Gordon talking about? The Bush administration liked to admonish the Europeans that they were in greater danger than the United States from attack by Iranian nuclear missiles -- if there were any. This was in the context of the Polish-Czech anti-missile systems that also, at the time, did not exist and were planned to counter Iranian nuclear missiles. This was assuming that one day there would be Iranian nuclear missiles that the Iranians would be disposed to use to attack Europe, for reasons presently unknown.

This is the problem people like Philip Gordon meet during these thankless missions to Europe to urge the Europeans to send more troops to support the United States in Iraq (yesterday), Afghanistan (today), and (I fear) Pakistan or Somalia or Kashmir tomorrow. They are working inside Never-Neverland strategic schemes based on implausible assumptions and hypothetical threats and responses.

First after 9/11 it was invasion of Afghanistan the allies were supposed to support. To attack al-Qaida's base, and try to seize its leaders and members, was perfectly justified. But why did the Taliban regime and army have to be subjected to slaughter by B-52s, and Afghanistan's government handed back, amidst profuse international professions of goodwill, to what proved to be essentially the same conditions of disorder and warlordism that prevailed after the Soviet defeat?

Next, everyone was supposed to join in the invasion of Iraq to seize the weapons of mass destruction with which it threatened international peace, which proved not to exist. There is no need to go on. But it doesn't require great perspicacity to understand why the European allies have tired of the cries of "wolf! wolf!" regularly heard from Washington.

The British respond because since 1944 such has been the cold and calculated policy of the Foreign Office: Humor the Americans. Susceptible prime ministers like Tony Blair fall for White House glamour. The Foreign Office doesn't, nor does the War Office (now politically corrected to Ministry of Defense), responsible for supplying the human price that has to be paid. The Danes and the Dutch usually step up to the plate (to use the idiom increasingly heard from Europeans). Other West Europeans are inclined to think twice, or thrice.

The "new Europeans" have gone along because they have an engrained fear of Russia, and the United States seems the only source of available protection. They don't trust Western Europe.

Officials such as Philip Gordon regularly travel to Europe to ask for support for American initiatives. The Europeans reply that they have not been consulted in making these policies. The Americans say we will be happy to discuss them, but we are putting up most of the men and money, so it's too late to change anything. Maybe next time.

Victory in Afghanistan Requires Fully Supported Counterinsurgency
James Danly

In order to declare victory, we need to aid the Afghans in establishing a legitimate government whose population does not effectively support terrorist networks. The only viable course is to commit the resources necessary to conduct a full-spectrum counterinsurgency of the kind employed to such great effect during the surge in Iraq

Counterinsurgency Cookie Cutter Doesn't Fit Afghanistan
Gian P. Gentile

'Counterinsurgency' has become the new American way of war. A once obscure theory of internal conflict, it has become ubiquitous in military circles and dominates thinking on both current and future wars. More important, its precepts are being followed without serious inquiry or examination, and the U.S. military has become so enamored with the theory that it seemingly will not consider any serious alternative methods to achieve the president's objectives in Afghanistan.

Despite Obama's Concessions, Russia Remains Unhelpful on Iran
Joshua Kucera

The Obama administration's announcement last month that it was scrapping plans to build missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic removed a prime irritant in the U.S.-Russian relationship; Russians felt the missile defense network was targeted as much at them as against the purported threat, Iran. And the move appeared at first to pay dividends. However ...

Can United States Truly Press 'Reset' Button With Russia
Ian Bremmer and Alexander Kliment

Today, Moscow and Washington elites glower at each other over a host of global disputes, and Russia, far from blossoming into the pro-Western, market-oriented democracy that the 1990s shock therapists dreamed of, has developed into a quasi-authoritarian petro-state at home, guided by zero-sum revisionist ambitions abroad.

Arrogant U.S. Misses the Message From Pakistan's People
William Pfaff

There has always been in American foreign policy circles a virus called arrogance, caused by the hereditary assumption that Americans know better than others. Surprisingly, this does not always prove the case, but the condition seems highly resistant to treatment, even by experience. There seems a high probability that the disease has struck Obama administration policy circles dealing with Pakistan

With al-Qaida Diminished, There's No Sense in Expanding Afghan War
William Pfaff

Al-Qaida's relations with the Taliban today are troubled. Effective counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan is on the brink of completely eliminating al-Qaida. There will be no organization to return. This is the result of effective international and domestic intelligence cooperation as well as good police work. So why, one asks, is the U.S. expanding its war in Afghanistan?

Afghan Mythologies
Victor Davis Hanson

As President Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should remember that most of the conventional pessimism about Afghanistan is only half-truth. Remember the mantra that the region is the 'graveyard of empires,' where Alexander the Great, the British in the 19th century, and the Soviets only three decades ago inevitably met their doom?

United States: Single-eyed Vision
Robert C. Koehler

The promise the United States once represented to the world has spent itself, and what we have to offer in terms of opportunity, or at least hope, is overshadowed by the spreading shadow of our hubris. And it's all coming home to roost.

Latin America Low on Obama's Priority List
Latin American Current Events, News & Affairs - Andres Oppenheimer

One year after the election of President Barack Obama, it's time to ask whether his ambitious campaign promises about Latin America are being fulfilled, or whether, like others before him, he has placed the region at the bottom of his foreign policy priorities. Let's look at Obama's key campaign promises for Latin America

In the Quicksands of Somalia
Bronwyn Bruton

The U.S. government needs to change its Somalia policy -- and fast. For the better part of two decades, international attempts to create a government have failed. And since 9/11, U.S. attempts to prevent Somalia from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda have visibly backfired, alienating the Somali population, and propelling an indigenous Salafi jihadist group, called al Shabab, to power

Changing North Korea
Andrei Lankov

When it comes to dealing with North Korea the United States and its allies have no efficient methods of coercion at their disposal; the regime is remarkably immune to outside pressure. Its leaders cannot afford change, so they make sure their state continues to be an international threat, using nuclear blackmail as a survival tactic while their unlucky subjects endure more poverty and terror. Since outside pressure is ineffective

(c) 2009 William Pfaff