• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Afghanistan Demonstrates Need for a GFC

    On January 21, French Defense Minister Herve Morin announced that the French government would be unwilling to send more troops to assist in NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Morin’s comments came on the heels of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s announcement the day before that indicated German reinforcements to the NATO mission would not be forthcoming.

    Currently 2,800 French and 4,500 German troops serve alongside 32,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan, though many of the French and German soldiers are performing non-combat roles in the more peaceful northern areas of the country.

    The timing of these statements coincided with the inauguration of President Obama, who repeatedly pledged during his campaign to boost the number of overall forces serving in Afghanistan, and who just yesterday called Afghanistan and Pakistan “the central front” in the fight against terrorism and extremism. Mr. Obama expressed his desire that any American increase in troop levels would be matched by increases among other NATO forces.

    The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy, Dr. Kim Holmes, believes that the reluctance on the part of some of America’s major European partners to increase their NATO troop commitments highlights a salient void in the international system that could best be remedied by the formation of a Global Freedom Coalition (GFC).

    At the top of the list of institutional reforms must be America’s security associations. NATO is still needed for the defense of Europe and if enlarged will be a vital alliance for out-of-area missions that threaten its interests–such as fighting al-Qaeda and global terrorism. But today, it is not the only partner for America to advance its global interests and values, and despite taking on the lead in Afghanistan, it is too slow, divided, and parochial to become a truly global alliance.

    The time may be ripe for America to start look­ing for additional potential partners that are not already in an existing formal alliance with us. It may also be wise to begin thinking of mechanisms that are not as formal as but are no less dedicated to action than alliances to help advance our security interests. Consultative and planning mechanisms may be the order of the day, rather than rigid prom­ises or commitments. Whatever the mechanism, the days of forming alliances based exclusively on the lines of regional and territorial defense may be over.

    Clearly, some new global security association is needed, but what would it look like? Washington should consider forming a Global Freedom Coali­tion (GFC)–a voluntary association of like-minded nations around the world that is premised on two fundamental principles: first, that security and lib­erty (which encompasses civil, economic, and polit­ical freedoms) are inextricably linked in that, as the United States and its partners promote global con­ditions conducive to the strengthening of free soci­eties, they are simultaneously enhancing their own national security interests and, second, that broader multilateral security cooperation becomes more critical as global economic power becomes more diffuse and global threats increase.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Afghanistan Demonstrates Need for a GFC

    1. Robert, Fresno CA says:

      Before you go off creating New Global Associations the United States needs to cut it's fianancial and military associations with countries who will not stand with us and routinely refuse to vote with us in the UN. Remember We are the Big brother that no one wants to have around because we believe differently. That is until they need money or a defender. If you really want to make an immediate change in attitudes toward the United States worldwide, cut off finanancial support to the UN and tell them to find a new home country. Next cut off financial support for and move our troops out of the countries who consistantly stand in opposition to the United States. When the United States starts telling these countries "We are leaving. Don't call us. We'll call you." they will begin an immediate scramble for our continued $$$$$ and military support. WE as a country will be able to then stand back and watch as countries come crawling back and appoligizing for their stands against us. The United States will then be in a position to say this is what we as a people expect from you as a friend and partner in the world comunity. If you can't agree to this quit calling. The United States can always keep money at home instead of sending support to a country who will not support us.

      Would any of you rotinly send money and show up to physically support to a person (family member or friend) who routinely verbally attacked you in a public manner.

      My father always taught not to ignore someone offering to be a friend. However he also said to look at their history as it relates to your friendship and always ask "Are they helping you or hurting you". If they art not helping you succeed then they are slowing or bringing you down! Cut them loose. You will be better off in the end. ROBERT

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.