NATO at twilight

[Marulus]

From the Los Angeles Times

NATO at twilight

The alliance's faltering military campaign in Afghanistan shows how far its capabilities have declined.

By Andrew J. Bacevich

February 11, 2008

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was once a force to reckon with. During the Cold War, it possessed formidable capabilities and real cohesion. No more. As a serious military enterprise, the alliance has all but ceased to exist. The "other" NATO -- the National Assn. of Theatre Owners -- probably wields more clout.

Founded in 1949 with 12 members, NATO had one overarching aim: to defend Western Europe and prevent World War III. Keeping the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out offered a formula for achieving that aim. Over the course of four decades, the formula worked brilliantly.

Once the Soviet threat disappeared, the European nations making up the core of the alliance wasted no time claiming their peace dividend. They cut defense budgets and shed military capacity. For example, the German army, which had 12 divisions in 1989, today maintains the equivalent of three.

Meanwhile, back at NATO headquarters, the iron law of bureaucratic self-preservation kicked in. Justifying the alliance's continued existence became a cottage industry. Even as armies shrunk, new missions proliferated.

One of the new missions was to expand. Today, NATO consists of 26 members, with Albania, Croatia and Macedonia lined up to join next. Still more candidates -- Serbia, Montenegro, even Georgia and Ukraine -- are knocking at the door. Adding members provided a mechanism for incorporating what had been Eastern Europe and even parts of the former Soviet Union into Europe proper. But enlargement diluted NATO's actual ability to defend itself. Rather than a collective security organization, the alliance became something more akin to a political club, far more adept at convening conferences than at organizing itself for war.

Urged on by Washington, alliance leaders simultaneously began to look "out of area" -- projecting power to enhance security beyond NATO's boundaries. Behind this concept lay the vague notion of the alliance providing a posse of sorts to help the world's superpower-sheriff enforce global law and order.

The Balkan wars of the 1990s provided a preliminary opportunity to test this idea. The results were less than reassuring: In 1999, it took 11 weeks of ever-intensifying bombing for mighty NATO to pry Slobodan Milosevic's two-bit army out of Kosovo. An allied reluctance to contemplate anything approximating close combat became apparent.

The ongoing Afghan war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban is now providing a second and more demanding test case. This test demonstrates just how much the alliance's capabilities and solidarity have withered.

In Afghanistan, NATO is failing. Nominally, all 26 alliance members are contributing to the war effort, with some 43,000 total troops deployed. In reality, stripping away the forces provided by the United States, Britain and Canada, the alliance has fielded barely 20,000 soldiers -- this to pacify a country that is 50% larger than Iraq. Many national contingents, Germany's being the most prominent, operate under restrictions that make them unusable except in areas where relative security exists.

U.S. officials call for the allies to do more -- more troops with fewer strings attached. But Europe lacks trained soldiers, lacks adequate stores of equipment and above all lacks political will. European publics have an exceedingly limited appetite for sending their fellow citizens to chase insurgents in other parts of the world. European governments, with Germany again providing a good illustration, reflect the will of their people.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates warns that NATO risks becoming a "two-tier" alliance, one tier consisting of members willing to carry their fair share of the load, the second tier consisting of free riders. His warning comes too late. The two-tier arrangement already exists, with the great majority of member states content to occupy the lower tier.

NATO is no longer a fighting organization. Keeping the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out no longer demands the sort of exertion that was required half a century ago. If the alliance retains any value, it is as an institution for consolidating European integration and prosperity.

No amount of browbeating by the United States is going to change that. The Bush administration is kidding itself if it expects Europeans to save the day in Afghanistan. To think of NATO as a great alliance makes about as much sense as thinking of Pittsburgh as the Steel City or of Detroit as the car capital of the world. It's sheer nostalgia.

It's time to jettison the capital letters: NATO has become nato.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book, "The Limits of Power," will be out later this year.

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

[source]

[orieleye]

Originally Posted by Marulus

NATO is no longer a fighting organization.[source]

Actually, NATO is fighting (on the ground) for the first time in Afghanistan.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by orieleye

Actually, NATO is fighting (on the ground) for the first time in Afghanistan.

Yes, the first NATOs war was the air campaign against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999.

Now that they fight on the ground, there are quarrels arising within NATO.

Americans, Canadians and Brits complain that it is they who carry the major part of the burden of war in Afghanistan. They want others too to participate more actively in their criminal enterprise. Hence the frictions. We'll see how the situation will develop.

European politicians, although all of them are servants of the Yanks, whether they be on the left or on the right of the political spectrum, are still somehow reluctant to send more troops, because wars are impopular at home. Evene this little portion of disobedience of servants towards the master causes master's ire. It is probable that that they will finally cave in.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Marulus

We'll see how the situation will develop.

Hopefully, it will develop towards the dissolution of that useless "alliance".

Americans, Canadians and Brits complain that it is they who carry the major part of the burden of war in Afghanistan. They want others too to participate more actively in their criminal enterprise. Hence the frictions. We'll see how the situation will develop.

Is this a joke? American taxpayers are the ones who help pay for NATO. The whole purpose of the alliance if for nations to fuffil their obligations that they 'signed up' for. If you want to leave, then LEAVE. Thats the problem with Germany-- they should just leave NATO instead of refusing to send troops.

But then again, if European nations left then NATO wouldn't be able to help them in a future hypothetical situation involving their country.

And don't mistake me, I'm against NATO. But if you're in, you're in! If you're out, you're out.

[NatVox]

The joke is to sell NATO as an alliance for mutual defense, and then use it to hostigate countries and cause damage to relations in Europe, to serve the interests of the US.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The joke is to sell NATO as an alliance for mutual defense, and then use it to hostigate countries and cause damage to relations in Europe, to serve the interests of the US.

Do you realize who finances NATO? Certainly the majority of NATO's $$ doesn't come from mainland Europe. If you hate NATO, you leave. You don't use taxpayers money for your own defence while ignoring NATO obligations. Now I'm against NATO for America. However if another nation wants to be in NATO then fine.

The only explanation that I can phathom is that European governments are secretly afraid of the rise of Russia again, and they want NATO to still be intact while they don't want to fight a 'war on terror'.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by FreedomofSpeech

Is this a joke? American taxpayers are the ones who help pay for NATO. The whole purpose of the alliance if for nations to fuffil their obligations that they 'signed up' for. If you want to leave, then LEAVE. Thats the problem with Germany-- they should just leave NATO instead of refusing to send troops.

But then again, if European nations left then NATO wouldn't be able to help them in a future hypothetical situation involving their country.

And don't mistake me, I'm against NATO. But if you're in, you're in! If you're out, you're out.

In a way, you are formally right when you say: "If you are in the NATO, then fulfill obligations, or else leave."

But, but...keep in mind that all European countries are nowadays run by dictatorships of the "liberal democratic" elites. Even if there is a wish of the public to step out from the military alliance, the political elites will never allow that. The pattern of transatlantic alliance is something of a self-understood for the European and the American power structures. It has been in function since the end of the Second World War. That is the so-called "modern West", "Western alliance". Some call it a kind of great Soviet Union (USA, European Union, The British Commonwealth, NATO). NATO is sacrosanct for all European ruling cliques, including those of the post-Communist East which recently joined "the West". Whether the "left" or the "right" is in the office, makes really no difference.

So the structures of power aka governments are the problem. And this makes their behaviour even more hypocritical: the governments are trying to balance between being members of the sacrosanct NATO (this breed of politicians does not seem to be able to conceive any policy outside of the "Western aliance", they are shaped by that worldview) and the ever plummeting public support for NATO's adventures. The appearance of democracy must always be upheld.

And another factor in this dispute are American military bases in Europe. Would they just leave even if a country decided to step out of the NATO? The best possible outcome would be if America herself decided to pull out of the NATO. The alliance would be then dismantled by itself.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by ColdTruth

Do you realize who finances NATO? Certainly the majority of NATO's $$ doesn't come from mainland Europe.

Right. NATO is a tool of power and expansion of the U.S. Those finances are an investment that renders the US profitable gains.

If you hate NATO, you leave. You don't use taxpayers money for your own defence while ignoring NATO obligations.

Again, you make it look as if Europe were sitting comfortably and profiting from U.S. American taxpayers. Which is not right. U.S. American taxpayers are putting their money in a product that yields profits for their government.

The only explanation that I can phathom is that European governments are secretly afraid of the rise of Russia again, and they want NATO to still be intact while they don't want to fight a 'war on terror'.

That would be little wonder, wouldn't it?

Russia is the excuse that the U.S. used during the Cold War, to keep alive the interest for their product of expansion, NATO.

Since the Cold War is over, the U.S. have been fabricating other excuses (such as the 'war on terror') to keep the interest of their product still alive. This has had mixed results. Which is why the U.S. have resolved to resucitate the old ghost of the USSR, hostigating Russia on the very borders of this country with other countries of Europe, to provoke the conflict.

[Marulus]

Just to add: the fact that NATO survived after the collapse of the USSR is one of the biggest perversions of the modern times.

But, but...keep in mind that all European countries are nowadays run by dictatorships of the "liberal democratic" elites. Even if there is a wish of the public to step out from the military alliance, the political elites will never allow that. The pattern of transatlantic alliance is something of a self-understood for the European and the American power structures. It has been in function since the end of the Second World War. That is the so-called "modern West", "Western alliance".

I don't even believe America should have been involved in the world wars. Or anyother war. There are American politicians and political partys that want out of any useless alliance.


And under a hypothetical situtation where Russia began annexing large parts of Eastern Europe Europe, I don't think it would be worth one american dollar to fight against it. We allowed the Tibetians to be taken over by the Chinese, so how would this be any different? I don't understand the poitn of NATO.

Again, you make it look as if Europe were sitting comfortably and profiting from U.S. American taxpayers.

Not you but your corrupt governemnts are.

That would be little wonder, wouldn't it?

Russia is the excuse that the U.S. used during the Cold War, to keep alive the interest for their product of expansion, NATO.

Since the Cold War is over, the U.S. have been fabricating other excuses (such as the 'war on terror') to keep the interest of their product still alive. This has had mixed results. Which is why the U.S. have resolved to resucitate the old ghost of the USSR, hostigating Russia on the very borders of this country with other countries of Europe, to provoke the conflict.

Don't tell me, tell your corrupt governments. The ones who are staying in NATO without fuffiling its obligations. Whether you think NATO is being unfair is a totally different issue. If you're in it, then you do what it asks you to do.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by ColdTruth

I don't even believe America should have been involved in the world wars. Or anyother war. There are American politicians and political partys that want out of any useless alliance.

I'm sure that there are politicians for nearly every little thing that you may think of. But the question is how much they count.

And under a hypothetical situtation where Russia began annexing large parts of Eastern Europe Europe, I don't think it would be worth one american dollar to fight against it. We allowed the Tibetians to be taken over by the Chinese, so how would this be any different? I don't understand the poitn of NATO.

I see that we might agree on something. At least in that the U.S. should keep its hands out of Europe. Of course we don't agree in the terms in which you put things, which looks as if the U.S. was generously giving that money away. When in fact what it is doing is spending money in invasive policies with the hope to win more.

Not you but your corrupt governemnts are.

I don't have any problem with that statement, providing that you don't have any problem with admitting that the government of the U.S. of America is rotten and corrupted as no other. Starting with the fact that a politician to be elected needs to invest huge sums, which are paid largely by lobby associations (e.g. AIPAC) in return for the defense of their particular interests.

Don't tell me, tell your corrupt governments. The ones who are staying in NATO without fuffiling its obligations. Whether you think NATO is being unfair is a totally different issue. If you're in it, then you do what it asks you to do.

And what about you telling your corrupt government to stop fabricating stories to sell NATO?