Larison: The case against NATO

[Winehole23]

.
The case against NATO

What once was a defensive alliance dedicated to European security now has little to do with either defense or Europe

posted on October 6, 2010, at 9:49 AM






The goal of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization used to be, as its first secretary general, Lord Ismay, phrased it, "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Today, the only reason to keep NATO going seems to be to give Americans a reason to be "in" Europe (http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2010/09/the_true_purpose_of_nato.html) when there is no longer any need for American military involvement in European affairs. Putting the alarmism of the past few years aside, Europe is under no threat from Russia, which the Europeans seem to understand far better than Americans do. And since its reunification, Germany has become the economic and political heart of a peaceful project of European union. Sixty years since its founding and nearly 20 years since the end of the Cold War, it is well past time to dismantle NATO.



In the end, the main argument for perpetuating the NATO relic (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/6568/nato-not-relevant-but-still-useful) is that it provides the support structure for projecting power into remote parts of the globe where American interests are even less clearly defined. In other words, what once was a purely defensive alliance dedicated to European security now has little to do with either defense or Europe. The Alliance is not only outdated for America’s European allies, who increasingly see no reason to participate in "out-of-area" missions, but also functions as a potential enabler of American involvement in parts of Asia and Africa where no vital American interests are at stake. By keeping NATO in existence, Washington leaves itself open to the temptation to meddle in far-flung parts of the globe, even as it provides the superficial "multilateral" cover to make U.S. military intervention overseas more politically palatable.
It no longer makes sense to ask British soldiers to fight in an American war.


Nine years after September 11, it no longer makes sense (if it ever did) to be asking Canadian and British soldiers, among others, to risk their lives for what has always been an American war in Afghanistan. As much as we can appreciate and honor the support our NATO allies have provided, we shouldn't drag them into conflicts that have never really been their concern. "Out-of-area" missions will just keep happening again and again as the alliance looks for new conflicts to enter to provide a rationale for its existence. European nations are clearly tired of it, and at present they can't afford it, either. The need for fiscal retrenchment has been forcing European governments, even the new coalition government in Britain, to make deep cuts in their military budgets.


Making NATO into a political club of democracies in good standing is also no solution to the Alliance's obsolescence. As we saw in the war in Georgia two years ago, proposed expansion of NATO has been more of a threat to European peace and security than dissolving it. Once again, this is something that most European governments understood at the time, and which Washington refused to see. Without the belief that Georgia was eligible for membership and would eventually be allowed to join, it is unlikely that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili would have escalated a conflict over its separatist regions and plunged his country into war with Russia. That conflict was a good sign that the Alliance had outlived its usefulness. If it isn't disbanded, it may start to become a menace to the very things it was supposed to keep safe.


America doesn't need and shouldn't want to perpetuate an outdated alliance. The creation of NATO was an imaginative solution designed to respond to the security conditions of the immediate aftermath of World War II, and it was an enormous success. But it is time for Americans to begin thinking anew about the world. A first step in doing that is letting go of an alliance neither America nor Europe needs
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/207838/the-case-against-nato

[Parker2112]

Everyone in Afghanistan is there for the the payday. The same for Iraq. We are part of an armed goupr of imperialists looting countries around the globe in the name of democracy and a terror war.

We are overthrowing governments to combat a terrorist organization.

[Wild Cobra]

Everyone in Afghanistan is there for the the payday. The same for Iraq. We are part of an armed goupr of imperialists looting countries around the globe in the name of democracy and a terror war.

We are overthrowing governments to combat a terrorist organization.
That statement does not apply to everyone, and I'll bet only very few.

[Wild Cobra]

Large entities never die. They recreate themselves to stay alive. We probably could disband NATO, but how unlikely could we make it happen?

[ChumpDumper]

Everyone in Afghanistan is there for the the payday.What will be the payday in Afghanistan?

[Winehole23]

It will resemble the Iraq payday.

We pay, non-combatant countries come in afterward and reap the economic benefits.

[ChumpDumper]

What economic benefits will be reaped in Afghanistan?

[Winehole23]

Minerals extraction, possibly. (Hadn't really thought that one through.)

[ChumpDumper]

Minerals extraction, possibly. (Hadn't really thought that one through.)That's a pretty recent development, but fair enough. The continuing security situation might make things different in Afghanistan.

[Winehole23]

The continuing security situation might make things different in Afghanistan.Maybe, but that's a problem of our own creation, in part.

Is there anything more destabilizing to Afghanistan than the decade long NATO occupation?

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, but if stability is all you want, put the Taliban back in power. Doesn't seem realistic.

[Winehole23]

Why not?

[Stringer_Bell]

Yeah, but if stability is all you want, put the Taliban back in power. Doesn't seem realistic.

The Taliban coming back in power is the worst outcome I can imagine, especially if we allow them to do it as some part of deal. All those lives and resources lost for nothing.

I do think the US and Europe need to maintain a military connection, the world doesn't like us - is that not clear?

[Winehole23]

I don't see how any cessation of hostilities is possible without ceding a political role for the Taliban. Eliminating them isn't a realistic option, nor is shutting them out of the parley whenever we start to withdraw.

If we ever withdraw.

[Winehole23]

The generals have already conceded there exists no military solution in Afghanistan.

[Winehole23]

For any political settlement to take place without the Taliban involved is delusional. How else do wars end besides doing a deal with the enemy?

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly, the trick is to cut them in without giving them the whole shooting match.

So to speak.

[ElNono]

Exactly, the trick is to cut them in without giving them the whole shooting match.

So to speak.

Cut and Run! :dramaquee

[Winehole23]

Beats the alternative.

[MannyIsGod]

How do you put a government in power that supports your set of beliefs when none of the governed share your political beliefs?

The Taliban will be in power after we leave no matter what because everyone there is Taliban.

[Stringer_Bell]

How do you put a government in power that supports your set of beliefs when none of the governed share your political beliefs?

The Taliban will be in power after we leave no matter what because everyone there is Taliban.

If that was really the case, then why didn't the US just obliterate the whole country instead of a simple regime change? I mean, what good does Afghanistan provide the world besides opium and kush? Nothing really, and if they are all really just Taliban-heads we should have just carpet bombed it and let them try to farm ash fields.

[ElNono]

If that was really the case, then why didn't the US just obliterate the whole country instead of a simple regime change? I mean, what good does Afghanistan provide the world besides opium and kush? Nothing really, and if they are all really just Taliban-heads we should have just carpet bombed it and let them try to farm ash fields.

That's an option. But what kind of moral authority do we have to go and level a sovereign country like that?

[MannyIsGod]

If that was really the case, then why didn't the US just obliterate the whole country instead of a simple regime change? I mean, what good does Afghanistan provide the world besides opium and kush? Nothing really, and if they are all really just Taliban-heads we should have just carpet bombed it and let them try to farm ash fields.

Do I really need to answer this? What type of international reaction would you expect?

Contrary to popular belief, supporting the Taliban in that area doesn't mean you deserved to be attacked by the US. We went after Al Qaeda.

You can't make the rest of the world think the way you do and you sure as hell can't do it by killing off those who don't.

[Parker2112]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is not a case against a military alliance between north american and european states. Its a case against how NATO does business. Big difference.

[Winehole23]

This is not a case against a military alliance between north american and european states. Its a case against how NATO does business. Big difference.Why does the US need to defend Europe without a Soviet threat? Ever since the end of the Cold War NATO has been an alliance insearch of a mission.

[Winehole23]

Isn't it way past time for Europe to start carrying its own weight, defensewise?

[Parker2112]

Isn't it way past time for Europe to start carrying its own weight, defensewise?

We play a calculated role in a larger scheme. We are the police force for a larger machine.

[Winehole23]

Do tell.

[Wild Cobra]

Why does the US need to defend Europe without a Soviet threat? Ever since the end of the Cold War NATO has been an alliance insearch of a mission.
If we look at this from the liberal point of view, and I'm assuming of course...

European nations were compelled to help us in Iran after 9/11 occurred. Part of the way the treaty is worded. Maybe, if it happens again, liberals want us to stand alone?

[Winehole23]

European nations were compelled to help us in Iran (Iraq?) after 9/11 occurred. Part of the way the treaty is worded. They were not. Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, and the Iraq invasion wasn't a NATO operation, unlike Afghanistan.

Remember the coalition of the willing, and Rummy taunting "old Europe"?

You're veering very close to pure nonsense here, WC.

[Wild Cobra]

They were not. Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, and the Iraq invasion wasn't a NATO operation, unlike Afghanistan.

Remember the coalition of the willing, and Rummy taunting "old Europe"?

You're veering very close to pure nonsense here, WC.

You're right. I meant hunting Osama.

[Winehole23]

Coffee time. :wakeup

[Wild Cobra]

Coffee time. :wakeup

Maybe so. Just woke up before logging in, and its now 4:10 AM here.

[Winehole23]

Thus, at the heart of NATO today lies a lack of resolve bred in the divergent interests and threat perceptions of its constituent states. The disparate threat environment is grafted on to a membership pool that can be broadly split into three categories: the United States, Canada and committed European Atlanticists (the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark); Core European powers (led by Germany and France, with southern Mediterranean countries dependant on Berlin’s economic support in tow); and new Central European member states, the so-called Intermarum countries that stretch from the Baltic to the Black seas that are traditionally wary of Russian power and of relying on an alliance with Western Europe to counter such power.


With no one clear threat to the alliance and with so many divergent interests among its membership, the Group of Experts recommendations were largely incompatible. A look at the recommendations is enough to infer which group of countries wants what interests preserved and therefore reveal the built-in incompatibility of alliance interests going forward from 2010.


Atlanticists: Led by the United States, Atlanticists want the alliance oriented toward non-European theaters of operation (e.g., Afghanistan) and non-traditional security threats (think cybersecurity, terrorism, etc.); an increase of commitments from Core Europeans in terms of defense spending; and a reformed decision-making system that eliminates a single-member veto in some situations while allowing the NATO secretary-general to have predetermined powers to act without authorization in others. The latter is in the interests of the United States, because it is Washington that will always have the most sway over the secretary-general, who traditionally hails from an Atlanticist country (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090330_denmark_nato_leadership_model_u_s_ally?fn =6017341884).
Core Europe: Led by Germany and France, Core Europe wants more controls and parameters predetermined for non-European deployments (so that it can limit such deployments); a leaner and more efficient alliance (in other words, the freedom to cut defense spending when few are actually spending at the two percent gross domestic product mandated by the alliance); and more cooperation and balance with Russia and more consultations with international organizations like the United Nations (to limit the ability of the United States to go it alone without multilateral approval). Core Europe also wants military exercises to be “nonthreatening,” in direct opposition to Intermarum demands that the alliance reaffirm its defense commitments through clear demonstrations of resolve.
Intermarum: The Central Europeans ultimately want NATO to reaffirm Article 5 both rhetorically and via military exercises (if not the stationing of troops); commitment to the European theater and conventional threats specifically (in opposition to the Atlanticists’ non-European focus); and mention of Russia in the new Strategic Concept as a power whose motives cannot be trusted (in opposition of Core European pro-Russian attitudes). Some Central Europeans also want a continued open-door membership policy (think Ukraine and Georgia) so that the NATO border with Russia is expanded farther east, which neither the United States nor Core Europe (nor even some fellow Intermarum states) have the appetite for at present.

The problem with NATO today, and for NATO in the next decade, is that different member states view different threats through different prisms of national interest. Russian tanks concern only roughly a third of member states — the Intermarum states — while the rest of the alliance is split between Atlanticists looking to strengthen the alliance for new threats and non-European theaters of operations and the so-called “Old Europe” that looks to commit as few soldiers and resources as possible toward either set of goals in the next 10 years.


It is unclear how the new Strategic Concept will encapsulate anything but the strategic divergence in NATO- member interests. NATO is not going away, but it lacks the unified and overwhelming threat that has historically made enduring alliances among nation-states possible — much less lasting. Without that looming threat, other matters — other differences — begin to fracture the alliance. NATO continues to exist today not because of its unity of purpose but because of the lack of a jarringly divisive issue that could drive it apart. Thus, the oft-repeated question of “relevance” — namely, how does NATO reshape itself to be relevant in the 21st century — must be turned on its head by asking what it is that unifies NATO in the 21st century.



During the Cold War, NATO was a military alliance with a clear adversary and purpose. Today, it is becoming a group of friendly countries with interoperability standards that will facilitate the creation of “coalitions of the willing” on an ad-hoc basis and of a discussion forum. This will give its member states a convenient structure from which to launch multilateral policing actions, such as combating piracy in Somalia or providing law enforcement in places like Kosovo. Given the inherently divergent core interests of its member states, the question is what underlying threat will unify NATO in the decade ahead to galvanize the alliance into making the sort of investments and reforms that the Strategic Concept stipulates. The answer to that question is far from clear. In fact, it is clouded by its member states’ incompatible perceptions of global threats, which makes us wonder whether the November Summit in Lisbon is in fact the beginning of the end for NATO.
Read more: NATO's Lack of a Strategic Concept | STRATFOR (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101011_natos_lack_strategic_concept#ixzz12Ak3Ad0 0)




(http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101011_natos_lack_strategic_concept)

[Winehole23]

Russia’s United Nations ambassador recently proposed investigating the killing of civilians by NATO in Libya. His American counterpart, Susan Rice, complained that Moscow was attempting “to obscure the success of NATO.”
The trans-Atlantic does a great job fighting little wars. Conflicts essentially without opponents.


Some 16 years ago the U.S. and Europeans bombed the ethnic Serb forces in a three-way civil war in Bosnia. A dozen years ago the world’s most powerful military alliance took on beleaguered Serbia, the remnant of the polyglot Yugoslavian state. This year NATO challenged slightly deranged Moammar Qaddafi as he attempted to fight off armed rebels.


NATO advocate Ira Straus enthused: “The alliance is three for three.” Next up is an invasion of Monaco.


Of course, none of these incredible feats of military prowess could have been achieved without the U.S. France and Great Britain led the charge for war in Libya but found that the European members of the alliance were ill-equipped to take on even the decrepit Libyan forces. Only eight governments contributed militarily; several of them ran short of munitions. Most NATO members contributed nothing of consequence.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/01/02/nato-and-libya-its-time-to-retire-a-fading-alliance/

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166313&highlight=nato