The 60th anniversary meeting of Nato has managed to avoid a split on its choice of secretary-general. Barack Obama, who has deployed his charm effectively on his first big overseas visit, managed to persuade Turkey that the four-year-old row over Danish cartoons that had offended Muslims could be put aside. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, was duly appointed.

The real meat of the Nato meeting in Strasbourg, however, was Afghanistan. Here, while he tried to put a brave face on it, Mr Obama left with very little. Other Nato countries will commit “up to 5,000” additional troops and trainers to provide security for Afghanistan’s presidential election on August 20, including an extra 900 from Britain.

Any additional troops in Afghanistan are welcome but this was the bare minimum that Nato could have come up with. The president welcomed the support of other countries for America’s “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” strategy for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s border regions.

He also said, however, that the commitment of extra troops was merely a “strong down payment” on the additional resources that would be needed. He is right, but he may also be optimistic if he expects further payments to follow. If a new American president armed with the most goodwill that he will ever have in office cannot persuade Nato to do more now, he never will.

The truth is that the United States, with the strong backing of a minority of Nato members, including Britain, is not being adequately supported by the rest of Nato. Since the aftermath of Al-Qaeda’s attacks on America in September 2001, when the world agreed to stand shoulder to shoulder to counter the international terrorist threat, the north Atlantic alliance has mainly meant the United States and Britain. So far, those who thought the departure of George W Bush would change things have been proved wrong. We have a new US president but we still have the same old Nato.

Some of this reflects a weariness about the military conflict in Afghanistan, coupled with the historical precedent that nobody emerges victorious from that country. This does not mean that we can throw in the towel. As Gordon Brown put it yesterday: “A successful democratic Afghanistan will mean that our streets will be safer in Britain.”

The situation is complicated, of course, by political events in Afghanistan itself. Hamid Karzai, its president, is proving to be an awkward ally. Yesterday he agreed to review a law he had previously signed that on most interpretations effectively legalises rape within marriage. The law, which the United Nations says is similar to Taliban decrees, has already provoked protests from countries that have soldiers within Afghanistan and a threat from Italy to bring all its female troops home. President Karzai may have been a friend to the West, but he is also in danger of becoming a serious block to progress.

The bigger question nonetheless remains: how do we get reluctant Nato countries to stop freeloading and commit the troops necessary to stabilise Afghanistan and keep Al-Qaeda and the Taliban at bay?

At the G20 summit in London last week, we saw global leaders respond to an international call for action when faced with crises in their own economies. It should not take similar crises on their streets – terrorist attacks with their origins in Afghanistan – to make them commit to the necessary resources via Nato. It would be a tragedy if that were the case.