Is NATO dead?

[Blackhawk]

NATO's not dead yet, but it's got a few malignant tumors in it.

 

[RON in PA]

What is the purpose of NATO in the current world, it was set-up in 1949 to stop Soviet aggression against Western Europe. There is no longer a Soviet Empire/Warsaw Pact. Does NATO have any reason for further existence?

I do find it interesting that with all of La Belle France's resistence she still has sent an aircraft carrier group to the eastern Mediterranian. My prediction is that if Saddam does not step-down and go into exile and we get into a shooting war France will join-in.

 

[cuchulainn]

BBC World Radio just reported that today's NATO meeting broke up after just 15 minutes due to the division. (Approx 18:00 GMT)

 

[M67]

Basing your decisions on a consensus vote rather than good & evil, right & wrong is what's bogging down the members of NATO.

Actually, in this case it seems that the French and the Germans, at least some of them, think that they know better than Dubya what is good or right. In this case I think they are wrong, but for a lot of Europeans it is a point that not everything that comes out of DC is necessarily right just because some American politician says it is. We are sovereign nations and have no obligation to jerk our knees and say yes, sir, Mr. President, just because some Americans seem to think we should.

That said, what is happening now is a disgrace. I am particularly disappointed with Germany, I don't think most NATO members have taken France all that seriously anyway, and half the Belgians speak French... More than anything it is probably some French, German and Belgian politicians who try to play the populist game, gambling that this will win them more votes than it will cost them. Selling out an ally in the process isn't going to cost a politician much sleep, most of them would sell their own mothers for a few votes anyway.

16 NATO countries do stand behind Turkey because we think it's the right thing to do. Most Europeans (at least the ones I know ) will probably support the US if/when a war with Iraq becomes a fact. But we don't want to go to war just because the US government says we should, we want to decide for ourselves that it's the right thing. To make an informed decision we need access to some of the same information and intelligence your politicians are basing their decisions on. For what it's worth, in my country there is already some discussion aobut what our possible contributions to the war effort could be, I guess that means that most people expect us (through our government) to decide to take part in a US lead coalition, although some leftists protest, more than anything because it makes them feel good, I think. Just like those people in Seattle or wherever.

Actually, there are reasons even for us to be in the alliance other than our benevolence to protect everyone else.

I guess one could argue that we (Western) Europeans spent 50 years guarding the US East Coast from communism. The US would have provided the largest single military contribution, but on the other hand we would have provided the battlefield, a rather important ingredient in a war.

 

[WilderBill]

My guess is that, in the future, if a NATO member needs help, they will bypass NATO and ask the US directly. Why ask for something that they have shown that they will not provide?

Between that and the breakup of the USSR, NATO is pretty pointless.

 

[Dannyboy]

Germany has a fairly large Turkish population. I guess we know how the Germans feel about them.

 

[T.Stahl]

So actually we're already protecting our part of the Turkish population.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

A minor correction chaim: The Prussians, by the 19th century, were encouraging individual initiative more than any army in the world. The classic German armies of both World Wars, particularly the Second (War that is, not Army) were trained in a framework of thought so everybody would be on the same page, but they were force-fed less than anybody and were generally the exact opposite of Hollyweird stereotypes.

Having said that, a half-century of "Mea maxima culpa!" and a guilt trip lasting a generation or two too long has really taken its toll on their warrior tendencies.

Steve

 

[chaim]

I guess one could argue that we (Western) Europeans spent 50 years guarding the US East Coast from communism. The US would have provided the largest single military contribution, but on the other hand we would have provided the battlefield, a rather important ingredient in a war.

You could certainly say that too. If there had ever been a war in Europe that somehow didn't go nuclear the European civilian populations would have still been decimated (especially if it became a "limited" nuclear war with tactical nukes as was the early NATO strategy). Of course had strategic nukes gotten involved the civilian populations of every nation involved and a lot of others would have been hard hit.