-
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
-
Flanby’s War
January 17, 2013 | 39 comments
Feature
NATO Reconsidered
Is it still our indispensable alliance? From our new April issue.
(Page 3 of 3)
ONE OF THE CLEAREST SIGNS of the Alliance’s identity crisis is its bloated PR operation — when its mission was obvious, it didn’t need an advertising campaign — euphemistically known as the Public Diplomacy Division. Its multinational staff of 125 labors “To raise the Alliance’s profile with audiences world-wide.” Equipped with two television and 10 radio studios, it generates a torrent of programs, press releases, pamphlets, magazines, DVDs, and audio-visual presentations. It also organizes frequent international conferences, seminars, and other media events boosting NATO. It runs the web-based natochannel.tv, where slick films show what it’s like aboard a submarine or to go on patrol in Afghanistan. But mainly it carries every speech, statement, declaration, and press conference by Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Variously described as dynamic, bossy, and high-handed, Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark, seems to think he is still leader of a country instead of a multinational organization where policy is made by consensus among members. “For him, ambassadors to NATO are just flunkies, he doesn’t bother to consult them,” one exasperated official of an Alliance member told me. Like a chief of state, he is given to churning out his own declarations on world crises that have little to do with Euro-Atlantic defense (Egypt, Libya, et al.), calling for the usual democracy, freedom of expression, less violence, etc., etc.
He travels widely promoting new roles for the Alliance. Just last February he was in Qatar and Israel selling NATO’s services in the Middle East. “NATO’s new strategic concept is relevant to the Middle East,” he explained earnestly to an Israeli newspaper. “It gives NATO a clear role in taking on the security challenges that will dominate in the 21st century…. I imagine anyone in the Middle East can see the relevance to your region.” But the secretary general appears subject to homesickness. As I walked through the quiet, mostly empty headquarters hallways one recent Friday with my NATO minder, we passed the impressive glass doors to his office. “Is he in?” I asked. “Not likely,” came the answer. “Every Friday afternoon he heads back home to Copenhagen.”
Rasmussen does get some credit for responding to allies’ prodding for reform, not that he really has any choice at this point. “We have committees for nearly everything,” sighs a headquarters official. “Whenever a topic has to be examined, like armament systems, they create a committee. We had more than 400 of them until we recently began eliminating some. Now there are 200 and we hope to get that down to 100.” NATO’s 14 agencies in seven countries, employing 6,000 people, with a separate budget of more than $13.6 billion, are also due for slimming one of these days.
The military command structure, still basically unchanged since the Cold War, is due to be reduced from the present 13 headquarters scattered among member countries — which value them more for job creation than defense. That will be a long and difficult reform, Stephen Flanagan of CSIS explains. “Right now they’re trying to decide which commands in which countries can be eliminated, but for some members that’s the only part of NATO they have in their territory, so they resist cutting. The new strategic concept gave a better sense of where the alliance should be going. Now the question is, will they really do it?”
What’s certain is that NATO will approach reform softly, softly. It is giving itself two to three years to implement changes, and few if any personnel layoffs are planned. As one official admits, “We hope to make savings, but the NATO budget is so complicated, it’s hard to put a figure on how much we’ll save.”
GOING GLOBAL IS CLEARLY one of Rasmussen’s top priorities. Two objectives, involvement in the Middle East and closer relations with Russia, worry many allies, especially when he acts like a loose cannon. He unveiled a Middle East peace plan of his own at a 2009 conference in Abu Dhabi, shocking ambassadors back at headquarters. “None of the NATO ambassadors or Missions had any advance warning of the statement,” leaked documents say. “Many acted with incredulity to his statement.”
He has been trying to cozy up to Russia, making him the first secretary general in NATO history to seem to believe the Russians can be trusted. Not everyone is comfortable with that. “The new members in central Europe joined the Alliance for protection against a resurgent Russia and want NATO to return to its original mission of collective defense,” says Marko Papic of Stratfor. “But Western members like Germany and France now consider Russia a partner, not a potential enemy. These incompatible threat perceptions make me wonder whether the Lisbon summit is not the beginning of the end for NATO.”
Defense analyst Thomas Skypek, a Washington Fellow of the National Review Institute who believes America should do a hard-headed cost-benefit analysis of NATO membership, points to France’s recent $2 billion sale of Mistral-class ships to Russia as an example of the lack of common threat perception. “What really is the Alliance’s mission?” he asks. “Ask the 28 member states and you’ll get 28 different answers.” The Mistral is a force projection helicopter carrier that can land 450 assault troops. France went through with the deal despite Washington’s protests and concern in NATO’s Baltic members over where Russia might project that force.
The U.S. Mission to NATO has warned Rasmussen off from exceeding his mandate, according to confidential cables released by WikiLeaks. “We strongly urge you not to get ahead of Allies’ deliberations by announcing new NATO-Russia initiatives that have yet to be formally considered by the Alliance,” said one. Another cable said that after a December meeting with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin, Rasmussen had exaggerated their interest in cooperating with NATO. (In response to my repeated requests, the U.S. Mission, the largest at NATO with 100-plus staff, declined to be interviewed for this article.)
Such differences within the Alliance about its proper mission are one indication that it has become a futile exercise in herding cats. Another sign is that several European members are already developing alternative, regional alliances while retaining the U.S.-supplied advantages of NATO. Baltic countries are talking with Nordics like Sweden and Finland about their mutual security. Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary are building a European security architecture in the Visegrad group. The European Amphibious Initiative led by France held its first out-of-area exercise last year in Senegal. And France and Britain recently signed a historic new defense agreement to pool and share military resources.
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to shoulder the bulk of the NATO burden. Ten years ago America accounted for about 50 percent of the Alliance’s total defense spending. Today that figure is up to 75 percent. Spending by European members has dropped $61 billion over the last two years. The French defense official quoted above says frankly, “Many European members are investing as little as possible in military equipment. As long as they think they can count on the Americans to provide AWACS, transport aircraft, and so on, why bother to maintain an adequate defense force?” Richard Perle agrees. “Other NATO countries are getting a free ride, and have been for a very long time. But even more now, because they don’t feel any sense of danger. During the Cold War you could push, say, the Germans to do more, because their security depended on NATO. Germany doesn’t depend on NATO anymore.”
MANY ON CAPITOL HILL are now looking closely at our relationship to NATO. Congressman Barney Frank, a ranking Democratic member of the House Financial Services Committee, argues that we should spend less on defending the wealthy nations of Europe. “NATO is a great drain on our treasury and serves no strategic purpose,” he declares. Without going that far it’s fair to ask that we re-evaluate our membership in the Alliance. As Senator Richard Lugar, Republican leader of the Foreign Relations Committee, put it in an e-mail to me, “The Alliance must be judicious about its missions. NATO should not function as a ‘universal peacekeeper.’ But NATO remains extremely important to U.S. security.” At Lugar’s request, the Republican staff of the committee is currently reviewing NATO’s mission, as well as its future role and financing.
To be sure, some instrument for mutual defense, like the Alliance’s Article 5 — an attack against one is an attack against all — is useful. Furthering interoperability of equipment so allied forces can act together is also worthwhile. But with American interest in Europe waning while concern over Asia waxes, it’s time to recognize that the rigid, fixed alliance of Cold War days is outdated and in urgent need of revamping.
“NATO is here to stay,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared with bravado at the December groundbreaking. As if an expensive new building project could ensure its survival and counter the growing doubts about it. The U.S. should send a clear message that a new, frugal defense era is here, and start by questioning the suitability of that exorbitant new headquarters. For such a message, the timing is perfect.
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
- Peace in Our Times
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The (Real) Great Divide
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
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