Display:
just what military threat does the US protect Europe (EU, NATO) from?
Exactly!

I searched the US government sites for policy on Nato, and found very little--maybe I should have persevered.  But a very short speech from Bush at a NATO meeting answered why NATO was necessary.  

Our nations established NATO to provide security for the free peoples of Europe and North America; to build a grand alliance of freedom to defend values which were won at great cost.  We've succeeded, in part.

     The NATO alliance deterred the Soviet Union.  It provided the time and space for free peoples to defeat communism.  And it brought the Cold War to a bloodless end.

 Fine, mission accomplished and it was a great thing for the world, imho.  But Bush goes on to make a short comment about the future
Now, we have a great opportunity to build a Europe whole, free and at peace, with this grand alliance of liberty at its very core.

     That work has begun.  By bringing in new members, we extend the security and stability through central Europe.  By establishing the partnership for peace, we reached out across central and eastern Europe and Eurasia.

Why is it still "we"?  
By our actions in the Balkans, we halted ethnic cleansing in the heart of Europe and halted a dictator in the process.
Aren't these issues in reality European issues.  The EU has the finances to address these independently--and in many, perhaps most, are.  So in a post Cold War era, these issues need to be thought about in a new context--today's context.  I would imagine that the EU and the US would often act in concert.  At other times, various countries such as the UK would perhaps independently act with the US.  But it's time basic things such as NATO, American military bases in Europe, and other issues to be rethought, IMHO.  I for one would support a mutually developed plan between the EU and the US to close US military bases in Europe over some time period that made sense--maybe a 5 or 10 year period.  And for Nato to be redefined at a minimum,, and perhaps disbanded.  I would think many, maybe most, on this site would agree.
by wchurchill on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 01:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure I agree about the disbandoning of NATO. At some point you get to the question of whether Western values are desirable or not, and with a global UN that has a strongly non-Western viewpoint on many issues, isn't there a place for an organization that is in fact, bluntly representing American and European values?

It seems to me that one can argue about the structure of NATO, and the membership, and some of the activities, but when you get right down to it the West is a minority in the world, a rich, privileged minority, and if you want to take a strictly fair approach, a first step would be a substantial redistribution of wealth from North America and Europe to South Asia, China, etc.

Perhaps this is one of those "elephants in the living room" that cannot be discussed...

by asdf on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 09:29:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AQre Western values military ones?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 11:02:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I respect your view, though I disagree at this point.  But I realize and accept that one needs to be very careful about tearing down an institution that has served its constituents so well.  And Nato certainly did that during the Cold War.

But, times change, and institutions need to respond to those changes, or cease to exist in their current form.  I'm concerned too, that American and European values are no longer shared,,,,or at least are taking divergent paths.  

I wonder too, if it wouldn't be healthier for Europe to have to make clear choices about military spending.  I may be wrong, but it seems to me the existence of Nato and a strong US military presence, has a tendency to minimize those decisions, those choices, when placed in the context of all of the other political and social choices that are made in elections and in the ongoing political dialogue.

by wchurchill on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 12:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Recently I have been getting a feeling that "Western" really means "Anglo-American" and that talking about "the West" is just a way to keep Mainland Europe within the fold, but without really considering its interests or opinions.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 02:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, from different viewpoints, many of us seem to have arrived a this conclusion. I would not be opposed to an EU-US-Canada(-Russia?) joint military body/forum, be it named NATO or something else. (Though one less based on shared values or interests, as asdf suggests, but on the principle that talks and daily meetings greatly reduce the likelyhood of violent conflict.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 11:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW I will admit here that until there is still a pro-NATO majority in European allies' public opinion (check my transatlantic trends diary), even if reducing steadily, it's still only the time of advocacy, not policy re-thinking...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 11:14:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series