Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Of course the Europeans could act independently given the political will. But acting independently would entail duplicating NATO capabilities. What I'm arguing is that NATO exclusively serves US interests. It can only serve Washington or do nothing. That is the reason Bush hasn't tried to eviscerate it yet.
by generic on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 06:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Generic,

I'm not too sure about NATO serving US interests exclusively. It might appear that way but reality on the ground is something else, militarily and politically.

We do know that decision is made through concesus, i.e., if one of the members doesn' toe the line, a motion is defeated, US or no US.  

The US knows this, eg., when NATO decides to fund a reasearch program (something that happened recently), America backed it up to the hilt but Germany backed out so the project was killed. It's true that the US is often frustrated at the manner some of their motions are often defeated with a simple nay from one member nation but that's the nature of NATO.

But from there to say that NATO member nation troops committed to Afghanistan are inexperienced is taking a bit too far; Gates' whining has the opposite effect on  US allies NATO for that.

by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 07:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]


The US knows this, eg., when NATO decides to fund a reasearch program (something that happened recently), America backed it up to the hilt but Germany backed out so the project was killed. It's true that the US is often frustrated at the manner some of their motions are often defeated with a simple nay from one member nation but that's the nature of NATO.

That's why I said that NATO can serve Washington or do nothing. If the US can't get NATO to cooperate it can act alone. The reverse isn't true.

I think Gates sees the occupation of Afghanistan struggling and wants to shift blame for domestic consumption.

by generic on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 07:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the absolute, the US CAN act alone but will that be judicious? An example: Irag.

Another one is Afghanistan. America had to backtrack on their initial Afghanistan policy of going it alone and went back to the UN. Prior to UN decision or sometime in 2004 (no longer sure of the year), US was lobbying massively with NATO member nations to agree for them to back up their UN proposal that NATO be deployed in Afghanistan. They couldn't take on Afghanistan all on their own as they did not foresee the difficulties they would be encountering in Iraq.

In the end NATO was deployed to Afghanistan backed by a UN mandate to do so.

Would be terribly unjudicious for the US to act unilaterally. Roughly put, just won't work anymore or not unless they use their nukes.

by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"What I'm arguing is that NATO exclusively serves US interests. " -- Generic

Heh! Many Americans won't believe you; most believe that America is doing NATO member nations great favour or that America is providing the needed shield to protect them.

I would say the reverse is true, i.e., that NATO provides that missile shield or protection umbrella to prevent a full scale attack on America by some "rogue nations."

by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would say the reverse is true, i.e., that NATO provides that missile shield or protection umbrella to prevent a full scale attack on America by some "rogue nations."

I don't think NATO is primarily a military asset for the US. After 911 the US did not come to NATO for soldiers. It came to NATO for it's secret prison program.
by generic on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 08:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you say so...
by The3rdColumn on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 08:20:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series