As President Obama attended the NATO meeting this past week, one has to stop and consider, why exactly do we need this calcified organization that routinely slows down and imperils military operations in Afghanistan? Andrew Bacevich says, let's get out of it already.
Present-day NATO is a shadow of what it once was. Calling it a successful alliance today is the equivalent of calling General Motors a successful car company -- it privileges nostalgia over self-awareness.
As with GM, so too with NATO: Fixing past mistakes will require painful changes. Continuing along the existing trajectory is not an option. If the alliance pursues any further eastward expansion (incorporating Ukraine into its ranks, as some in Washington have advocated), it will implode. If it persists in attempting to pacify Afghanistan (vainly trying to prod the Germans and other reluctant allies into deploying more troops with fewer strings attached), it will only further expose its internal weakness. NATO won't survive by compounding its own recent errors.
Salvation requires taking a different course. However counterintuitive, the best prospect for restoring NATO's sense of purpose and direction lies in having the U.S. announce its intention to exit the alliance.
Salvaging NATO requires reorienting the alliance back to its founding purpose: the defense of Europe. This remains a worthy mission. Although Vladimir Putin's Russia hardly compares with Josef Stalin's Soviet Union, and although current Russian military capabilities pale in comparison with those of the old Red Army, the fact is that Europe today does face a security threat to its east. Having been subjected (in its own eyes at least) to two decades of Western humiliation, authoritarian Russia is by no means committed to the status quo. Given the opportunity, the Kremlin could well give in to the temptation to do mischief. NATO's priority must be to ensure that no such opportunity presents itself, which means demonstrating an unquestioned capacity for self-defense.
As with GM, so too with NATO: Fixing past mistakes will require painful changes. Continuing along the existing trajectory is not an option. If the alliance pursues any further eastward expansion (incorporating Ukraine into its ranks, as some in Washington have advocated), it will implode. If it persists in attempting to pacify Afghanistan (vainly trying to prod the Germans and other reluctant allies into deploying more troops with fewer strings attached), it will only further expose its internal weakness. NATO won't survive by compounding its own recent errors.
Salvation requires taking a different course. However counterintuitive, the best prospect for restoring NATO's sense of purpose and direction lies in having the U.S. announce its intention to exit the alliance.
Salvaging NATO requires reorienting the alliance back to its founding purpose: the defense of Europe. This remains a worthy mission. Although Vladimir Putin's Russia hardly compares with Josef Stalin's Soviet Union, and although current Russian military capabilities pale in comparison with those of the old Red Army, the fact is that Europe today does face a security threat to its east. Having been subjected (in its own eyes at least) to two decades of Western humiliation, authoritarian Russia is by no means committed to the status quo. Given the opportunity, the Kremlin could well give in to the temptation to do mischief. NATO's priority must be to ensure that no such opportunity presents itself, which means demonstrating an unquestioned capacity for self-defense.
I'm in full agreement with Bacevich. We didn't need NATO for Iraq in 1991 or in 2003, and it's been nothing but ananchor around our ankles in Afghanistan. It's not 1947, the Red Army isn't imperiling NATO, and we can always form coalition forces when the opportunity arises. Let Europe have NATO and let's just leave the party already.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 4/7/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Posted by: UNRR | 07 April 2009 at 06:46 AM
The article in the LA newspaper is a potted version that does not envisage consquences.. The situation needs a lot more analysis before quitting NATO: Europeans may see it as a break by the United States with Europe as a whole. What reactions would that have. Deliberately creating fault-lines in the international mainstream would not be a good idea. This is not to say that Europe's so-called Union doesn't need a major kick in the ass, and internal dedication.
As for Gordon Brown's apparent (and it is only apparent)hesitation to send additional troops to Afghanistan, he has a British public to consider- and the election. It is difficult, it seems to me at any rate, at present, to decide how the British public would receive the sending of more troops.
Another case of wait and see. My guess (for what it's worth of course) is that more troops will be sent; how many is another matter; Mr Brown is as pissed-off with significant lack of support by Europe as President OBama is.
Europe has anomalies in the military policy areas; tied by internal considerations. Germany, for example, has a huge involvement economically with Russia. What should anyone do about that -or what could they. Nothing.
We're all marching to the sounds of different drumbeats; some are moving in opposite directions.
Some don't agree with the war in Afghanistan at all, or are finding it difficult to see that there's any danger to them- the war is far, far away. Here in the UK we're more cautious because the government is often reminding us that involvement in the war is necessary. Anti-Terrorist measures are top of agenda, next to declining wealth issues due to the current, obviously bad, economic climate. Also, we went into the war largely against our will:lied to by Mr Blair and his cohorts. People haven't forgotten that, and Mr Brown will be watching his chances for re-election. I daresay the same would happen in the US if circumstances were the same. Take a look at the UK's military committments and resources, and you'll see that we are stretched beyond capacity. In those conditions you can't wonder at some hesitation, not of avoidment to the war, but having to meet other situations where troops may be suddenly be needed. We don't have the wealth and capacity that the US has, but relatively we give as much.
R.
Posted by: Ray | 07 April 2009 at 10:54 AM
don't forget, though, straight after 11th september 2001, NATO (for the first time ever) invoked article 5 and european nations came to the aid of the usa. whether this was merely symbolic, or more tangible is another question, but it did send a strong message. subsequently 14 of the 19 nato allies contributed forces to afghanistan, well outside the original western european focus of the alliance. membership and support for nato is still strong here in the uk / europe, and it is in fact stated as the main pillar of our continued security and defence by the government. the return of france to the full command structure also sends a strong message of continued relevance.
it is quite possible the usa could happily live without nato now, having no convention military peers in reality, but as a diplomatic tool and symbol it is still relevant i feel. it may also, in the near future hopefully, prompt the europeans to sort out their defence spending and start pulling their weight more. if the usa were to withdraw it is more likely we would close our worldwide interventions down to purely continental ones.
Posted by: elizzar | 07 April 2009 at 10:58 AM
This is the cornerstone of my frustration, Ray, elizzar - are we retaining NATO just because of the impressions of military-political collaboration, despite the many, many institutional challenges of actually trying to be successful? I really don't like that proposition.
If NATO can't reform itself to be successful, and to be clear, despite the best efforts of troops in Afghanistan, we haven't been successful, then the US govt needs to pull out. We can't afford to pay $2 billion (soon to be $4-5 billion) a month for a decade plus to perpetuate strategic failures.
Posted by: J. | 07 April 2009 at 11:26 AM
Umm, how about not only paying lip-service to alliance and "unity of command"?
The USA could actually subordinate all its troops in Afghanistan under NATO command and accept whatever commander NATO assigns.
That's what those supposedly poor allies do.
No, won't happen.
The USA is a special member. It's entitled to whine about others' commitments in a war that the others only fight because of the USA...and its shitty backlash-causing foreign policy.
Even more so, the USA almost deserted the common war and went on to invade a country that never attacked the USA nor intended to do so. And after wasting years of time and attention, hundreds of billions $ (or more), thousands of soldier lives, ten thousands of soldier healths on that entirely useless war of aggression it comes back to focus on Afghanistan and moans that the allies don't provide endless quantities of auxiliary troops.
Did I forget to mention that at the same time the USA did its best to ruthlessly counteract the European security policy of the very same European nations it now wants to provide more auxiliary troops?
Seriously, there are good allies and bad allies.
And I see absolutely no reason why anybody could consider the USA a good ally.
It's causing troubles, more troubles, most troubles, almost all troubles, asserts privileges, whines and gets scared by ridiculously small "threats".
The reason for the survival of NATO is simple: There are no armed conflicts inside NATO, nor open hostility (beyond the Aegean/Cyprus problem).
Many Europeans would fed up with the USA in record time if there wasn't the common alliance - and we would turn to trade wars, diplomatic rivalry, containment and arms races in a matter of years. It would be a loss-loss.
NATO protects the USA; against Europe.
Even more so than it protects Europe, as Europe has easily enough military power to protect itself - even though that hits a blind spot in American eyes.
Finally, the USA would pretty much be scaled down to average great power without access to European resources and relations. B-52 over Afghanistan? Right, they take off at Diego Garcia. A British base.
USN or US Coast Guard in Black Sea? Only if the Turks allow it.
USN in Mediterranean? Floating targets without backup if Europe isn't friendly.
USA with influence in Eastern Europe? Forget about without an alliance with Germany and Turkey - no-one would take the USA seriously in Eastern Europe with logistical connections reduced to merely three all-year ports (all other Baltic ports freeze in winter; only one Lithuanian port and Stettin + Gdansk are always ice-free). And forget about air lift without overflight rights over Germany/Denmark.
The USA depends much more on Europe than it seems to understand. Too much is being taken for granted. Like auxiliary troops in Afghanistan.
We're allies, not Napoleonic vassals that need to provide the bulk of the Grande Armée.
The German government ranks energy security at higher priority than terrorism. We're not that much crazed by terrorists. Actually, I read about terrorists maybe once a month - and I read four German newspapers.
Cigarettes kill, cars kill, even sugar and milk kill.
Terrorism kills? Statistically insignificant.
Going to war with Iraq killed more Americans than the 9/11 attacks.
And don't tell me the USA saved Europe during the Cold War. The USA got its pants wet because of the Soviets and worked in NATO to protect itself first.
The Germans didn't want an army - they were pressed to build one in order to protect the West (with more troops in the front line than the USA had in Europe).
The USA thanked it by playing "kill all Germans with nukes" in NATO maneuvers, dropping dozens or hundreds of simulated nukes on its ally.
Expect gratitude (auxiliary troops) for saving our ass? Ridiculous.
Posted by: Sven Ortmann | 07 April 2009 at 07:14 PM
Hello, J.
I took some time in answering because your proposition required some research on present political opinions on NATO. I say political because the military seem to be sub-divided on the question. You said:
"This is the cornerstone of my frustration, Ray, elizzar - are we retaining NATO just because of the impressions of military-political collaboration, despite the many, many institutional challenges of actually trying to be successful? I really don't like that proposition."
From your comment, above, of "many, many institutional challenges"- the implication seems to me to mean that NAT0 isn't looking, circumspectly, at it's organisation and reasons for being.
The answer, then, is for a complete re-organisation of NATO. It needs examination of its membership and their committments in the light of present and future events. We do need an international Co-Operative, a truly commtted significant NATO Force, and the USA cannot "go it alone." Economy and world trade in this shrunken world denies it. It is manifest that it requires international involvement if the major problems are international. Iraq and Afghanistan will not last forever (though it seems that way) and thus will not be the only wars or conflicts to present themselves.
R.
Posted by: Ray | 08 April 2009 at 09:41 AM