NATO Decides Its Future
The leaders of the 28 member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meet in Lisbon, Portugal, on November 19-20 to chart the future course of the transatlantic military alliance. The gathering in Lisbon is being billed as one of the most important summits in the history of the alliance.
The centrepiece of the NATO summit will be the unveiling of a new strategic concept, or mission statement, to shape the way the alliance defends itself against threats over the next decade. NATO has struggled to define itself in a post-Cold War world of expanding threats and shrinking budgets, and in Lisbon the alliance will try to lay out a vision for itself as a more agile grouping better able to deal with the security realities of the 21st century.
The strategic concept will reconfirm NATO’s commitment to its core task of mutual defense in Europe, but it will also stress the need for the alliance to ensure that it can mount expeditionary operations elsewhere in the world, such as its ongoing mission in Afghanistan, or the anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia.
The document will embrace the deployment of a land-based NATO missile-defense system and approve cost-cutting plans to reduce overlapping weapons systems and streamline the alliance’s command structure. It will also stress the need for alliance members to modernize their armed forces to deal with contemporary security threats, such as cyber security.
NATO’s new strategic blueprint will endorse U.S. President Barack Obama’s disarmament vision of a “world without nuclear weapons,” although it will also stress that NATO will remain a nuclear-armed alliance for as long as others have such weapons.
The document will call for NATO to engage more actively on security with non-alliance members such as Australia, China, India, Japan, and especially Russia. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will meet NATO leaders on the last day of the Lisbon summit, becoming the first Russian president to attend a NATO gathering since his country’s conflict with Georgia in 2008.
Last but not least, NATO leaders will discuss the future course of the nine-year war in Afghanistan. They will back a strategy of starting to hand security responsibility to Afghan forces in 2011, although plans to bring NATO’s combat operations to a complete end by late 2014 seem highly doubtful.
NATO has been called the most successful military alliance in history, a bulwark of freedom and democracy for more than six decades, and the coalition that won the Cold War without firing a single shot. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than 20 years ago, NATO has often appeared ill-equipped to cope with the new strategic realities of the post-Cold War era.
The Lisbon summit will go a long way to determining whether NATO will remain relevant in the future. Despite its many limitations, NATO is a valuable U.S. foreign policy asset. Not only is it the main forum for transatlantic defense, it also enables the United States to exert a significant degree of diplomatic, political, and military influence over Europe. As such, it is very much in the American interest to keep NATO alive and kicking.
Following are further details on some of the key issues that will be addressed at the Lisbon summit:
Afghanistan: Transition Strategy or Exit Strategy?
Afghanistan will be the top issue on the summit agenda, with exit strategy and transition to Afghan ownership being the key topics for discussion. The Afghan mission has been NATO’s largest combat role in its 61-year history and the first outside of Europe. It has also prompted the biggest questions about NATO’s long-term viability.
NATO’s primary immediate challenge is finding a satisfactory conclusion to the nine-year war. The main strategy hinges on a faltering effort to build up Afghan security forces to a level at which they are capable of containing a Taliban insurgency which has spread throughout the country. American targets call for expanding the Afghan army and police to 306,000 by October 2011 from around 260,000 now. But American plans have been hampered by high desertion rates and an Afghan government that is widely seen as too corrupt, inept, and unstable to survive long without foreign military support.
The White House wants NATO allies to commit to a blueprint for shifting primary security responsibility to Afghan forces by 2014. In theory, that would allow for the gradual reduction of foreign troop numbers from the current peak of 150,000 soldiers from more than 40 countries.
Obama has set a July 2011 date for American troops to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. A White House review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, due in December 2010, will help to determine the pace of those withdrawals.
In any case, Obama’s pledge to start withdrawing U.S. troops has emboldened the Taliban and encouraged allies to scale back their own roles. The Netherlands has already ended its combat commitment and Canada plans to do so in 2011. Germany and France want to cut their troop levels in 2011, as does Britain, which hopes to end its combat role by 2015.
Denmark says it wants to withdraw most of its 700 troops from Afghanistan by 2015, and Sweden has said it hopes its 600 troops in northern Afghanistan will be able to start handing over security responsibility to Afghan forces in 2011.
In the end, however, the main issue will be whether NATO troop withdrawals will be gradual enough to prevent the security situation from deteriorating.
NATO’s future credibility lies with ensuring a workable transition in Afghanistan; a messy conclusion to the conflict will further damage NATO’s prestige. As a result, NATO leaders will seek to reassure Afghanistan that the alliance is not abandoning the country.
U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke insists that that the international force will not leave completely, and “it definitely doesn’t mean we’re going to repeat 1989 when the U.S. turned its back on Afghanistan as soon as the Soviets left. What happened in 1989 was a straight line to 9/11, and from 9/11 to where we are today. It is the most extraordinary story of unintended consequences I think in American foreign policy history.”
Get. out. of. NATO. now! Its purpose was to hold off the USSR. That purpose is gone. It is now a permanent government bureaucracy, searching for a new justification for its existence. Bring the troops home. Make a deal to keep Ramstein airbase. Perhaps a naval base in the Med. Europe no longer needs us to defend them. If they start killing each other again, let them!
And how much to buy Iceland? I bet we could get it really cheaply. Except we’re broke, too. (sigh)
Exactly! NATO was formed for two reasons: 1) deter an invasion of western Europe by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact puppets; 2) repel such invasion if deterrence failed. It should have been dissolved in 1992 when the Warsaw Pact disbanded. Now NATO exists solely: 1) to perpetuate the US military-industrial complex; 2) to avoid cashiering a bunch of otherwise useless generals; 3) to allow European nations to maintain their welfare states by rather than pay for their own defense. It’s past time — 18 years past time — to abolish NATO and bring the troops home. Then we can deploy them at the Mexican border to repel that ongoing invasion, which so happens to be what the army is supposed to do anyway.
In the end, however, the main issue will be whether NATO troop withdrawals will be gradual enough to prevent the security situation from deteriorating.
Did any one listen to Secure Freedom Radio, with Frank Gaffney? The situation in Afghanistan is already going belly-up. Why do they even bother with the pretense of Afghan forces providing security? They can’t. They might as well just hand it over to the Taliban. And no night missions? I am beginning to think that Karzai senses the weakness of NATO and is now hedging his bets for whom he feels with be in power after NATO tucks tail and runs.
As for funding cuts, their damn socialism is the problem. They can no longer defend themselves, let alone support NATO. They want a dole system and some one to bail them out it seems while the are eaten up from the inside by their multicultural BS.
I’m surprised they even talk missile defense. Especially with Oh-Bumbles START treaty garbage. It’s amazing even more that they claim to see Iran and the like as a threat while do nothing to combat the covert wars these terrorist countries wage. What a bunch of idiots. If the leader of the free world was a leader, and had a pair, it might not wind up like this.
It gets worse. Obungler just agreed in Lisbon to place Europe’s missile defense shield at a station in Islamist Turkey.The same Turkey which is now shielding Iran and Syria from Washington and western sanctions.
To wit, this immoral cretin of a POTUS has ‘promised’ Israel that Washington has its back, especially with the shield to be put in place.
Now, color me crazy, but which Israeli leader would want a Turk’s fingers on the missile shield button, now that they have aligned with the Islamist Axis of Evil?
Without a doubt the man/child President is insane, a danger to the US and Israel.
Well it was set up for the Cold War. One could easily assume a post-Cold War scenario would/should render it obsolete. One thing is for sure, if we never had the Cold War we would have no agreed upon justification to build bases there now.
Most present day Europeans including Brits don’t want to be under any US control. We are no longer seen as liberators or protectors. We are seen as presumptive, arrogant and intrusive. Further more there is no way Europe is going to foot a greater defense bill while we are there. I believe most feel the current war against terror is not a legitimate war, or it’s our war (pet project).
In the war against terror the US has paid the price many times over in blood, money and material compared to our allies. I say we dismantle NATO altogether. If European nations feel the need to build strategic forces it will be on their terms with their soldiers and money.
What worries me most, is the world view outcome. How will Russia, and I think more importantly now, China take it? The way I see things now, China has already entered into a Cold War with the US. It’s building up it’s forces, modernizing them, to specifically fight and counter our defenses. It also is currently winning the economic aspect, which is a main reason we, “won the Cold War.” If NATO is dismantled, I think it’s going to send a message that the US is alone, more so than what is the reality. It will also send the message that the West is crumbling.
Instead of seeing NATO as a Cold War creation, I see it as a Defensive Institution. It is the West’s combined idea of defending democracy against any enemy, not just the Warsaw Pact countries, some of whom are now NATO. If those ex-Pact countries saw NATO as defunct, does any one honestly think they would come to it? The came to NATO for security without have to sign specific defense treaties with individual countries. I would at least think we owe them some thing. We lest them in, now we just abandon them? That stinks to much of what Obama does. It’s bad enough that NATO is going south because of socialist economies and multicultural malarkey. I would actually prefer NATO to replace most of the work that the UN does since it’s pretty much a worthless organization. I mean you ever notice that, as a general rule of thumb, the countries that go into a conflict under a UN charter are NATO countries?
Its hard for me not to sympathize and understand many of your feelings. Aside from the establishment of radical Islam I think China could be the next long term threat but more so controlling south Asian waters militarily and their greater region economically. They could also strong arm world action to their benefit and at our expense. Iran may well become long term and North Korea if they continue in their own miserable dictatorships. I don’t believe ex- Pact nations would feel abandoned in the sense of betrayal. I could wish the west had their sensibilities but we owe them nothing and they know that. Russia can still cause problems but we cannot be a world cop as even at present there’s not much we can do if they want to “punish” one of their former satellites.
If the peoples of western Europe do not want us there then I’m against us being there. I’m against our sacrifice on their behalf. I even question if we should be in Afghanistan although I have no illusions over the disastrous outcome if we leave. I’m convinced at this point in time the free world has to wake up and the only way may be if US men, woman, money and equipment no longer puts out on the behalf of everyone else even though its for us as well. Unless its in our back yard we should keep our finest home. A threat to world stability with ensuing horror may have to take place for others to be willing to sacrifice just as much as America. Then we can fight together.
“NATO has struggled to define itself in a post-Cold War world of expanding threats and shrinking budgets, and in Lisbon the alliance will try to lay out a vision for itself as a more agile grouping better able to deal with the security realities of the 21st century.”
“Shrinking budgets” doesn’t even begin to describe what a poor state NATO is in. And NATO always uses the term “agile” when what they really mean is small. The British Royal Navy is almost gone and is down to 19 surface combat ships. It also will have no carrier-capable jets (like the Harrier) for about 10 years, until their two new huge (and useless) carriers come on line. At least the Royal Navy is holding on to their nuclear submarines, but even their numbers are going down. The British army and air force are going to be in even worse shape, with major cuts made to those organizations as well. And this is Great Britain, which, at one time, HAD the largest military in NATO. All of the other NATO countries are in even worse shape and can barely muster one or two ships to send to the Horn of Africa for the mission against Somali pirates. I doubt either France or Britain could manage a Falkland’s type amphibious assault that Britain could barely mount back in the early 1980s. Today, well, unless the United States gives a substantial amount of help, it seems doubtful that any NATO country other than the United States could project much power outside of continental Europe.
Face it, Europe is broke. NATO is a shell of its former self and it’s getting to the point where it may not even be able to defend Europe, let alone project power to other parts of the world. I guess it’s better than nothing, but the problem is that the Europeans actually think that they’re still relvant when it comes to the defense of the free world. In any case, the real battles of the 21st century will probably be fought in either the Middle East (with Iran) or in Asia (against China, North Korea, or both), so NATO will have very little say in how those wars are fought.
What’s left of NATO’s presence in Afghanistan will probably be gone after 2011, so even there the Europeans don’t seem to have much stomach for more of a commitment in that tortured country. America will face much of the challenges in the world alone in the coming years, and the faster we accept that fact the faster we can prepare for it. We don’t really have much time before we are directly challenged by Iran or China or North Korea. Will we have the military capabilities to stop these countries if we have to? Not with our current economic problems and not with someone like Obama in the White House.
NATO was established to bring Europe under the thrall of the American genocidal corporate war machine. The United States took over where the Third Reich left off. However, the corporate iron fist has not fully brought Europeans to their knees. Despite the chagrin of Mcdonalds and Wal-Mart, European nations have established many compassionate social programs that have blunted corporate power. Life-affirming ideals like a right to be cared for when sick instead of the American right to own devices of death have made life there livable for many, if not most Europeans.
Perhaps now they with Obama in the White House Europeans can tell the American corporate plutocrats to show it once and for all and free the European Union to established a society based solely on compassion and love and not hate and greed. Even though they are White, they probably still have reason to fear an American military conquest with a Republican in the White House if they challenge corporate power to forcefully, but with Obama in power something good might be accomplished.
Your comments are so far off the chart that I’m not sure if you are serious or just being sarcastic.
It’s really simple, Throbbin – without U.S. support, Europe would be speaking German or Russian. I’m sure the Europeans will take the “American genocidal corporate war machine” rather than the SS or KGB any day of the week.
Also, if the U.S. will get out of NATO and stop subsidizing the European defense, the Europeans will have to start spending their own money on building up their forces which means less money for their “compassion and love” projects.
Sorry, but you sound like a deluded communist.
We Germans love foreign cultures and languages. We always did. We never forced anybody to speak German(though German is a very nice language and a very soft one – except for people who only know the limited German language of war: Achtung! Panzer! 1,2,3). Kennedy was the only American President who spoke some German words: “Ich bin ein Berliner”. Germany was occupied a very long time(and perhaps still is)but Americans always addressed us in their language – English.
A) you are kidding
B) you are demented
C) you are 7 years old
What is it?
Do you realy belive the crap that you just wrote?
I mean, …. realy …. do you?
In solidarity with the EU we may assume you’ve invested your life savings in Greek bonds?
NATO is already a worldwide organization, the only one that has the cajones to take on the big, dangerous jobs that they are already doing. Russia is also edging towards supporting NATO as are many of the countries that Russia wanted to keep in their exclusive sphere of influence. Maybe they can change the name to the Northern Hemisphere Treaty Organization NHTO and formally bring Russia in. Then comes the Philippines, Australia, Japan……
“becoming the first Russian president to attend a NATO gathering since his country’s conflict with Georgia in 2008.”
this is a ridiculous statement – he is the ONLY Russian president since that time…he became president IN 2008
For more on Foreign policy, see The Bond Project at http://www.thebondproject.blogspot.com
I think the U.S. should completely disentangle itself from NATO. There is no need for the money and ill will to be used in such a way. Band together again when there is a threat.
NATO was a good idea during the Cold War. It was a better deal for Europe. With the Cold War over there was talk about Europe taking over responsibility for its own defense. Later, there was talk about the US redistributing its troops to places where they were really needed or sending them home. Watching AFN in Iraq, I was stunned to see commercials for four service branches bragging about their ongoing presence in Europe. In Afghanistan I got the impression that many of the NATO and non-NATO troops were little more than show troops. Some had armored vehicles, but very few had helicopters. There were some NATO flight operations in direct support of their troops, but their operations were dwarfed by US military flight operations. (Note: I once saw a European NATO officer salute an NCO with an empty water bottle.)
Besides Jihadist terrorism the world’s other potential big threat comes from China’s expansion and totalitarian instincts. If Europe doesn’t want to deal realistically with this issue the US should pull out of NATO for good. And phony commitments to an enhanced alliance should never be tolerated. The dilemma for the US is that the Europeans might promise a lot (on paper) to get us to continue paying for their real defense need and then, when crunch time comes, invent reasons for why they cannot help.
nato was a horrible idea— all it did was bog us even further in the muck of politicized security
by the way nato forces of 100 = 95 americans and 5 randoms from other nato “allies”
we need to pull out of nato faster than an uncondomed teenager on prom night
let these lefty environmental allies take care of themselves
Meetings like this are meaningless, the world economic situation is driving the nations to separate and think of the best interest of their citizens first. And this is how it should be, a Global NATO would be a disaster for freedom, especially if we let the UN run it, either disolve both NATO and the UN, or just the UN. Both have outlived their purposes and are now working towards becoming world oppressors, this is what they were suppose to prevent.
Well, to counter your view, I say this: No country is strong enough on its own to deal with its own problems. Hence the need for alliances.
A country not strong enough to deal with its own problems has serious issues if it relies upon other than short term alliances.
The UN has proven to be an all but unworkable alliance; NATO is about to follow in the UN’s footsteps.
Given toxic assets as far as the eye can see, not to mention those who see the Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights, with jaundiced eyes – even the US, as the strongest nation on the face of the earth; needs alliances to deal with the problems which are self inflicted and those inflicted by others.
Frankly, you are right about NATO and the UN going the way of penny candy (I hope you like the reference to “Ashes to Ashes” by the Fifth Dimension, which, to me, is a better song than “The Age of Aquarius”, and the lines stuff to the end of it) because there is something to the thinking of the British and Canadian Prime Ministers at the end of the First World War, when they concluded that if the League of Nations doesn’t work out, the Anglosphere would be the guarantor of world peace.
That detail, and other interesting stuff, is found in “Paris 1919″ by Margaret MacMillan, whose great grandfather was David Lloyd-George, who was thought of to be the Ambassador to the US from the UK, after Lord Lothian passed away.
ah, you read it ? please, do quote some excerpts, cuz some of your compatriots still ignore what was the deal then !
In any case, Obama’s pledge to start withdrawing U.S. troops has emboldened the Taliban and encouraged allies to scale back their own roles. The Netherlands has already ended its combat commitment and Canada plans to do so in 2011.
I really don’t like this phrasing. It implies that Canada is planning to leave Afghanistan in 2011 because of something Obama said or did. That is NOT the case. The Canadian parliament decided several years ago that Canada would end the majority of its commitment in Afghanistan in 2011, 10 years after joining the coalition. This was primarily a domestic political decision. It took place well before Obama became president and possibly before he was even a US senator – I don’t recall exactly when Parliament made this decision – so linking the decision to Obama in any way is just plain false.
For what it’s worth, it looks as if we will be leaving close to 1000 troops behind after 2011 to help train the Afghan Army but we will be leaving combat operations by the middle of 2011.
Good point. One question that hasn’t been asked by those who have more influence than the average Canadian is, why wasn’t Sharansky’s view taken into consideration. For he had some choice words about Afghanistan, and the involvement of others, in “The Case for Democracy”.
Boot Turkey out, because it is not meeting the minimally accepted standards
that governments have to meet. Then, we will see what happens, because NATO is not doing a good job of strengthening the likes of Malalai Joya, and other reformers who deserve more support (like the reformers in Iran that Michael Ledeen writes about, but whatever he communicates receives the deaf ear and blind eye treatment by the deformed souls inside the Beltway).
The day has long past when US forces were desperately required to hold the line against the Red swarms poised just inches, literally, from the west’s frontiers. When a crippled Western Europe ravaged by war stood no chance on its own against the fully mobilized Stalinist throngs that was fueled, provisioned, and motivated to fight to the channel at the drop of a hat. Indeed those bleak days are long, long, gone.
Today Western and Central Europe are largely technological and economic marvels all by themselves. Their numbers and weapons are easily a match for Putin’s underfunded and under practiced military.
The time has come for US to let them stand on their own.