Following months of reflection and delay, U.S. President Barack Obama is likely to announce his new Afghan policy tomorrow. NATO's secretary-general expects a "significant" troop increase, warning that a withdrawal as advocated by the left would not only hurt the Afghan people but also Western security.

"We are in Afghanistan to prevent it from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists who would immediately attack not only the U.S. but also Europe," Anders Fogh Rasmussen told me in his office last week. Afghanistan's takeover by the Taliban and al Qaeda "would quickly destabilize the region, including Pakistan, a nuclear power, which would create a very dangerous situation," he added.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's counterinsurgency plan is a "convincing strategy," Mr. Rasmussen said. The commander of the international forces in Afghanistan has called for 40,000 additional troops. The secretary-general would not comment on whether the slightly lower figure of 35,000 soldiers the White House is reportedly planning to deploy would be sufficient to get the job done. Mr. Rasmussen, though, was more forthcoming in his calls for America's allies to step up to the plate.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Associated Press

"This is not just Obama's war," he said. "Once the U.S. president has made his decision, Europe must do its utmost to support him." This is why the NATO chief has been busy these past few weeks traveling around the Continent and calling Allies to get them to pledge more boots on the ground. So far, they've made few firm commitments.

Even though it is considered the "good war" (as opposed to the Iraq invasion, which divided Europe), the Alliance's burden-sharing in the fight against the Taliban is rather lopsided. The U.S. accounts for about 70,000 of the 110,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. That ratio is going to become even more lopsided if President Obama carries out the expected surge. What's more, American forces also have to do most of the fighting and dying, supported only by a few Allies, such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and the secretary-general's home country. As Denmark's prime minister until this April, it was Mr. Rasmussen himself who ordered his country's troop deployment.

Most other NATO members consider their soldiers as some sort of armed aid workers. Germany, for example, has the third-strongest presence in Afghanistan, with 4,500 troops. But the Bundeswehr's marching orders come with tight restrictions, or "caveats" in NATO lingo, limiting its firepower mostly to self-defense rather than active counterinsurgency.

Mr. Rasmussen says this will have to change, although he phrased it slightly more diplomatically. "Apart from sending more troops, I'd like to see Allies contribute by lifting those caveats and allowing for more flexibility in the use of their forces."

Good luck with that. For years he U.S. has pleaded with its NATO partners to do more of the heavy lifting—to no avail. President Obama—despite sky-high poll ratings in Europe he could never hope to match at home—has so far not had any more success in this respect than his much-derided predecessor. It appears Europe's preference for American casualties over their own does not really depend on who occupies the White House.

Perhaps sheer necessity might lead to a more balanced burden sharing. The previously relatively peaceful north—where most of Germany's troops are based—has become a much more dangerous place in recent months.

"Even the north has seen Taliban will be quite a challenge to ensure security there." If Mr. Rasmussen thought to suggest that the Taliban's return may leave German troops no choice but to do what soldiers are supposed to do—engage the enemy—then the NATO head may have underestimated the Germans' ability to hunker down in their barracks.

When challenged on this point, Mr. Rasmussen insisted—not completely convincingly—that he did not like to participate in this sort of "Germany-bashing." The secretary-general pointed out that given the country's history, it was quite astonishing that Berlin committed troops at all.

Perhaps, but the best way to balance its historic record would be for Germany to fight with its Allies rather than to use that very historic record as a pretext for shirking its NATO responsibilities. And it's not just Germany that's falling short. The Continent's other two big economies—Italy and France—also avoid sending their troops in harms' way.

While Europeans are unlikely to drop their "caveats," they may respond to the U.S. surge with a few thousand more of their own (non-fighting) troops. But Mr. Rasmussen himself cautioned not to expect an immediate commitment from Europe, as troop pledges will be more "gradual." Germany, for instance, has already said it won't make any decision about sending more soldiers until an international conference on Afghanistan in January.

Rather than dispatching more combat troops, the mood in Europe (and increasingly in the U.S.) is to find some sort of exit strategy. After more than eight years of war, Mr. Rasmussen understands why people would like to see "some light at the end of the tunnel." He has himself called to start next year transferring some of NATO's responsibilities to Afghan forces, provided those forces are capable enough. But, he stressed, "transition is not a code word for exit. We'll stay in Afghanistan as long as it is necessary to finish the job."

No doubt, Mr. Rasmussen—who as prime minister in 2006 refused to cave to a global Islamist onslaught on his country over the Mohammed cartoons—has the necessary courage and stamina. If only the same could be said about the rest of Europe.
