Has the Atlantic alliance outlived its usefulness? The British journalist and writer Geoffrey Wheatcroft raised that question in an opinion article (Who needs NATO?, June 16) that drew a strong reaction from Ivo H. Daalder, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, who argued that the alliance is more needed than ever (Counterpoint, June 18-19). Sarwar Kashmeri, a senior fellow in the Atlantic Councils International Security Program and the author of NATO 2.0: Reboot or Delete?, joins the debate.
In Ambassador Ivo Daalders surreal world of NATO more than 150,000 troops participate in six NATO operations on three continents; in Afghanistan, a NATO-led force made up of troops from 48 nations is helping to build security; in Libya, 17 allies and partner nations have taken on the new responsibility of helping the Libyan people determine their own destiny; and NATO continues its long-standing commitment to stabilize the Balkans.
The reality, of course, is very different.
In the real world, the war in Afghanistan isnt NATO-led; it is led by the United States, which would never let its forces in Afghanistan be run by NATO. That would be a disaster. Just look at the NATO-led war in Libya in which only six out of the 28 NATO countries are participating, and only three of those actually attack Libyan targets to enforce the United Nations mandate.
In the real world, after a mere 11 weeks of conflict against Libya, the mightiest alliance in the world has run out of munitions, does not have enough aircraft to conduct its missions, and seems unable to prevail against a minor military power.
As for the Balkans, after more than 20 years of operations, NATO has still not succeeded in stabilizing it.
Not surprisingly, most of Americas next generation of military leaders has lost confidence in NATO. At a recent talk I gave at an elite U.S. military institution, just five participants out of an audience of some 60 raised their hands when asked how many believed NATO ought to continue in business.
An American colonel, recently returned from Afghanistan, told me that when he asked an officer from a European NATO member country to lead a supply convoy one evening, the officer explained that he was only paid to work for a set number of hours and his working day was done. Reminded that there was a war in progress, the officer said, Maybe your country is at war, but not mine.
European lack of support for the wars in Afghanistan and Libya has nothing to do with the bravery of Europeans soldiers or their fighting skills. Europeans simply do not feel as threatened as Americans do, and are not interested in using their tax dollars to fight in distant lands.
It's not clear that they would even fight at home. If Europe were to be invaded today by a large foreign power, who in Europe would rise up in defense?
This European/American schism within NATO is further aggravated by a split between Central and Eastern European members on one side, and Western ones on the other. The former continue to regard Russia as a threat, the latter do not. If this NATO is an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world, heaven help us all.
One more point: NATOs disarray has begun to chip away at the wider European-American relationship currently contributing 14 million jobs and $3 trillion in commercial sales. American officials regularly berate the Europeans with calls to spend ever more money on defense, even when the European Unions total defense budget is already $300 billion, pretty close to Americas defense budget prior to 9/11.
The real problem is the way in which this money is spent for example, the wasteful duplication of weapons procurement programs. This will not change unless there is political will among E.U. leaders for change.
It's not just the waste in procurement. One dirty secret is that the European armies are, by and large, social programs that provide jobs, not create soldiers. Yes, every Euro army has 'elite' and 'special' forces that are darned good. The British army is darned good. But for many of the others, the regular infantry isn't up to contemporary standards, and isn't supposed to be. The enlistees are there to mark time -- after all, civilian unemployment in Europe is above eight percent, so why not sit in the army for a while?
It's also the waste in allotment of people to needed skills, and allotment of funding to needed military programs. Europe has as many soldiers as the U.S., but they don't have intel specialists to analyze and select targets for an air force. They have combat jets but not tankers. They have rifles but not ammunition.
After speaking with over 50 military and political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, I am convinced this will to change will only come about when America decides to take away its defense credit card and asks Europe to take responsibility for its own security.
I'm not convinced it would change then. Perhaps the Poles and Czechs would step up, but does anyone seriously expect Spain, Italy or Greece to increase common defense spending when their economies are swirling the bowl?
The E.U. is increasingly capable of defending itself under its Common Security and Defense Policy, through which the E.U. has already deployed 27 military and civilian missions from Asia to Africa, and just approved the 28th a military force for Libya that is ready to be deployed as soon as the U.N. asks for it.
C.S.D.P. should be the pre-eminent vehicle to defend Europe; NATO should be bridged to C.S.D.P. and only come into action when Europe, America, and Canada wish to act together in conflicts where all three share vital national interests.
Or let C.S.D.P. do its job and form an alliance with the U.S. and Canada on an as-needed basis, and just dump NATO.
NATO has truly done a magnificent job, but it is time to move on.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2011 12:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
