The defence secretary, Des Browne, yesterday questioned the long-term viability of Nato, saying it was not providing the forces or capabilities needed to maintain its credibility as a military alliance. In a remarkably strong attack on Nato's failings by a British defence secretary, he said there was 'far too big a mismatch between our aspirations and what we actually deliver'.| Careful now: the US part of NATO matches up aspirations and delivery reasonably well. |
Addressing an international security conference in Rome, Browne told fellow defence ministers that Nato was 'not getting the forces or capabilities it needs in order to maintain its credibility in carrying out the full range of missions for which it was designed. As a consequence, there are concerns as to its longer term viability.'
| NATO was NOT designed for a 'full range of missions'. It was designed for exactly ONE mission: stop the Warsaw Pact from invading western Europe. In that it was successful, though thank goodness it was never challenged to deliver. NATO was not designed for anything else, and after the Soviet Union went away it started flailing about in search of a new mission. Problem is that whatever those missions were to be, there isn't any real political support to provide the means. |
There is a serious shortage of aircraft, especially helicopters, to support British and other foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Reflecting concern, even anger, in British defence circles about what is perceived as a dangerous lack of support for military engagement in Afghanistan, Browne said: 'The public and politicians of many European Nato allies do not yet instinctively see expeditionary operations and capabilities as directly linked to their defence and security. Trust me, it is.'
Nato forces were in Afghanistan 'taking on extremism and the roots of that extremism, because it is a grave and proven threat to our public and to the security of every citizen in every Nato country - from Istanbul to New York', he asserted. 'The inclination to re-focus on patrolling the home turf is deeply ingrained, but deeply flawed.'
Browne criticised Nato for maintaining outdated command structures and rigid committee systems. He also suggested British troops were being put at risk by Nato's failure to cooperate with other international agencies. 'The need for Nato to work alongside other organisations - especially the United Nations and European Union - is equally strong. The fact that they cannot is a victory for dogma over pressing operational need. It is incomprehensible to me, the defence secretary of a country in all three organisations, that we should have such difficulty in working together.'
| So NATO can't do anything that its leaders want. The EU is paralyzed by the same problems that afflict NATO. And the UN can't do, well, anything. Three useless organizations all looking for help from each other. |
'The prize of the UN, Nato and the EU working properly together ... is more effective operations.'
He said Nato must be 'transformed'. However, he steered clear of commenting on a French defence and security white paper which proposes closer French military ties to Nato but also more effective and closer defence cooperation within the EU.
| So Sarkozy proposes the the French work closer with two of the three big organizations that Browne wants to tie together, and Browne doesn't want to say anything. Brilliant, just brilliant. |