.http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/20...e-against-natoThe 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 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 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 The Alliance is not only outdated for America’s European allies, who increasingly see no reason to participate in "out-of-area" missions, but also functions as a potential enabler of American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
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.
Large en ies never die. They recreate themselves to stay alive. We probably could disband NATO, but how unlikely could we make it happen?
What will be the payday in Afghanistan?
It will resemble the Iraq payday.
We pay, non-combatant countries come in afterward and reap the economic benefits.
What economic benefits will be reaped in Afghanistan?
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.
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?
Yeah, but if stability is all you want, put the Taliban back in power. Doesn't seem realistic.
Why not?
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?
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.
The generals have already conceded there exists no military solution in Afghanistan.
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?
Exactly, the trick is to cut them in without giving them the whole shooting match.
So to speak.
Cut and Run!
Beats the alternative.
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.
That's an option. But what kind of moral authority do we have to go and level a sovereign country like that?
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 can't do it by killing off those who don't.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
