I’m reading another review of President Obama’s trip to Europe, this one by Michael Shear and Kevin Sullivan writing in The Washington Post. I would recommend it for the casual reader, it’s balanced (noting comments from the both sides of the political spectrum) and it summarizes the highlights of the trip, allowing the reader to gain a quick recap of what happened on the way from London to Baghdad.

I’m starting to get the sense that the trip was a great success for Obama personally and for the image of the U.S. abroad, but it was something of a draw in terms of the substance of the trip. In the win column I would note that the U.S. was able to reboot the Bretton Woods-era financial institutions to deal with the global economic crisis rather than creating a new international financial regulatory system as France and Germany wanted; deflected talk of creating a new international reserve currency to replace the dollar, as suggested by Russia and China; announced plans with Russia to renegotiate key arms control treaties and then announced the lofty goal of working towards a world free of nuclear weapons (though, to be fair, other presidents have set this as an aspirational goal, the logical endpoint of the arms control treaties); announced new initiatives aimed at fostering closer ties with China; and, finally, continued to leverage Obama’s indecision on European missile defense to gain goodwill from both Russia and Eastern European countries (particularly impressed with the diplomatic finesse demonstrated here).

In the loss column I’d have to note that the U.S. failed to gain support from the G20 for a additional stimulus spending; and, at the NATO summit, the U.S. failed to gain allied support for additional combat troops for Afghanistan. I see that last item as the most glaring failure. I can’t help wonder how future historians will characterize this first presidential trip. If we call it a success are we being blinded by all the outstanding photo ops and demonstrations of Obama’s great personal popularity? If we note the failure to gain more combat troops from NATO and say this signaled a watershed for both NATO and the war in Afghanistan, are we being too pessimistic? Perhaps it is enough to say that the trip went well, there were  no major mistakes and the U.S. scored a few wins and a few losses, but on balance it was a good trip for the new president.

President Obama is attending the NATO 60th anniversary summit this weekend and will be renewing ties while urging our skeptical European partners to support an increased role in fighting al-Qaeda in in Afghanistan. The BBC News reports:

President Barack Obama has urged better use of NATO resources in Afghanistan, saying al-Qaeda is a greater threat to Europe than to the US. Speaking before a NATO summit co-hosted by France and Germany, he said the US wanted to see a stronger Europe. However, NATO’s secretary general said members would be reluctant to send more troops if Afghanistan adopted a new law seen as violating the rights of women [...] He [Obama] said the US had been “arrogant” and “dismissive” towards its allies, while there was “insidious” anti-Americanism in Europe. He said these attitudes had to change. “I’ve come to Europe this week to renew our partnership - one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies. But where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden,” he said.

As a founding member of the alliance, the U.S. has a special role in charting the future course for what many have called the most successful military alliance in history. The alliance is not only facing questions over membership and expansion but also core questions about the mission of the alliance. Should NATO remain primarily concerned with European security or should it become a global-NATO, taking on the role of world police? Carnegie expert Mark Medish argues in the International Herald Tribune that the alliance requires a radical rethink of its role in a world of changing security threats, while CFR expert Charles Kupchan suggests that that rather being a time of expansion, this should properly be a time of consolidation for the alliance.  President Obama will use this anniversary celebration to share his view of how he envisions the future of NATO.

This report in The New York Times demonstrates why President Obama’s trip this week to the G20 Summit in London, the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, and the EU Summit in Prague will be fraught with difficulties and not at all like his campaign trip to Europe when he was the center of adulation and praise. The report notes that Obama will be challenged to demonstrate U.S. confidence and leadership at a time when that leadership has been called into question. International economic stimulus spending, troops for Afghanistan, weapons proliferation and missile defense will top his agenda. President Obama will conclude his European trip with a stop in Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country and member of NATO that hopes in time to become a member of the EU. Obama is expected to reiterate U.S. support for Turkish membership in the EU.