Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

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 ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series