Comments on: What’s NATO there for

By: Ghost of a flea

Ghost of a flea — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:24:46 +0000

Canada’s modest military capability is somehow providing the bulk of the stabilization force in Afghanistan through to August 2004. Despite nearly two-million men under arms and several of the largest economies in the world none of our NATO allies have as yet agreed to take up that work once the Canadian forces leave. Come on, Henry. When you talk about NATO you actually mean France and Germany and the interests of French and German banking and arms industries. These have financed and armed fascist Serbia, fascist Iraq, fascist North Korea, fascist Cuba and, in fact, anywhere else they can make money. A new alliance of democracies committed to the liberation of those countries “old Europe” chooses to support is something to be desired. It is the moral torpor of NATO that has killed the organization. You are choosing to blame the messenger.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:35:55 +0000

I find it amusing that Henry can say, with a straight face, “When NATO invoked Article 5 (the mutual defence clause) after September 11, for the first time in NATO’s history, the US politely thanked its allies, and went on to make its plans without them.” Does he not recall that it was not “NATO” as a generic entity that invoked Article 5, but the US, and the US “politely thanked” its nominal allies (France and Germany, mainly, but not the UK, which actually is an ally in more than name) because they wished to use Article 5 as a way to control US actions to their own benefit, rather than actually act as if they had been attacked as well? Is the nominal paper-only “ally” status so uncovered really so important that anything that reveals the farce as a farce should be reviled, and the farce itself blamed on the party that found out the farce was at its expense? Yes, the US has done “fundamental damage” to the facade of NATO… but the actual problem is that the rest of NATO (mostly) seems to view NATO as a way to get money and/or defense from the US, while providing either nothing much in return (anymore, that is, now that there’s no Soviet threat) or actively hampering US efforts to get NATO to fulfil its Article V commitments in the spirit intended, rather than one of obstruction. I for one would be happy if Europe started pulling its own defense weight, if only because the spectacle of funding both a maximal welfare state and a modern, effective military force would provide endless amusement, and possibly even push some shrinkage of the entitlement state. But that’s just me.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:03:34 +0000

Novakant, I confess I don’t see the irony. In any event, I’m not sure you’re right that the US bases in Europe are of strategic significance, and the fact that they are used in the current war doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be replaced if needed. I don’t doubt that the average US soldier enjoys his or her stay in Europe. I’m afraid you missed the import of my call for Europe to grow up and pull its own weight. Let’s try this excerpt from one of the articles you linked to: This is a transformed alliance which is very much in business today,” Robertson told the ministers. “But … capability programs must become real equipment. “We must make our armed forces genuinely deployable and genuinely useful and NATO governments must have the political will to deploy and use these forces in much larger numbers than at present.” NATO’s 19 members, not including the United States, have about 1.4 million men and women in uniform, and yet with only 55,000 deployed abroad, they all say they are overstretched. __________

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:53:17 +0000

Going to read Ikenberry, thanks Henry. Will add more later. Also noting that the FAZ reports yesterday “Nobody Talking About Tervuren Anymore” (Von Tervuren spricht niemand meht; Ein EU-Hauptquartier wird es nicht geben; von Horst Bacia, S. 5). I forget the two no’s beyond no duplication, but it would be worth asking if plans to strengthen the ESDP inherently have to cross those lines in the sand. See also Lord Robertson’s remarks in Thursday’s FT about who’s reluctant to boost NATO’s budget. Finally, I remember a discussion in the mid-90s about the characteristics a European Security Organization would have to have to really work well. The answers looked a lot like NATO.

By: novakant

novakant — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:44:55 +0000

Uhm, Thomas, you are capable of understanding irony, right? In case you are not: I was not seriously suggesting taking any of the measures I outlined above, no one in Europe is suggesting such things, just as no one even in the Bush administration is seriously suggesting that NATO should be disbanded or that the US ties to the EU should be cut off in favor of unilateralism. It’s only some Euro-bashing wingnuts upthread who suggested such things. My point was that the US and the EU need each other and NATO, that the US can’t possibly go it alone in the WoT and that the shared interests of both parties vastly outweigh the differences. Even the Bush administration realizes this as these headlines should make clear: Rumsfeld urges larger NATO role in Afghanistan Powell Calls for Increased NATO and U.N. Roles in Iraq As to the bases in Europe: they are of a vital strategic interest for the US. Where do you think supplies for the troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were coming from? Where do you think the injured soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq are flown to first? Did you ever hear of Ramstein air base ? As to the question if the average Amercian enjoys having troops in Europe – I have no clue. Suffice it to say that it’s a strategic necessity for the US and that from personal experience I can say that the average American soldiers actually stationed over here generally seem to enjoy their stay and entertain a cordial relationship with us EU-wimps. As to the claim that Europeans “should grow up and start pulling their own weight”: The EU just recently tried to make moves in that direction, but the reaction from the Bush administration to this was unfortunately rather chilly: Rumsfeld Cool on European Defense Initiative Bush reaffirms warning against undermining NATO Powell warns again about European defence plans But I’m sure both parties will find a way to solve this dispute in a diplomatic and friendly fashion.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:29:36 +0000

Uhm, novakant, do you think the average American—right wing or otherwise—enjoys having US troops based in Europe? Do you think there’s something threatening to the US in the removal of a US military presence from Europe? Say, while you’re suggesting dismantling US military bases, I’m wondering, does that include our presence in Kosovo and Bosnia? The US, you do realize, has roughly as many troops committed to those European peacekeeping missions as the Europeans have in Afghanistan. The US will make amends and generally be much nicer to Europe when Europeans grow up and start pulling their own weight. I don’t imagine, however, that that will happen soon.

By: novakant

novakant — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:33:16 +0000

OK you wingnut, if you think we suck so badly, then let’s see this through the EU-way: (1) We’ll disband ISAF and pull out all the European troops from Afghanistan. All aid agencies based in Europe will follow suit. (2) Then we want all US bases on European ground to be dismantled immediately. (3) Next we’ll team up with our vile Arab allies and pull all our combined investments out of the US financial market. This would suck, right? So I guess it’s better for both the US and the EU to keep talking and make amends in their lately somewhat strained relationship. And if you guys manage to boot Bush in 2004 we’ll be give you a big hug, greet you with flowers and generally be much nicer, anyway.

By: dipnut

dipnut — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:00:06 +0000

Reality…is that since the end of WW2 the US has been extremely consistent in torpedoing any independent European defence initiatives…etc. Your point being? I never said NATO wasn’t the State Department’s idea of foreign policy fun, or that America is the innocent victim of a scam. I said NATO’s not working any more. It’s a Cold War institution, guys. We aren’t going to win the current war by basing nukes in Germany. This has been a farsighted deliberate, positive-sum US strategy over the past few decades that has resulted in net benefits for both parties. The advantage to our allies was material: bombs, guns, personnel. Even if we made them buy some of our goods, they still got the benefit of American R&D. The advantage to us was strategic, in that NATO allowed us to establish a forward perimeter against the Commies. That’s a strategic payoff which is less relevant by the hour. Who cares what NATO has done? The question is, what is it doing now? Apparently, under-industrialized, impoverished third world countries like Iran and Iraq are grave dangers that must be addressed immediately. Pakistan is just such a country. It has nuclear weapons. Its intelligence service, ISI, is inseparably linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and provided both with major resources and intelligence. Its President, a slightly dodgy fellow in his own right, has survived at least one assassination attempt by these Islamist elements within the government, which he is not strong enough to root out. Eh. Whatever. You would agree, I assume, that the only options regarding Iraq were indefinite “containment” or “regime change”. Hence you agree that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. And so it was; left to his own devices, Saddam would have had nukes within months. But the most important thing is to avoid putting Dominique de Villepin out of humor. He’s important, you know! The Iranian mullahs have a nuclear research program well along. They have said that a nuclear exchange with Israel, involving the deaths of millions of Iranians, would be an acceptable price to pay to get rid of the Jews. But that’s all far away. No biggie. But it’s OK…most World Wars are not started by Europeans. Well, this one wasn’t. What you imply though, is that Europe is the grave danger, and that US control of European military might is actually the main mutual benefit of NATO. So long as they are weak and dependent and don’t have the car keys, they won’t go to slaughtering one another again. You’re probably right, and it’s sickening. Americans have a blind spot where nationalism is concerned. We don’t know its virulence, because we don’t have a nation in the les Gaulois sense. Thus we don’t understand Europeans’ need to subsume their politics in international organizations, or the urgency with which they protest us flouting those organizations. Nor is it easy for us to excuse the anti-Americanism they so desperately need as a unifying ideology. You’d think they could be, like, anti-China or something…but no. It may be possible for the EU (which is, after all, an international organization) to have military independence without inevitable war. We can hope. Either way, they’ll have to get along without us. That may be shortsighted, but you needn’t look far to see dire threats nowadays.

By: dipnut

dipnut — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:59:03 +0000

Macho, macho men! Yes, I’m actually all oiled-up and gyrating in front of the mirror right now. My deltoids are like cannonballs; my buns and thighs are straight out of a Tom of Finland cartoon. Did they miss the recent round of “begging to Europe for money and troops”? No. Neither did we miss the part where Europe turned out its collective pockets and put on the po-face.

By: Elliott Oti

Elliott Oti — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:40:28 +0000

Google up “Bartholomew telegram” and note the US’s response to the proposed formation of the WEU defence initiative back in 1991. Then look at Powell’s response to the current defence proposals. There is a massive disconnect between popular conservative perception about the military relationship between the EU and the US, and reality. Reality, Messrs. Holsclaw and Boucher, is that since the end of WW2 the US has been extremely consistent in torpedoing any independent European defence initiatives, at the pan-European level, and also at the national level. The level of US control over UK tomahawks, and attempts to lock in European national armies to US suppliers being examples of the latter. This has been a farsighted deliberate, positive-sum US strategy over the past few decades that has resulted in net benefits for both parties. Powell’s statements in opposition to the EU defense initiatives show that there are still strategists within the current US administration who can view American security concerns in the long term, and not on the basis of fits of pique over the current Iraq adventure. But the disconnect is startling when one reads American warbloggers. Apparently, under-industrialized, impoverished third world countries like Iran and Iraq are grave dangers that must be addressed immediately. “Clash of civilisations” and all that. But it’s OK, nay highly desirable, nay – about F###ING TIME, that the highly-industrialized second-largest, economy on the planet, drifts away from under US control, and starts an independent arms buildup. [The same perfidious French and Germans who, if I read William Safire right, were also supplying Saddam with his WMDs]. Because 30 years down the line things will still be fine and dandy. Because, as we all know, history has taught us that most World Wars are not started by Europeans.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:39:44 +0000

Macho, macho men! Did they miss the recent round of “begging to Europe for money and troops”?

By: dipnut

dipnut — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:04:42 +0000

“An international order that reflected US priorities without having to be directly enforced by the US,” is not what happened, Henry. Instead we got a busload of free riders through the cold war, after which they developed cozy (and profitable) relationships with our enemies. So let ‘em off the bus, already. “[An order that would] outlast the USA’s own decline as a great power.” Pfft. Whose decline as a great power is really relevant here? Wait for it… “…the French in particular could be a pain in the ass in day-to-day planning, but it’s a price worth paying.” Why? Chirac is less than half a rung above any third-world tinpot dictator, pally with same, corrupt as hell, and no more trustworthy than a rabid dog. Why should we beg his by-your-leave, who is constitutionally incapable of reciprocating our consideration? Better to grab him by the balls and shake him like a rag doll. Better yet to ignore him utterly. He is worse than adversarial; he’s useless. Don’t belabor us with NATO, on the basis of what some dreamer thought it was supposed to be, once upon a time.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:07:56 +0000

Sebastian – reasonable points. Regarding your first point, there is a clear mismatch between European and US military capacity (which I did refer to when I said that flexible coalitions made ‘logistical sense.’) But the trade-offs for the US are also clear. I think that Wesley Clark (who had to deal with the micromanagement of relations with the allies as part of his job) is right – the French in particular could be a pain in the ass in day-to-day planning, but it’s a price worth paying. Regarding your second point, which Doug also raises, Ikenberry provides some interesting answers. You can see some of them for yourself – the link href=”http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s6981.pdf” rel=”nofollow”>http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s6981.pdf in the post is to the first chapter of Ikenberry’s book, which is available for free online. Ikenberry argues that by binding itself to respect its allies’ interests, the US was able to create an international order that reflected US priorities without having to be directly enforced by the US, and that would potentially outlast the USA’s own decline as a great power. In other words, the tradeoff is between short term control over events, and an international constitutional order that will favour the US over the longer run. I think he has a very strong argument (Dan Drezner too recommends the book somewhere as one of the key IR texts of the last couple of years).

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:04:46 +0000

“When NATO invoked Article 5 (the mutual defence clause) after September 11, for the first time in NATO’s history, the US politely thanked its allies, and went on to make its plans without them.” The problem is that for people who can provide almost no logistical support and very little useful military support, they still wanted bomb by bomb and target by target planning involvement. This type of problem was later seen in the non-NATO French refusal to provide support bombing when requested by soldiers on the ground. You do a great job of identifying why NATO is good for Europe. But the US spends most of the money on NATO defense. So shouldn’t it be good for us too?

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:22:15 +0000

First, it’s in the American national interest for the Europeans to be able to take care of some of their own military needs without the U.S.’ involvement. Wouldn’t it have been nice if the Europeans could have handled by themselves the “mess” in their own backyard that was the ex-Yugoslavia? If the American Administration is hesitating now, it’s only because the French seem to want it so much, and anything the French want badly is considered automatically suspect for the moment. Secondly, there is a fundamental inconsistency between Nato and the EU as a strong political unity. Nato guarantees mutual defense, and any country worth its name (which the EU hopes to be) also guarantees mutual defense, but of course not everyone who belongs to Nato belongs to the EU, and vice versa. The US cannot be expected to have a mutual defense agreement with country A who has one with country B, if the US and B have not signed a mutual defense agreement. That would be allowing country A decide American policy. (If country B is attacked then country A must defend it. But then country A will be attacked. And so the U.S. must defend it.) In brief, changes will have to come to Nato no matter what. Thirdly, I agree with the previous commenter, who noted that your vision of Nato is one-way. Europeans get their views heard even heeded and in return they – they do what? Mostly they think of excuses for doing nothing and criticizing everything. Fourthly, the warbloggers and the anti-warrers made lots of predictions. Some of which have turned out true, others not. The warbloggers predicted an easy take-over of Iraq all the way to Baghdad. The anti-warbloggers were saying that Baghdad could be a bloodbath. Maybe the anti-warbloggers got one thing right – that it would be a mess. That still doesn’t make them right, since a mess is arguably better than the status quo – Saddam Hussein in power.