Wed Jul 8th, 2009 at 05:57:19 AM EST
I find myself unable to comprehend Atlanticists: writing on Atlantic Community, Jan Techau argues that the greatest threat to European Security is that NATO might fade away:
On July 7th, NATO will officially kick off the process of drafting a new strategic concept for history's most enduring military alliance. Officials, soldiers, think tankers, and strategists from all 28 member states will convene in Brussels to ponder ideas on how to make the Atlantic Alliance fit for its seventh decade in business. The task is a huge and timely one. The old strategic concept is ten years old. And NATO is an alliance ridden with self-doubt and plagued by serious political and military rifts. But it is neither the demanding military situation in Afghanistan nor the more-dead-than-alive relationship with its most important partner - the European Union - that is most troubling for the alliance. Also neither Russia, nor Iran, nor Al-Qaeda will break up NATO any time soon. The biggest threat is, once again, decoupling. But unlike in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when political leaders in Europe were deeply concerned that a war-weary US could retreat and leave its old-world partners unprotected, today's threat is real.
I just cannot understand the frame that these people are using. It seems to me that keeping NATO important is itself a goal. NATO is not a tool with which to achieve things, but an end. The train of thought seems to be: Nato is intrinsically important and good and wonderful, therefore we must find reasons to justify its continued existence and prevent any threats to its existence.
Does not compute. Can anyone explain it to me?