-
A Nation on the Edge
May 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
April in Paris
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
France Meets Ugly American
April 4, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Kerry Chéri
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Sarko Redux
March 11, 2013 | 4 comments
Feature
NATO Reconsidered
Is it still our indispensable alliance? From our new April issue.
(Page 2 of 3)
It’s a NATO that considers it has a universal mandate, and whose name, “North Atlantic,” now bears little relation to its activities. In years to come, this might turn out to be more than many members, including the U.S., bargained for. Could the Alliance operate anywhere now? When I asked a high NATO official, the answer was clear. “I cannot envision a future in which NATO is not called upon to generate power of whatever kind for crises anywhere in the world,” he replied. “We airlifted disaster relief into Pakistan. If you can go into Pakistan, what’s off limits?”
WITH NATO’s new vocation as a global, proactive, security, crisis management, peacekeeping, and humanitarian organization, it now commits Americans to fighting and dying in any hotspot on the planet. As a Cato Institute study puts it, “The transformation of NATO from an alliance to defend the territory of its members to an ambitious crisis-management organization has profound and disturbing implications for the United States… [with] the potential to entangle [it] in an endless array of messy, irrelevant disputes.”
In the best bureaucratic tradition, the Alliance grew geometrically, metastasizing from its core area to the Baltic States, Central Europe, and, heaven help us, the Balkan powder keg. Enlargement aggravated its already complicated, consensus-based, decision-making process. Difficult with 16 members, it becomes virtually impossible to make timely, coherent operational plans with 28, even with — or because of — the more than 5,000 meetings it holds every year. “NATO’s enlargement [has] increased the complexity of an already complex NATO bureaucracy,” states another study by the Dutch institute, “and one wonders how NATO is managing its increasing bureaucracy with its complex procedures. One of the most important questions…is how this bureaucracy can remain effective and efficient.”
Some allies ask the same question. “There’s a tendency at NATO to create numerous bureaucracies, and they’re not terribly effective,” a senior official at the French Defense Ministry told me. “With the British, we’re determined to slim down its command structure, which has become enormous, and reform its financial management.” The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said France is particularly unhappy with the way NATO spends money. “They have only a vague idea how much an operation is going to cost when they get into it, just presenting us with the bill once it’s under way. That’s no way to run an outfit that has to be cost effective, especially nowadays.”
Even the diplomatic perks and prestige of international functionaries, plus the prospect of spiffy new offices, no longer attract the best and brightest to NATO, to hear Richard Perle tell it. “Here’s an indication of where NATO stands today,” he says. “When I was in government during the Cold War, NATO was the prized assignment. Everyone in the diplomatic service wanted to be ambassador to NATO, military people wanted assignments there. It was the center of something important. It no longer is. The new dangers threatening us are no longer things that can be solved by an alliance like NATO.”
Prized or not, the civil-military bureaucracy has kept busy with things unrelated to defending member states. It has, inter alia, helped stabilize Bosnia, assisted peacekeeping in Darfur, combated ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (an operation the Cato Institute called “just shy of a full-blown policy fiasco”). And it became embroiled in Afghanistan.
THE MIXED MOTIVES AT NATO’s creation also marked its stepping into the Afghan quagmire. Was the International Security Assistance Force turned over to the Alliance because it was best qualified and equipped to handle the job? Or to make it appear a less American, more international effort? (Fully two-thirds of the ISAF troops are American; some countries have less than a token 10 personnel there.) Or as a costly, lethal way of modernizing NATO? As Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, testified to the House Armed Services Committee in February 2007, “The Afghanistan campaign could mark the beginning of sustained NATO efforts to overhaul Alliance operational practices in every domain: command and control, doctrine, force generation, intelligence, and logistics.” It could also, he implied, make or break the Alliance.
Right now NATO is positioning itself for a lifetime job in Afghanistan. Earlier this year its then senior civilian representative there, Mark Sedwill, declared that a long-term partnership would be required even after hand-over in 2014 to Afghan forces. NATO would then be in the business of Afghan socio-economic development. “We will be there as long as we are needed,” he promised.
Canadian general Rick Hillier, who commanded ISAF from February to August 2004, came away bitterly disillusioned (he went on to Canada’s top military job as chief of the Defense Staff). In his bestselling book last year, A Soldier First: Bullets, Bureaucrats and the Politics of War, he writes that “NATO itself was looking for something, anything, to do that would allow it to prove that it was still a worthwhile organization.” When he took over his command, Hillier was appalled by “NATO’s lack of cohesion, clarity and professionalism.” There was, he writes scathingly, “no strategy, no clear articulation of what they wanted to achieve, no political guidance, and few forces. It was abysmal. NATO had started down a road that destroyed much of its credibility and in the end eroded support for the mission in every nation in the Alliance…. Afghanistan has revealed that NATO has reached the stage where it is a corpse, decomposing.”
Strong words from a soldier known in Canada for speaking his mind. Small wonder that Hillier had little patience with NATO’s ponderous bureaucracy, with its “enormous numbers of high-ranking civilians and military — general officers were a dime a dozen…. It was a wonder that any decisions got made at all.” Today about 4,500 staff are at the Brussels headquarters. Along with thousands of others in its multifarious agencies and strategic and regional commands, they engage in a giddy flurry of activities. Many have only an imaginary relation to security. For example:
• The Academic Affairs Unit runs a fellowships program and organizes conferences, seminars, and visits for academics and think tank researchers to “project the Alliance’s point of view and strengthen information on its goals.” In other words, a glorified PR operation with academic pretensions.
• The Science for Peace and Security Committee “contributes to NATO’s mission by linking science to society,” whatever that means. Concretely, it funds grants for research on soft, fashionable subjects like civil science and environment.
• The NATO Undersea Research Center in La Spezia, Italy, has a vast program including Marine Mammal Risk Mitigation that studies the effects of sonar on marine animals, “to counter the threat from quiet submarines.”
• Then there’s the NATO Multimedia Library with its more than 18,000 books and subscriptions to 155 newspapers and magazines. And its annual Manfred Wörner Junior Essay competition with a $6,800 prize. And the NATO photo competition for young shutterbugs who learn that, for example, “Taking photographs of random strangers can be risky.”
Really lucky individuals from member states get to go to the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany. Located in the heart of the spectacular Bavarian Alps, the school is, as NATO puffs it, “a very special place…blessed with the beauty of the mountains.” After a grueling day studying intelligence or joint operations, participants can relax at the NATO Recreation Center with skis and snowboards and then get a massage.
About the Author
Joseph A. Harriss is The American Spectator’s Paris correspondent. His latest book, An American Spectator in Paris, was released this fall.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (54) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Joseph A. Harriss
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/28/nato-reconsidered
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- A President Loses His Power
- Of Wizards and Weapons
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Kenny| 3.28.11 @ 6:28AM
Time to put NATO to sleep.
It's a drain on U.S. taxpayers and a dangerous entanglement with the elites of Europe.
mames| 3.28.11 @ 11:39AM
And what pray tell did it do for us during the cold war all those years? Alliances usually end up dragging us into places we don't want to go anyway and we foot the bill to boot.
Alan Brooks| 3.28.11 @ 3:39PM
Let Russia protect Europe (Hee Hee). Perhaps China could get into the Europe protection racket. A lucrative enterprise. Come to think if it, it might happen someday.
Alan Brooks| 3.28.11 @ 5:54PM
Tim LeHaye might write a book:
'Gog and Magog, the Invasion'
$18.99, plus all applicable taxes
Alan Brooks| 3.28.11 @ 9:46PM
If disbanding NATO eases the way for establishing a worldwide islamic state I'm all for it. I for one will welcome my new masters.
Alan Brooks| 3.28.11 @ 10:32PM
Clint, whose colonel father was a martinet,
shouldn't take it out on Israel that his dad stuck a broomstick up his rear. Nor is ID theft a conservative thing to do.
Occam's Tool| 3.28.11 @ 11:28PM
Alan, the above comments regarding a new Islamic state is what Clint WANTS! Remember, he's a terrorist catamite!
Alan Brooks| 3.29.11 @ 12:08AM
And an ID thief, unless it is someone else- but it's hard to think of anyone else who would stoop that low. What did his father do to him? spank him? have the entire neighborhood to spank Clint with his clothes off?
Michael Tomlinson| 3.28.11 @ 6:34AM
NATO is an anachronism and it is time to either reduce America's role (especially expense) or totally shut it down. It achieved its mission -- defended Europe from the Soviet Empire and thanks to President Ronald Reagan's proto neo-con ideology of promoting democracy liberated Eastern Europe and brought freedom to millions.
Thanks to Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress we can no longer afford to use our military budget as a European welfare scheme. With the repeal of Obamacare and reducing discretionary spending by 24% or more the savings would go a long way in reversing the abysmal Obama economy.
Deborah D | 3.28.11 @ 2:05PM
NATO and the UN -- both long past their expiration dates, and they are smelling up the place. Dump them both.
Darin| 3.28.11 @ 7:35AM
NATO is the classic solution looking for a problem. Buried within its organization chart, there is likely an entry for "Department of Redundancy Department."
Dee See| 3.28.11 @ 7:38AM
"We are using MASSIVE third world
immigration to destroy British culture
once and for all"
-TONY BLAIR
Likewise France, Italy, Spain ----America.
AS the Globalists move into their new polished
digs in the southern hemisphere, or in Singapore
and RED China
AS the pensions are lifted, the currency is destroyed, the borders are being over-run
AS the culture,
after decades upon decades of Rockefeller
funded POST-moral 'social engineering'
is disabled
AS the middle class is stripped of identity, culture,
religion and nationality
AND AS a new sudra/plebian class is beng systematically
created via 'training' subliminal indoctrination,
drugged water and tainted drugs, cadmium/barium CHEM-trails etc. etc. etc.
HUAC meets NUREMBERG -----comes ringing
in our ears
AHHHHHHHH------------------------------!
martin j smith| 3.28.11 @ 7:55AM
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OBAMA DEFEATED, THEN WITH A NEW REAL PRESIDENT DEFINE FOR THE US VOTER WHAT OUR INTERESTS REALLY ARE ABROAD. AMONG THOSE INTERESTS SHOULD INCLUDE SUPPORT ( NOT THROWING UNDER THE BUS ) OF OUR ALLIES. AND DEFENDING US ECONOMIC INCLUDING OUR ENERGY INTERESTS. IF THE REST OF NATO IS UNHAPPY-TOUGH. LET THEM SPEND THEIR OWN DIME--OOPS EURO.
THE EU IS A DISGUSTING BUNCH OF SPOILED BRATS WHO GET OFF ON ATTACKING THE US REGARDLESS OF WHO IS PRESIDENT.
THE EU IS SORTA-KINDA WAKING UP ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM BUT--CONTINUE WITH THEIR ANTI-SEMITIC
POLICIES WHICH APPLY TO ISRAEL.
I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH TURKEY IN NATO BTW.
SO LIKE TO UN, WE SHOULD CUT BACK AND IF NEED BE CUT OUT UNLESS THE BEHAVIOR OF THESE NATO "FORCES" FITS INTO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY NEEDS.
SELFISH ? YOU BET. BUT I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF OBAMA AND BUSH AND CLINTON AND BUSH ETC.
Richard Baker| 3.28.11 @ 7:57AM
It's well past time for the US to move out and NATO to become a European-only organization. About all we're doing now is propping up the German and English economies, among others. Stack arms and let's come home.
davelnaf| 3.28.11 @ 8:14AM
Post-Soviet Union NATO's very existence is a graphic reminder that that organization is ALL about keeping the US in Europe and, of course, having us pay for a lot of Europe’s defense. NATO is also an example of how Washington could care less about how it spends taxpayer money. The current financial crunch could be seen long before it arrived and being the world's policeman continues to be more important for Washington than balancing the books or doing anything right by the US taxpayer. How about looking after the real interests of the US, which do NOT include seeing to the general welfare of the entire planet? Before US involvement in the Balkan crisis NATO members would not touch that thing until we got into it. And we were stupid enough to get into it—with, of course, a lot of help from Monica and Bill. If one needed an example of how really useless NATO is to the US you can’t come up with a better example than this, unless you throw in NATO’s token AWACs support immediately after 9/11. Having been in Afghanistan and seen just how little non-US NATO members contribute to that operation I am appalled and rather ashamed that we continue to allow that alliance and those Europeans to snooker us the way they do. It is all for the insurance policy they prize above all things, which is the solid promise that we will come to their defense if attacked. Which beggars the question: why can’t the numbskulls in Washington get Europe off our backs and maybe a lot of the rest of the world while they’re at it? Are they really that afraid of unintended consequences? If so, maybe they need to get into a different line of work.
Mimi| 3.28.11 @ 8:14AM
Should the U.S. cancel NATO ...related to LACK of funds ??? Yet supply " Black Farmers" with millions and more in some fraudulent LAW SUIT ? Common folks we must set our PRIORITIES !!!
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.28.11 @ 8:17AM
Joseph Hariss has displayed an appalling lack of knowledge about NATO and global affairs in general.
Even more worrisome, though, is the fact that he quoted the utterly discredited, anti-American, anti-defense, communist Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts (the most liberal state of the Union) as an authoritative source, and quoted him without checking whether what he's saying is true or not.
And what the extremely liberal MA Congressman said was 100% false, as always. The US is not spending money on defending European countries (i.e. not just defending them). The US spends money to defend ITSELF and, simoultaneously, Europe. 100% of these defense costs (which, by the way, constitute less than 15% of the total federal budget, less than half of all discretionary spending, and a microscopic 3.59% of GDP) would have to be borne with or without NATO - whether the US would be defending Europe or not. The costs of the Afghan War and the Iraqi war - unnecessary wars to be sure, but not connected in any way to Europe - would also be borne with or without NATO. Frank is a liar, and Harriss has irredeemably discredited himself by quoting him.
As for NATO itself: most of what Harriss cited is illustrative of the NATO before the 2010 Lisbon Summit, about which Harriss has evidently heard nothing except that it was held. At that summit, NATO leaders, at the urging of Robert Gates, decided to radically slim down the number of NATO agencies and NATO commands, to invest in alliance-wide missile defense systems, and to undertake a broader reform of NATO.
The collective purpose of NATO, contrary to the claims of Joseph Harriss, is clear, and has been written into the 2010 Strategic Concept. It is to defend the members of the alliance against ANY threat, conventional or irregular, nuclear or conventional. That is a much broader task than what NATO shouldered during the Cold War - and that is as it should be. During the CW, NATO's task was extremely narrow - defend against the Warsaw Pact. As an excuse, I could say that during the CW, there was no other serious threat to the US other than Red China.
But now, in the multipolar post-CW world, the US needs more partners, fewer enemies, fewer rogue states, and fewer terrorists. Bilateral and multilateral alliances are even more important now than during the CW. The US is no longer the hegemon of the world and needs its allies as much as they need America.
What Harriss and Barney Frank advocate is a return to an isolationist foreign policy. That policy worked very well during the 1930s, didn't it?
Harriss's critique of NATO is also internally inconsistent. On the one hand, he criticizes NATO for being supposedly useless to the US when the chips are down, but one other hand, he criticizes NATO for intervening in various countries around the world, including Afghanistan and the Red Sea. So where does he stand? FYI, Mr Harriss, the era of bipolarism is over and threats to the US are more diverse, dispersed, and numerous than they were during the CW. Somalian pirates assailing civilian ships pose a serious threat to the US and Europe - so much so that Europe is now talking to Russia about using the Transsiberian Railroad as an alternative to the seaways.
Of course, that doesn't excuse NATO for ANY for the shortcomings, wasteful expenses, and mistakes listed in this article. NATO must undergo radical reforms, just like the DOD has had to under Secretary Gates. Reforms which many bureaucrats, generals, and member states will oppose, but which are necessary to slim this bureaucracy down and keep it relevant.
But dismantling NATO would be a foolish mistake, which is why no serious politician on either side of the Atlantic Ocean advocates such a policy (FYI, Mr Harriss, Barney Frank is not a serious politician).
When your car breaks down, do you immediately dismantle it, or do you try to fix it (or take it to a workshop)?
With this article, Mr Harriss has irredeemably discredited himself. The AmSpec, of course, has discredited itself long ago.
Stormzeye| 3.28.11 @ 10:35AM
Spoken like a true European Social Democrat who wants the US to continue draining its treasury to support the Museum of Western Culture that Europe has become.
The reason for NATO has long passed. The pre-positioning of men and materiel on Continental Europe at one time avoided the possibility of having to launch another Normandy Invasion to save the sorry arses of those unable or unwilling to defend themselves. The fall and collapse of the Soviet/Russian Empire continues unabated and with it, the need for regional or collective defense organizations like NATO, the UN and the League of Nations. These organizations were the hare-brained ideas of Woodrow Wilson and other like minded One Worlders, also known as Liberal/Progressives, Social Democrats or in the U.S., simply Democrats. (The fecklessness and sad history of collective defense and collective security can be surveyed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_security)
Our twelve carriers and their fleets are not for the use of those who would rather spend their tax dollars on social welfare programs and then vilify the U.S. for not being as compassionate toward their citizens as they.
Sheila| 3.28.11 @ 11:05AM
Well said.
Thom| 3.28.11 @ 6:39PM
Stormzeye,
When you know how many carriers we have get back with the correct answer along with the correct number of deployable carries and correct number of air wings for those carriers. A hint, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Like most fools where as all things military is concerned you have no clue what it takes to project power and thus the infrastructure required to operate outside a few hundred miles of our own coast is a mystery to you. Take away all those bases in foreign countries and agreements we have to operate at non US bases and our Air Force has almost no capability to operate effectively with conventional weapons beyond US territory. Look at a map of the world and then tell me how the Air Force operates at all in the Med, Middle East or western Pacific without those bases in Europe, Middle East and Japan? Next comes the Navy and its Air Force which is a bit smaller than that 12 carrier figure you mentioned and it will get smaller at the end 2012. Without all those ports of call and associated bases around the world the Fleet would incur a significant increase in wear and tear on its equipment and suffer even more down time or just sit in continental/territories ports like it did on Dec 7th 1941. It is a long way from the Middle East to any US port to rearm, refuel and get routine maintenance done on major ships.
Contrary to the fantasy that says we are defending Europe, we are defending our own assesses and investments made in Europe over 6 decades. Those investments can’t be packed up and moved back state side and no one is going to buy a military facility and pay us what we have in them. Contrary to another fantasy you don’t get to use foreign soil for bases unless there is some sense of a two way agreement for mutual defense. That should be common sense given military bases are legitimate targets. The ultimate fantasy is that we even have the forces in Europe to defend it against what? Who? Most of our forces there are logistics and command structure. What combat units we keep there is for protection of our facilities and near term use in the Middle East if things blow up there. It is a good 5000 less miles to sail from our bases in Europe to the Middle East than from the East coast of the US. A deaf, dumb and blind termite can measure that on the map of the world.
When you boil all this down the underlying mindset here is the same head up your ass that got us in a sling in the late 1930s. Let us withdraw from the world and let it burn…. Which it will and in some places above 5000 degrees.
Try educating yourself about what it take to project power in the modern age rather than just posting links found on the internet.
LILLITH| 3.28.11 @ 9:48PM
Thom: I am sorry that your informed, well reasoned comments were ignored by the 21st Century Know Nothing crowd. Any one at all familiar with the military knows what you say is true.
Lillith
Stormzeye| 3.28.11 @ 10:32PM
Lillith,
The Know Nothings were "nativists" who were opposed to immigration out of a fear of Roman Catholicism which was viewed as an internationalist threat to freedom and liberty. Their platform took no position on foreign interventionism or projection of power. Tea Partiers, whom I assume you are alluding to as modern day Know Nothings, are frequently opposed to Illegal Immigration and not at all opposed to lawful immigration which has always served as the lifeblood of our country. As for my familiarity with the military, it is sufficient to argue with Thom and you. It appears that you share Thom's internationalist views. Does that mean you are opposed to interventionism unless a Democrat engages in it?
Stormzeye| 3.28.11 @ 10:10PM
Thom,
You suggest that I educate myself regarding the projection of power in the modern age rather than posting links? I'm sorry, I should have mailed the readers clippings from text books instead. Here's another link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....Navy_ships
It basically says that there are 11 carriers now in service with the USS Gerald Ford soon to be delivered. I guess I was wrong there too.
My reference to our carriers was simply a metaphor for what constitutes our ability to project power. The projection of power enables us to influence the outcome of events in the world. Our basing in Japan, Germany and Italy resulted from conquest; further, the Status of Forces and Mutual Defense Treaties subsequently agreed to with the successor governments don't rely for their continued existence on multi-lateral organizations with their attendant bureaucracies that are discussed in the article and alluded to in my brief post. Save your insults and pontification for the undergrads you would probably love to lord over in your fantasies.
Kenny| 3.28.11 @ 11:23AM
When the car proves to have outlived its usefullness, I'd junk it and get a new one.
But of course, if I was the guy in the repair shop, I'd encourage to owner to keep pushing the clunker.
So, just like the repair man argues out of his narrow self-interest, so do the supporters of NATO -- be they Eurotrash or those Americans somehow on the NATO dole ... or those in Eastern Europe whothink it is America's duty to fight & die to protect them from Russia..
Occam's Tool| 3.28.11 @ 11:30PM
Mr. Z, funny you don't look at aid to Israel that way.
NATO has outlived its usefulness. Our fight now is with Islamofascists, and NATO dies very little to help with that.
Louis Jenkins| 3.28.11 @ 8:19AM
Nice Digs. Unfortunately it will take all of the budget just to hire the lawn keeper. The US should be out of the UN, and out of NATO. But we keep putting our decreased valued funds into out dated, no one care, organizations. Don't be surprised if one day we wake up, look outside, and see blue helmeted soldiers on our streets. Then will NATO be our friend, or our enemy?
Kenny| 3.28.11 @ 11:24AM
No, then the Blue helments become the focus of target practice.
Long live the 2nd Amendment!
Nunya| 3.28.11 @ 1:42PM
Amen!
JP| 3.28.11 @ 8:21AM
NATO's mission ended in 1992. Its continued existence has more to do with Progressive politics than with any threat to Europe. Mission creep is not quite the right word, for the mission of NATO has never been concretely redefined.
But now we have some idea. The Europeans are pulling a Clinton (in this case it is the French). The Lybian mission is Sarkozy's Kosovo. He is politically in trouble, and this operation deflects (for awhile) his poor polling numbers. Like Clinton in 1998-99, this operation is designed to make him look "Presidential", and our President is more than happy to comply.
But make no mistake, if Qadaffy survives, the ball will be in our court and not the French. Last week a Marine FMF got a movement order and it is most likely headed for the Gulf of Sidra. The French will demand that the US send in ground forces and then blame the Marines for every single mishap. But if things go well (the Lybian Colonel is either killed and leaves), the French will take the credit and the MSM will celebrate the "New World Order" (that is until the new Lybian regime begins a jihad or the "Youths" in Paris go on another rampage).
Petronius| 3.28.11 @ 10:48AM
Well that covers it. While the UN is an institute for delected pols and unemployable intellectuals, NATO HQ will billet retired flag officers from the armed forces of the west as they continue to advise the Joint Chiefs and others in waiting. After all. They need a place to discuss their book deals and seminar schedules in private while our country is undermined and destroyed by our domestic enemies.
Doctor Right| 3.28.11 @ 11:21AM
It's past time to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and unburden ourselves of troublesome foreign entanglements.
Let the Europeans take care of themselves. If they're too lazy or stupid to sufficiently arm themselves against the encroaching Moorish hordes, so be it.
Fortress America will survive.
Nunya| 3.28.11 @ 1:49PM
Dr., while I agree wholeheartedly with your premise, I do have my concerns about your conclusion--"Fortress America will survive."
While I most certainly wish it so, I am concerned that the damage is already too deep to overcome. I believe we should get out of the UN altogether and at least minimize our presence in NATO, but as of now the current powers that be are determined to destroy what our Founders set in motion 235 years ago. Unfortunately, they may be able to do just that before it's all over....
Too Many Tims| 3.28.11 @ 11:32AM
That building looks like a giant zipper.
PattyMor| 3.28.11 @ 1:58PM
You know when the higher up build their trophy
office building, the end is near. Just ask the Sears Roebuck Company after they built the Sears Tower. NATO has outlived its purpose. Let's shut it down as we can't afford it anymore. Let the Euros defend themselves.
Al Adab| 3.28.11 @ 3:15PM
Following 9-11 NATO, for the first time in history, invoked article V wherein an attack on one is considered an attack on all. We have since seen the level of support we garnered from the alliance. Now we are engaged in Libya on behalf of our NATO allies oil supply. Certainly NATO was a major factor in cold war victory but just as clearly it has outlived its necessity. It is a good opportunity to review all of our strategic alliances and frnakly put our efforts and dollars where they are both needed and appreciated. I suspect there are few that fit the criteria.
Occam's Tool| 3.28.11 @ 11:32PM
Let's see: States worth having an alliance with--the UK (although declining each year) Israel, Canada, Australia. That's about it, as I see it.
ABNCP| 3.28.11 @ 4:07PM
The United States needs to first put a President and Congress in place that understands what the real priorities facing this nation are. NATO is no longer necessary as it is presently constituted (as far as this new headquarters is concerned, I don't believe it will ever be built). The United Nations is no longer of much use to any real Democratic Republic. We need to defund our participation in the parts of that organization that are clearly either a waste of money or are used to further a progressive radical agenda, which means most of them. There is no reason the United States cannot help build a group of nations dedicated to the defense of Democratic Republics. There is no reason this country cannot help build an association of nations that practice freedom and
that will exert tremendous influence over the rest of the world. Of course none of the above will ever happen until we put our own house in order.
WE THE PEOPLE have to come together and defeat the progressive radicals now in charge of the Democrat Party in this country. The moving force that can do this is the Tea Party, if it can organize soon and become a national party. Someone has to come to the top and become a take charge figure. One of the present potential Presidential people might be the one to understand that job could be far more important to the country that running for President
Habu| 3.28.11 @ 4:28PM
Usually the nexis of a topic comes close to the beginning but for me the crux of the entire article came in paragraph ten. Thus:
First, big bureaucracies never go away. They always find other pretexts to stay in business.
Now the topic du jour is the efficacy of NATO today and going forward, but one could easily insert any number of national and international organizations that are all sclerotic, except when fleecing the taxpayer. Our reward for the work most government departments do is Lilliputian compared to our return. Were they public corporations they would all be bankrupt.
Personally I don't even see wasting time in discussing topics like reforming departments or international organizations for there is too much vested ego involved in keeping them running.
If I could target ONE for elimination it would be the FED, a fraudulent and unaccountable pox on the average US citizen and yet they run OUR money.
But just to satisfy the thread, NATO is a calcine corpse that needs burial. It's mission is one for the last century and it has grown too large and inefficient. Replace it with a purely fight alliance, not a Wal Mart for world problems.
Jack in Wi.| 3.28.11 @ 11:24PM
For 100 years we have been defending Europe. To hell with it. let them defend themselves. We never should have left these shores in 1917. The world would be a far better place.
Kenny| 3.29.11 @ 6:59AM
You're 100% correct, Jack.
And today's Europe is going the way Hitler wanted -- a non-democratic government in charge with Germany in control.
fotograf kraków | 3.29.11 @ 12:41AM
The main problem is that Arabic culture partly refuses create them selfs as democratic . They would like to manage them selfs but in present mentality oit is impossible. To much old influences and businesses
C Smith| 3.29.11 @ 3:50AM
“No,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bluntly stated when asked on “Face the Nation” if the U.S. would intervene in Syrian unrest as in Libya. She defended her position by saying that the situations in Libya and Syria are respectively "unique." Yes, they are unique, but not for reasons mentioned:
Syria's human rights record is among the worst according to Human Rights Watch. Syrian secret police detain, torture, and are suspect in the disappearance of an estimated 17,000 political prisoners. Libya, by comparison, is not even in the ball park.
Syria, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), supports the following terrorist organizations: Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Libya of course is culpable for Lockerbie, but even here Gaddafi personal sanction on the matter is debatable.
Iran and Syria maintain a mutual defense agreement, while Iran and Libya are enemies with the former encouraging the West to arm their anarchist allies.
Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) and the capability to deliver them according to U.S.defense and intelligence reports. However, a September 2007 Israeli air strike is generally credited with putting Syria's nuclear program on hold. Libya, in stark contrast, has complied with the "world community," and what was her reward, "decimation":
"On December 19, 2003, Libya announced it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs. Since then, U.S., British, and international officials have inspected and removed or destroyed key components of those programs, and Libya has provided valuable information, particularly about foreign suppliers. Libya’s WMD disarmament is a critical step towards reintegration into the world community.... " (Sharon A. Squassoni and Andrew Feickert (Specialists in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division), CRS Report for Congress, Disarming Libya: Weapons of Mass Destruction, September 22, 2006).
Clinton's unsubstantiated preference of Syria over Libya is not an error in judgment, but rather something more sinister:
Frank Gaffney, a columnist at the Washington Times and unlike the media, recently made the obvious connection in an analysis titled “The Gadhafi Precedent.” Gaffney indicates that the hostilities initiated against Libya might soon be used to “justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.” Actually, Gaffney was too restrained in his analysis. The coalition's assault on Libya was a test run or perhaps a dress rehearsal of the "Expedient for Jerusalem":
Palestinian preparations for the opportune moment to initiate anarchy in Israel are complete, pending Secretary Clinton's affirmation of the Gadhafi Precedent. However, the situations in Libya and Israel are respectively "unique". Secretary Clinton and her coalition are unaware "the LORD hath chosen" Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 14:2), and has "chosen Jerusalem" (cf. 2 Chronicles 6:6) and unto Abraham has promised: "... all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Genesis 13:15).
Secretary Clinton and her coalition are also unaware the LORD doesn't settles His accounts on Friday, but has chosen one DAY in all eternity to judge the earth. Yet as that DAY draws ever nearer "the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" (Psalms 2:2-3). And Secretary Clinton and her coalition are arrogantly unaware the LORD "... will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people... and in that day will... make Jerusalem a burdensome stone... " (Zechariah 12:2-3).
http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....salem.html
Kenny| 3.29.11 @ 7:01AM
From Watergate to Cattlegate to Travelgate, the one defining characteristic of Hillary R. Clinton is that she's a bold face liar.
A.M. Mallett| 3.31.11 @ 1:19PM
What purpose does a treaty organization have for such lavish quarters?
Wil | 3.31.11 @ 1:40PM
Behold the central command center of the coming Global Monetary Union ...
New NATO HQ: 1.38 Billion
Propagandizing a culture into accepting that interdependence (once thought to beget subservience) is a reality of globalization which future generations must be taught to cope with: Priceless
Anne| 3.31.11 @ 3:30PM
I don't care if they build the Taj Mahal as long as we are NOT PAYING ONE RED CENT FOR IT !!!!!
ZZMike| 3.31.11 @ 6:53PM
Only 17 conference rooms for a 2.7 million square foot facility? I'd hate to be the conference-room booking contact.
"... fingers interlaced in a symbolic clasp of unity and mutual interdependence."
It looks more like a giant backhoe claw, laid open on the ground, ready to lift up and clutch things.
Some have argued that NATO's usefulness has passed (since the threats for which it was developed have long since gone). But still, has not our President told us that NATO will take the reins of sorting out the difficulty in Libya (and wherever the next one may arise)?
I leave it to more experienced people to explain what prerogatives "NATO" has in Africa (which does not appear to be anywhere near the North Atlantic.
On the other hand, it's time somebody else took the responsibility for protecting their interests - if indeed their interests lie in Libya.
Some commentors seem to be using a teletype machine (all caps). This guarantees they won't be read.
VR Enscoe| 3.31.11 @ 8:36PM
Why am I not surprised?? And a Chicago organization too...how convenient that most things ridiculous are coming out of Obama's neighborhood - including Rahm.....
chris mahoney| 4.2.11 @ 4:04PM
Other than the Baltics, it is crazy to admit former Soviet repulics into NATO. Do we really want to fight a thermonuclear war over South Ossetia?
Scott Moore| 4.4.11 @ 12:35AM
There is a time and season for everything under the sun, ....Atime to be born and a time to die......
NATO as a whole, as well as the U.N. for that matter, have served their purposes well but have lost their focus.
As Americans, w e should bail out.. If these other nations want our help or advice, they can ask for it or pay for it.
When the relevant become irrelavent, they begin to re-invent
Ultrasound Scanner | 4.10.11 @ 12:01AM
They would like to manage them selfs but in present mentality oit is impossible.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:14AM
With policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic slashing public spending and searching for ways to reduce military budgets, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has just begun construction of a splendiferous new $1.38 billion headquarters on a 100-acre site in Brussels.
Joe | 6.27.11 @ 11:15AM
I've expressed my objection to the inappropriate nature of the new headquarters here.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:20PM
is good