Editorial - Europe and Afghanistan - NYTimes.com Afghanistan is not and should not be just the United States" fight. Al Qaeda has used its sanctuaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan to plot and launch attacks on European cities. We welcome the news that some of America's 42 military partners in Afghanistan plan to send more troops. It was not an easy call. As President Obama said in his Nobel acceptance speech last week, "In many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public." And in Europe any ambivalence has long been replaced by fierce demands for withdrawal. Still, NATO's announcement that an additional 7,000 troops will be going falls short of what is needed, and has too many casualty-limiting caveats attached. That isn't good for Afghanistan or NATO, which has never fully shouldered the burden of this mission. And it is unfair to the American people, who are being asked to make disproportionate sacrifices for what is, emphatically, a common fight. When more closely parsed, the NATO numbers look even less impressive. Almost 2,000 will come from countries outside the alliance (including Australia, South Korea, Sweden and aspiring NATO members, Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia and Montenegro). And more than half of the new NATO troops will come from just three member states: Britain, whose force will go up to 10,000; Italy, which will go to roughly 4,000; and Poland, which will total 2,800. So far, neither France, which has 3,750 troops there, nor Germany, with roughly 4,300, has agreed to send any additional troops. Meanwhile, the Netherlands, with roughly 2,200, will withdraw its forces in the course of 2010; Canada, with 2,800, will be leaving by 2011. That means as American troop levels rise from 68,000 to 98,000 by next summer, allied troop levels are not likely to go much higher than the present 38,000. Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of European support for the United States and offers of assistance in Afghanistan under the common defense clause of the NATO treaty. The Bush administration arrogantly spurned that offer, and then proceeded to alienate European opinion with its disastrous war in Iraq. Trans-Atlantic cooperation on Afghanistan still has not recovered. The challenge for President Obama and European leaders is to overcome that unhappy recent history before it does more damage to the war effort in Afghanistan and to the NATO alliance. Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, and France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, have repeatedly stated that their countries have a stake in the future of Afghanistan and the future of NATO. But both are wary of pushing their voters too far, too fast. Both have essentially postponed their decisions on further troop contributions until late next month. Democratically elected leaders cannot ignore public skepticism, but they should not surrender to it when they know better. Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy must educate their voters to the harsh reality that Europe will also pay a high price if the Taliban and Al Qaeda get to retake Afghanistan and further destabilize Pakistan. There is a lot Europe can do in addition to sending more troops. Afghanistan also needs more skilled civilian advisers to work with President Hamid Karzai's new cabinet appointees. And it urgently needs help reconstructing its dysfunctional national police force - a job the United Nations initially assigned to Germany, which fumbled it. NATO had it right in 2001. Defeating Al Qaeda is a matter of common defense. President Obama is right to insist that the allies do more. Now Europe's leaders need to demand more of themselves.