Strasbourg, France  - US President Barack Obama travelled to Europe for a NATO summit with a rather long wish list of contributions he would like to see Washington's allies make in their faltering war against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

He left the two-day meeting celebrating the alliance's 60th birthday trying to convince others - and perhaps himself - that he got what he wished for.

"This was not a pledging conference," he told journalists in Strasbourg on Saturday after the summit ended, "and yet we received the kind of commitments that you usually don't get at meetings like this."

He said NATO allies had pledged 3,000 soldiers to secure the August Afghan elections, 300 new police trainers, 70 embedded training teams for the Afghan army, a first contribution of 100 million dollars for a trust fund in support of the Afghan army and 500 million dollars for civilian reconstruction.

The commitments, Obama insisted, "represent a strong down payment for the future of our mission in Afghanistan and the future of NATO."

But he also admitted, "We need more resources."

What he did find at Strasbourg, Obama said, was "consensus and unity about Afghanistan."

The war in Afghanistan has both real and symbolic significance for the United States and for the transatlantic alliance.

Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which calls for collective defence of any member if attacked from abroad. It was the first time in its history that the alliance invoked the article, and it served as the basis for the start of NATO's military operations in Afghanistan, in 2001.

Indeed, alliance leaders outdid themselves in trying to explain to journalists just how vital the mission in Afghanistan was for the longest-running and most successful political alliance in history.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that "Afghanistan is a litmus test for us all."

Outgoing NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer described the conflict as "the most ambitious challenge NATO has ever faced" and declared that "success in Afghanistan will have an impact on how NATO is perceived in the rest of the world."

Some diplomats went even further, declaring that failure in Afghanistan would mean the end of NATO itself.

One problem Obama faced in his quest to convince NATO allies to share more of the load is that, with or without Article 5, NATO is what one Western official described as an "a la carte organization," where members are able to pick and choose the kind of aid they will provide.

"In today's NATO, you can always say no," said Etienne de Durand, director of security studies at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. "This is no longer the NATO of the Cold War."

Another problem for Obama is the global economic crisis, which has depleted the treasuries of governments struggling to rescue their economies with extravagant stimulus plans, and he admitted as much.

"These commitments place a strain on our populations at a time when we are going through difficult times," he said in Strasbourg. "This is a strain on our budgets."

Another irritation to Obama's plans is a highly controversial family law for the country's Shia minority approved by the Afghan parliament and signed this week by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Critics say the law makes it illegal for Shiite women to refuse their husbands sex and forbids them from seeking work, getting an education or making a doctor's appointment without their husband's permission.

"The law is abhorrent," Obama said, and noted that it had been discussed at the summit and that efforts were being undertaken to move Karzai to annul it.

But as Obama moves to increase American troop strength in Afghanistan from the current 38,000 to 68,000 by the end of 2009 - both as part of NATO's mission and Operation Enduring Freedom - there is a growing concern that, despite the best intentions of NATO allies, the war is becoming increasingly Americanized.

And, more importantly, the feeling is also growing that whatever commitments Obama received here, it was too little and too late. (dpa)