Morphing NATO into a UN agency
Wikimedia Commons
The recent annual UN General Assembly in New York was a good time to recall how some starry-eyed idealists believed the formation of this club would eliminate wars.
The logic was that one member of the club wouldn’t attack another. Since practically all countries quickly signed up for membership, world peace would soon be a done deal. While things didn’t turn out quite so nicely, at least membership in the club is relatively cheap.
Cyprus’ recent assumption of the rotating European Union Council presidency is a good time to look back upon the promise of a newer club – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. Unlike the UN, it’s designed for war scenarios. Its motto is “An attack on one (member) country is an attack on all (member) countries.” Unlike the UN, this club’s membership fees are very high.
Cyprus, the island, consists of two countries that have been in a state of war since 1974. The Greek part of the island, Cyprus the country, was accepted into the EU in 2004. The Turkish part is called The Turkish Republic Of Northern Cyprus. Nicosia is often referred to as the last divided capital in the world.
This bitter proxy war fought by Turkey and Greece was initially very hot. Now it is a cold war, but still bitter. Turkey is symbolically boycotting the European Union during the current Cyprus Presidency of the EU Council.
Both Greece and Turkey have been members of NATO since 1952. This causes an obvious conundrum for NATO when trying to follow through on its motto of “An attack on one country is an attack on all countries.
As NATO membership continues to expand far beyond its original geographic and functional charter, these kinds of issues are likely to flare up more often. There are now more than 25 members, up from the original 12. Just consider that currently NATO is evaluating membership for Georgia, a country in the heart of the Caucasus.
Further, the endless expansion will dilute NATO’s focus and ability to function, transforming it into a symbolic organization. NATO is morphing into a UN agency.
Indeed, what is NATO’s focus today? Formed in 1949, its purpose was to maintain a credible deterrent against Soviet temptations to sweep across the eastern plains of Europe in armored and tank brigades. That threat is over. More recently NATO tried to show its relevance by implementing regime change in Libya.
All the “lessons learned” analyses of that adventure concluded NATO was incapable of executing this basic mission without the U.S. Among other shortcomings, NATO was only weeks away from running out of bombs when the Libyan regime collapsed. Contrary to NATO’s Libya mission plan, the U.S. had to step in and do the heavy lifting to save NATO from embarrassing failure.
NATO members also played a minor supporting role in Afghanistan on quasi-voluntary basis. Poland, perhaps NATO’s most enthusiastic new member, was one of the largest participants. But even Poland’s enthusiasm is waning, as indicated in Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski’s recent speech to the UN General Assembly.
The highly respected politician said NATO’s operation in Afghanistan has shown that a “military-first approach is not the best way to resolve difficult internal conflicts.” He said that conflicts can’t be resolved without compromise, citing as an example the 1989 Polish Round Table Agreement where the communist authorities agreed to a road map for peacefully transferring power to the Solidarity opposition movement.
If NATO membership was as inexpensive as UN membership, there might be little urgency to re-examine the need for this Cold War relic. But, much to the joy of the military-industrial complex, it is expensive. Just the hardware requirements for entry into the club are breathtaking. For example, Poland paid Lockheed Martin $3.5 billion for an F16 fleet less than 10 years ago. Now, there are issues with its budget for spare parts and training to maintain pilot readiness.
Left unchecked, NATO will evolve into an ever larger taxpayer-supported self-serving bureaucracy that giant defense contractors feed off of. For the U.S., it creates risks of non-strategic foreign entanglements. Further, continuing expansion of NATO membership to countries such as Slovenia, Albania and Georgia, does not enhance U.S. national security. Re-examination of NATO’s mandate and strategic direction is long overdue.
October 8, 2012 - 6:00 AM
Right Mark. The UN should take over NATO. But why stop there. Lets just have one world government that makes life fair for every human being. Russia and China can veto anything they don’t like and we can put Syria in charge of the human rights commitee.
The UN has a sterling reputation for decisive action and is never used to promote propaganda. We need these international elites to collect our taxes, run our lives and protect our children.
I think NATO should be shut down completely. What’s the point of it since the Soviet Bloc has basically collapsed and we’re absorbing its former members into NATO?
The fact is, if it’s in a country’s best interests to participate in a military action, they’re going to do it whether under the auspices of NATO or not. And if it’s NOT in their bests interests, they’re NOT going to participate, NATO or not. Nor should they.
And really, if Russia decides it wants to start reclaiming some of its former republics and moves on Georgia for example, are we as Americans going to send our soldiers off to die in Georgia to fulfill the NATO compact? Of course not.
NATO is an artifact of a 2 power world, which has been gone for 20 years. Its time has passed.
Terps#1,you clearly have a severe reading comprehension problem. I assumed that the blatant error in your one comment on the 3Oct12 thread was just a one off case of the dumb-dumbs. Others took care of pointing out your error. But your above comment demonstrates that intellectually you can’t hit the side of a barn from 10 yards away.
My appologies to the other participants on this blog. I rarely make personal comments, preferring to ignore rubish.
NATO is trying to change its mission and focus so it stays around, which is not unsurprising. That’s why, typically, most organizations founded for, or against, something never truly want to fix the problems they were founded around. Because, if they did, they lose their revenue sources when they are no longer needed. That’s what is happening with NATO now. My dad was in the US Navy for over 20 years, finishing his career working in the NATO office at SACLANT, in Norfolk. This was right around the time that the Soviet Union collapsed and the Eastern Bloc countries gained their independence. There was a lot of speculation about what NATO would become even back then. Here we are more than 20 years later, and they’re still around, trying to find anything that they can use to keep them relevant, and funded.
#1 Gee, terps, why am I not surprised that you’ve completely missed the point?
#3 markj, welcome to what we get from terps all the time. Oh well, the fact that both you and terps are friends of Dan’s shows that he gets along with all kinds.
I thought this article (journalistically) was ‘rubish’ as well.
Mark
I never make “personal comments” because those who employ them are losing the argument. You are articulate, thoughtful, and obviously well educated…but in my opinion, dead wrong about America’s place in the world.
The UN is a joke and to suggest that they have meaningful control of anything is ridiculous. UN authority makes sense only in some ivory tower classroom or a liberal utopian dream.
Don’t misinterpret my Indian-Russian banter as “dumb-dumb.” There is room for a little bit of fun on this blog and if I were you I would embrace it and return the fire.
The Libyan conflict worked to show the members of NATO they needed to step up their defense. Europe cannot continue to count solely on the US for protection or to undertake military situations like Libya.
NATO serves a purpose in that the members are somewhat aligned and can take action that would never achieve United Nations approval i.e. Libyal however, the Syrian conflict illustrates the limitations.
The US has seen that a unilateral approach to foreign affairs is futile and has seen that to have a multilateral approach, the members of NATO must step up to the plate.
Terps is a better person than me. Cordiality is probably the most I could muster with a liberal activist. These people are actively working to tear down our way of life. They deny God, hate capitalism, and want our freedoms taken away. It’s hard to be close to a person like that. I don’t know how Mary Matalin does it.
#9 “Terps is a better person than me.”
I think we can all pretty much agree on that.
Now we’ll wait for MMM to show back up to make fun of your grammatical error, since he seems to into that sort of thing right now.
Why every thread has to devolve before it can even evolve is proof of the failed experiment that is Dan Casey’s blog. Terps has no understanding of what Mark has said and even when that is pointed out explicitly he clings to it like it was a lifeline. Suzie, who has no substantive contribution has to jump in because well there is a damn liberal to bash somewhere and she is the man for the job. I pity a nation where 40% of the population is Suzie, lower case terps, Frank, lower case matt, Pistol Pete, lower case will, and Lake Claytor. Truly, pity it. We cannot survive as a nation with those numbers.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11924-the-measure-of-a-nation-challenges-illusions-of-american-superiority
Mark, I think you have a good point and I think that our involvement and propping up of NATO has not served us well. It gives the patina that the US is not acting unilaterally, that is about it. Re-evaluation is the least we need. If there was anything to the UN beyond lip service, NATO would be obsolete anyway.
We need to re-evaluate a lot in this nation. Not the least of which is why we are turning out such ignorant, partisan and deeply flawed voters like those I listed above who are so willing (through the safety of anonymity) to show their deep abyss of non-comprehension. And they are not necessarily all the same group.
Oh come on, gdad…”me” is practically on the same spot on the keyboard as “I”. It was a typo.
Breathe, SS. You can only neck-puke so much hate and pseudo-intellectualism on one thread without coming up for air. Lord knows the oxygen levels in good ol’ Bedford county just shot down to dangerous levels. Take your Dear Leader’s advice and spread the air around, SS.
matt is now borrowing Steve C’s verbiage. How cute. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
I can’t say I know what you’re talkin about, Dano… a little help?
The right wingers are the most vacuous and hate filled creatures in America. Imitation and imaginary truth are their only abilities. Ed Lynch has to be so proud!
Than me vs than I…
“Ken Wilson sums it up best in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English:
Than is both a subordinating conjunction, as in She is wiser than I am, and a preposition, as in She is wiser than me…. Since the following verb am is often dropped or “understood,” we regularly hear than I and than me. Some commentators believe that the conjunction is currently more frequent than the preposition, but both are unquestionably Standard.”
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/than-I-versus-than-me.aspx
Math is easier:
gdad + Kristen = double pwned
I think comments #2(Kristen), #4 (other John), and 11 (Sandi) all really hit on important points.
Sandi sums up perhaps the most important benefit NATO gives the U.S. today when she writes ” It gives the patina that the US is not acting unilaterally, that is about it”. And if that is about it, it aint’ worth it.
Great comments folks. You all tend to be on the same side of issues, so I am not surprised that your comments are not in conflict. Yet I have not heard anything substantial from the other side yet. Could it be that Suzie and Company agree with you?
come on, gdad…”me” is practically on the same spot on the keyboard as “I”. It was a typo.
So according to Granddad and Kristen, it would follow we would say:
“He is taller than I”
“They are older than we”
Time to throw in another ‘nickle’.
LOL.
I’m sorry Mark…what? WTF is “Ken “Wilson”? For the record, I didn’t bother reading whatever you cut and pasted – I see no need. But certainly something from “Quick and Dirty Tips.com” would pose an irrefutable source.
In that sentence, the answer is “I”. Period. There is no “me” vs “I”. I guess SuzieQ is venturing off into ebonics or something. I wasn’t actually wonderig if I was right or not, Mark, but thanks for the effort.
Pwned inded.
Sandi’s high school teachers from the 1950s must be sooo proud!
Mark
When the UN takes over the functions of NATO, do you feel comfortable knowing that America would have a veto on the security council. The peaceful Russians can be trusted, but the warmongering Americans cannot. The Americans may even try to force the rest of the world to speak english.
“Its motto is “An attack on one (member) country is an attack on all (member) countries.” Unlike the UN, this club’s membership fees are very high.”
To me, this is key to why NATO needs to be disbanded. Doing the math here, the many small and new states we absorb stand to gain WAY more proportionally in NATO membership than the current established members. In gaining membership, places like Slovenia and Lithuania or wherever have the might of the US and GB backing them, while should we or Britain come under attack, what do they really have to offer outside of some outdated Soviet stuff and an underfunded small military?
The post-WWII vision of standing strong against posited Soviet aggression was very clear. Camping out along the West German border and showing the flag – in the USSR’s backyard – through expensive exercises made sense. What’s the vision now?
Re: Comment by Other John — October 8, 2012 @ 10:47 am
Rather a Corollary of Parkinson’s law with a touch of Peter Principle thrown in?
Re: Comment by Suzie — October 8, 2012 @ 11:15 am
Who isn’t?
Other than Jerry Sandusky and some of your other criminal idols?
Suzie’s ardent defense of Jerry Sandusky and the criminal coverup at Penn State was truly the all-time low-point in comments on this blog.
Suzie’s ardent defense of Jerry Sandusky and the criminal coverup at Penn State was truly the all-time low-point in comments on this blog.
Sorry, Dan. I never defended the gay man who actually did the molesting. The libs did that. I defended Paterno who did everything he legally should have, but was treated as if he committed murder.
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 8, 2012 @ 11:47 am
and Comment by markj — October 8, 2012 @ 12:41 pm
OTOH, even that “patina that the US is not acting unilaterally” sticks in the craw of the RW and is what the the RW wants to change in this election:
http://tinyurl.com/8p5v9lz
**
Mitt Romney’s Remarks at Virginia Military Institute
As prepared for delivery.
BY MITT ROMNEY | OCTOBER 8, 2012
SNIP
We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.
The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East-friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”
It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.
SNIP
[emphasis added]
**
No room there for shared decision making.
Jingoism personified.
#17 You didn’t read far enough in you link, MMM. You haven’t the slightest idea what you’re posting about.
Dan, look out, MMM is getting persnickety again. You should see the crap he’s piling up over on BRC.
“Suzie’s ardent defense of Jerry Sandusky and the criminal coverup at Penn State was truly the all-time low-point in comments on this blog.”
I think this whole random rambling is a good reason why the RT should keep all their blogs anonymous. You guys have a strange and dangerous obsession with posters on the blog. You attack people without rhyme or reason.
#19 “Terps is a better person than me am”? I don’t think so.
The RT had some article this morning about what Sandusky can expect in prison. It left out a few things I’m hoping for.
Great column Markj – and I would add this –
Back during the Clinton Administration there had been talk of a European Security and Defense Policy, whereby there would be less dependence by Europeans upon American military power, resources and funds when problems arose in Europe [like Kosovo]. I haven’t heard of this since – which could have been at least a start to diminish the reliance on the US military or, the need for a NATO, which to me is an expensive paper tiger. European security should reside primarily with European countries with joint ventures, like in North Africa, [specifically Libya], which was again heavily dependent on western powers’ military, and little from other countries. With the emergence of Islamic countries, destabilized or newly democratic countries throughout the world, the fiscal, political and demographic realities make the need for some type of centralized force for both protection, humanitarian aid, and peace keeping a necessary organization, but this “new” organization, whether as a reformatted NATO force or a merged UN force, is unlikely to happen anytime soon – as the financial burden has fallen squarely on a small number of countries [mostly US and European], and insufficient or no contribution by a majority of new member countries who benefit disproportionately. Other countries must be made to pay for their own and/or their region’s security or other needs – whether through the UN or NATO – and not continue to rely on the good will of the US nor the Europeans taxpayers.
“No room there for shared decision making.
Jingoism personified.”
The Beach Boys have started singing:
“Ba-bomb bomb bomb,
Bomb bomb Iran.”
“Cyprus, the island, consists of two countries that have been in a state of war since 1974″
Mark
Why don’t the Russians just build a Fort in Cyprus like they did in California? If the Russians can bring peace to the Indians, they surely can get these people to start hugging each other. Putin can take his shirt off in the Fort and show everyone how a real man makes olive oil.
Kristen, Ken Wilson wrote The Columbia Guide to Standard American English
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-06989-2/the-columbia-guide-to-standard-american-english
Now, he, and many others will agree, that either ‘me’ or ‘I’ are acceptable.
Perhaps your creds and education outweigh Mr. Wilson’s though?
Care to stack them up?
Nevermind gdad, he is busy writing something about ‘didn’t read far enough in you link..’ I guess he knows more than Mr. Wilson too??
I’m with Kristen and I only wish nothing but the worst for pedophile Sandusky…lots of prisoners were victims of just Sandusky’s kind of behavior, and they don’t forget…
I’m calling a halt to any more debate about grammar on this thread. Take that stuff over to the Monday OPEN thread if you want to continue. This is ridiculous.
I can’t believe people get upset with you terps.
“show everyone how a real man makes olive oil.”
That’s gold right there.
Shrillary#33. I am glad you enjoyed the essay and thank you for the kind words.
One question – What is it that NATO and the US military are defending Europe from in this day and age?
Make no mistake, Romney is poised to continue the Neocon policy of regime change throughout the middle east. His answer to the recession WILL be another war. The same players that advised Bush are now advising Romney, voters should do their homework before making the decision to mire this country in yet another needless conflict.
Yes lower case matt, they are!
“I don’t know how Mary Matalin does it.”
Geez, is EVERYTHING partisan with you… even “doing it”?
markj @ 40 – not specifically at this point – or in this “day and age”, although, with Libya and other north African countries, it does seem the instability there is a bit closer to Europe than the US, no? My point was that in the example of Kosovo, this was not a direct threat to relevant US interests and still the US spent billions of dollars, mostly on behalf of our NATO allies. Kosovo et al were a greater threat to the stability of Europe, yet, it was the US that provided much military aid [through NATO primarily]. I do not know the answer to this question, but what was the shared costs between the European countries and the US? I would suggest it was not an equally divided expense although again, this was primarily a European problem… In the future, should the US be militarily and financially burdened by another Balkan conflict or should the Europeans be able to secure their own regional conflicts?
In reflection on Milton’s “support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East” one might consider:
http://tinyurl.com/9xq856v
**
What the Vikings Can Teach Us About Terrorism
It’s not about religion.
BY JOHN ARQUILLA | OCTOBER 8, 2012
What if all the reasons commonly given for the onset of the current age of terror are wrong? If violence against the innocent is not the product of religious fanaticism, reaction to corrupt governance, or a manifestation of the sheer hopelessness and rage that come with perpetual poverty, then what are the real causes? If the received wisdom about terrorism can be challenged, then there is an obligation to look more deeply into its origins.
In the matter of faith-based zealotry, psychiatrist and former CIA case officer Marc Sageman has profiled hundreds of jihadis affiliated with the al Qaeda movement, finding that religion is a lesser included factor in their recruitment. Indeed, a significant percentage of these militants undertook graduate studies — such study itself a seeming contradiction of fundamentalism — many outside the Muslim world. For example, 9/11 attack team leader Mohammed Atta studied architecture in Germany. Al Qaeda’s deepest strategic thinker, Abu Mus’ab al-Suri is an engineer. Osama bin Laden had a business education and came from a very wealthy family of industrialists — again giving the lie to the notion of terrorists as unthinking religious fanatics. As Sageman notes in his Understanding Terror Networks, these sorts of secular backgrounds are commonly found. We have misjudged the jihad.
As to terror arising in reaction to government oppression, the Arab Spring provides much evidence — as do the many “color revolutions” that have come before — that social uprisings can take the form of, and succeed with, peaceful demonstrations. And on those occasions when armed revolts have erupted, as in Libya and Syria, they have aimed largely at the tyrants and their militaries, not the innocent. If anything, insurrections in the Muslim world seem less prone to the kind of anti-government terrorism that has surfaced from time to time in Europe with such groups as the Red Brigades in Italy and the Baader-Meinhof Gang in Germany, and in the United States in the form of far-right extremists like Timothy McVeigh.
SNIP
**
Hum?
Thanks John Wilburn, that one was laugh out loud funny!
Dave Hicks @ 45 – very interesting article, thanks for sharing it.
Re: Comment by Shrillary — October 8, 2012 @ 7:35 pm
Thanks, Shillary.
Hope folk read the whole article. Were it not for the Fair Use Doctrine, I would have posed it all. Had a problem deciding what to snip to keep it legal.
Dave Hicks – the history of the Vikings,and additionally the Crusaders,and those “chivalrous” knights, demonstrates there has been a long history of terrorizing civilian populations – usually out of boredom, for personal gain, and just sheer meanness, not necessarily an ideology. The Vikings terrorized the Irish and English, the Crusaders terrorized not only the Muslim populations they encountered, but anyone “different”, and of course the English knights horrifically tortured and terrorized the French countryside as they passed through… like the article proposed, it seems to be an ugly side of humans throughout our history going as far back as BCE.
Shillary, the instability in Libya, Syria and Iraq were caused by the U.S. and its allies. The neocon community for years has believed that Israel is better off with failed states in the neighborhood than stable but unfreindly governments.
It’s ironic that now that we succeeded in destabalizing the region that you, and you are not alone, argue that we need a strong NATO to counter the instability.
Regarding the former Yugoslavia mess of the 1990s, to borrow John Kerry’s infamous words, NATO eventually did good after first doing bad. The bad was how it picked winners and loosers, and its decision to reverse ethnically clense Kosovo of its Serbian population. But that is to long a story to discuss here. Back to the point – I certainly agree with you that in the unlikely event something like that arises again in Europe, it should be made clear to the Europeans that they must solve their own problem and if they don’t, it won’t be solved. If that is clear, then they will solve them.
America has its own problems to solve. As an example, recall the long and massive suffering in New Orleans, while we were out trying to solve problems in far away lands.
markj – Actually, I don’t champion the argument that we need to promote a strong NATO [or NATO like org] dominated by the US and Western Europe. Is there a place in the world for a UN/NATO force? Depends. The US should not always be the money and power behind these organizations. But, since there are so many new [and weaker militarily and economically] members clamoring to become NATO members, the burden on the US and European countries like the UK, Germany, France etc to solve their every problem is monetarily burdensome and often militarily ineffective, [in my opinion]. Where were the rich Saudis/Arabs or our Turkish allies when Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt et al spiralled out of control?
Do we have a vested interest in some countries, more than others? Of course. Do we have alliances we must uphold? Of course. Is the elimination of al-Qaeda for the stability of not only the US, but our world necessary? Possibly, but at what cost? And in what country, and of what strategy do we pursue these small bands of terrorists? Do we always have the same interests as the UN mission or the NATO mission? Not always. Should Russia and China form their own military might? No, but as of today, they not only vote as one on security matters, they are often on the same [wrong] side when it comes to worldwide stability…
No, I don’t champion another monolithic and ineffective organization that is propped up by our military and money – think NATO forces in Afghanistan vs. American forces – total 130,000 NATO troops, 90,000 are Americans, out of the 50 countries that sent personnel there. I would say this is disproportionate, no?
I do believe that either through common regional alliances based on common goals, or some other mechanism, other countries must have significant “skin in the game” to solve their own problems, and stop waiting for the western powers to solve all of their ills. We as a country can no longer wastefully expend our military men and women, nor our financial well being.
Re: acting unilaterally
http://tinyurl.com/9ao8ykd
**
Congress Unlikely to Impede Iran Strike
By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff
Oct. 9, 2012, Midnight
If the next president wants to attack Iran to stop it from building a nuclear weapon, Congress seems unlikely to stand in the way.
Overwhelming majorities in both chambers are on record in support of a policy that rules out containment of a nuclear-armed Iran as an option. And lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, are eyeing new resolutions that would back Israel if it attacks and, potentially next year, authorize the use of U.S. military force.
“The Congress is ready to do what is necessary to support military intervention if sanctions don’t work,” the South Carolina Republican predicted in an interview last week.
SNIP
**
Re: Comment by Shrillary — October 8, 2012 @ 9:16 pm
“it seems to be an ugly side of humans throughout our history going as far back as BCE.”
—————–
Yup.
Have seen it in my life time and read about it throughout history is why I don’t buy into the wishful thinking of the far left or of the far right.
Dave Hicks – Wishful thinking? No. But hopeful? Yes.