This goes back to the comment I made a few days ago where I said this;-
At some point somebody is gonna have to deal with the question of what NATO is for. It's an alliance...but for what ? Right now it seems that the USA is working under an assumption that all NATO forces should ideally be enfolded into an American Foreign Legion. Subject to direct American command and for the explicit intent of enforcing American Foreign Policy. This is because most NATO member states haven't had the spine to assert policies that run separately, let alone counter to, American interests. So it has been natural for the US to assume that what they want to happen, we will naturally agree to. Hence Gate's confusion when some countries appear unenthusiastic. From an American viewpoint, Albright's question can be re-phrased "what are NATO forces for if we can't use em ?"
This is because most NATO member states haven't had the spine to assert policies that run separately, let alone counter to, American interests. So it has been natural for the US to assume that what they want to happen, we will naturally agree to. Hence Gate's confusion when some countries appear unenthusiastic. From an American viewpoint, Albright's question can be re-phrased "what are NATO forces for if we can't use em ?"
They can easily strongarm the UK and probably Germany and Poland as well. However, even with Sarko, I doubt France will play ball and a lot of other NATO countries would probably coalesce around a French position if it were pushed through.
As with so many things, American bullying may actually prevent what they want from taking place. keep to the Fen Causeway
