NATO has been with us 60 years. The organization staged the usual
self-congratulatory anniversary ceremony last month, with
President Barack Obama in attendance. Exactly what the
organization is supposed to do these days isn’t clear, however. A
herd of heads of state and government celebrated the alliance’s
birthday without bothering to explain its purpose.
The original goal of NATO, articulated by Lord Hastings Ismay,
the alliance’s first Secretary General, was to keep the Russians
out, the Germans down, and the Americans in. The first objective
was firmly achieved two decades ago when the Berlin Wall fell,
the Eastern European satellites spun out of Moscow’s orbit, and
the Soviet Union collapsed.
Russia’s oil-based rise has changed nothing: Moscow might be able
to impose its will on neighboring Georgia, which was part of
Imperial Russia as well as the USSR. But there will be no Red
Army romp to the Atlantic. With ten times Russia’s GDP and nearly
four times Russia’s population, Europe is more than capable of
defending itself.
Meeting the second goal arose naturally out of the rubble of
World War II. A few neo-Nazis might still meet furtively to
discuss the coming of the Fourth Reich, but most Germans have run
far from their past. Today the Bundeswehr is primarily a
recruiting mechanism for social service agencies; indeed, when
drafted two-thirds of young men choose alternative civilian work.
The once feared German warriors are a memory.
The problem is not a lack of individual bravery. As of March, 34
German soldiers and policemen had been killed in Afghanistan. But
Berlin insists on deploying military units to the north, where
they aren’t needed. And they no longer are combat-worthy.
Reinhold Robbe, the parliamentary commissioner for the military,
observed: “Plainly put, the soldiers are too fat, exercise too
little, and take little care of their diet.” London’s Daily
Mail headlined one story: “German soldiers are ‘too fat to
fight’ Taliban because they drink so much (while our boys go
dry).” Europe can breathe a sigh of relief — no one need worry
about German soldiers singing Deutschland Uber Alles and
goose-stepping down their own, let alone someone else’s, streets.
Which leaves keeping America in, but to what end? The U.S. isn’t
needed to protect Europe from the Russians or Germans. Instead,
Washington provides prosperous and populous allies, whose
collective economy and population are larger than that of the
United States, with a defense insurance policy at American
expense. If the Balkans get messy, Washington sends in real
military forces. If something should go terribly wrong with
Russia, we know who the Europeans would expect to save the day.
Hint: It wouldn’t be the overweight and well-lubricated
Bundeswehr.
Other members of NATO want the U.S. to believe that it gets
something out of the alliance. But it’s hard to see what. Albania
and Croatia joined the organization this year. They added
geopolitical liabilities rather than military assets to NATO.
Proposals to bring in Georgia and Ukraine, which are involved in
complex geopolitical disputes with Russia, risk another
confrontation with nuclear-armed Moscow, this one in the latter’s
rather than America’s backyard, and over conflicts in which
America has no stake.
The U.S. isn’t even getting much out of its allies for its number
one geopolitical objective of the present, Afghanistan. The
British, Danes, French, and Australians have fought. So have the
Canadians and Dutch, who, unfortunately, will be going home over
the next year or two.
But most of the nearly two score countries (NATO members plus
other states) have followed the German model — modest
detachments deployed in regions and under conditions, called
“caveats,” designed to ensure that they are never shot at.
Indeed, American commanders say that ISAF stands for “I Saw
America Fight” rather than “International Security Assistance
Force.”
Consider the record of the Czech contingent. The Herald
Sun (Australia)
reported that “When asked by the Britons to attack Afghan
rebels, the commander of a special operations unit (SOG) said
‘we’re not going to, it’s dangerous,’ then ordered his men to get
in trucks and return to the base.” At another point the SOG
commander rejected a British request for aid by noting that his
35-member unit was on vacation. This is “help” that Washington
doesn’t need.
The Obama administration is having no more luck in enlisting
additional European assistance than did its predecessor. So far
the response to the president’s plea,
writes William Pfaff, is “65 men with two F-16s promised by
Belgium; 12 trainers and a small troop contingent (probably from
the gendarmerie) for the election in Afghanistan next month, with
a larger French contribution to the new, combined European
Gendarmerie Force that has already dispatched 300 to 400 men and
women, all to improve Afghanistan’s own national police, so far
without conspicuous success.” The Europeans also are promising a
“civilian surge.”
It comes as no surprise that the Europeans see little cause for
fighting in Afghanistan, but NATO invoked Article 5 in 2001 with
great fanfare for the first time as a show of support for the
U.S. If the alliance is not needed to defend Europe and won’t aid
America elsewhere, then, really, what is its purpose?
Some alliance members recognize that NATO is failing its
Afghanistan test. Warned British Defense Secretary John Hutton:
“Success in Afghanistan is fast emerging as the test of NATO’s
relevance in this new post-cold war age.” If the alliance can’t
act there, then “NATO will risk being irrelevant, a talking shop
where process is everything,” he adds.
In fact, that’s all NATO has become.
It’s time to give NATO, at least an American-dominated NATO, a
decent burial. The U.S. should pull out, leaving the Europeans to
construct whatever continental security architecture seems best.
If they want to sort out the Balkans, guard the Caucasus, or
engage in some other far-flung mission, they should be free to do
so. Without American forces.
At the same time, Washington could work out agreements with any
European nations with real militaries that see the value of
continued security cooperation. That likely would include Britain
and France. And maybe Germany, if its soldiers would lay off the
sausages and beer.
