What is NATO for? It was created to protect Europe from the Red
Army. However, the Soviet Union has disappeared. The Warsaw Pact
has dissolved. The Europeans have ten times the GDP and three times
the population of Russia.
Why are Americans still defending their prosperous and populous
allies?
If NATO was merely a social club, it wouldn’t be so bad —
though the dues remain a bit high. But the organization has become
a transmission belt of needless war. Washington dragged reluctant
Europeans into a decade-long nation-building crusade in
Afghanistan. Paris and London dragged reluctant Americans into a
foolish attempt at regime change on the cheap in Libya. In both
cases everyone would have been better off had everyone remained at
peace.
Now Turkey may drag Americans and Europeans alike into another
unnecessary but potentially much more costly conflict involving
Syria.
Syria’s burgeoning civil war has spilled over into Turkey.
Indeed, Ankara is ostentatiously meddling in the conflict. Despite
Turkey’s denials, the Erdogan government is channeling weapons and
other equipment to rebels, hosting the “Free Syrian Army,” and
sheltering Syrian opposition activists. Lately Ankara appears to be
attempting to create “safe zones” within Syria for
military operations against the Syrian government.
Thus, tensions between the two governments were rising even
before the Syrian military destroyed a Turkish RF-4E reconnaissance
plane. Turkey claimed the plane was merely testing Turkish radar
capabilities, but some observers suspect the crew was conducting
surveillance. Damascus insisted the aircraft was in Syrian
airspace; Ankara said the jet had strayed over Syrian territory but
was above international waters when downed.
After the shoot-down, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
announced that “Every military element approaching Turkey from the
Syrian border and representing a security risk and danger will be
assessed as a military threat and will be treated as a military
target.” His government deployed anti-aircraft guns and missiles as
well as tanks and other armored vehicles along its border. While
Ankara should win any clash between the two, taking on Syria would
be no cakewalk. The latter’s military was about 60 percent as large
as Turkey’s before Damascus began deploying units to suppress
domestic protests. Since then defections and desertions have
undermined the latter force, but Turkey’s military has been
stretched for years by anti-insurgency operations.
The Erdogan government understandably wants NATO at Ankara’s
side. After the airplane incident Turkey reportedly requested that
the alliance draft plans for a no-fly zone to “protect” its
territory. Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc insisted that the
alliance should consider the incident an attack on all members
through Article 5, which governs defensive use of military force.
Ankara then drew back from confrontation. Although NATO condemned
Syria, alliance chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that Article 5 was
not discussed when the organization met. He added: “It is my clear
expectation that the situation won’t continue to escalate.”
Others also sought to downplay the prospect of conflict. Wyn
Rees of the University of Nottingham argued that “The NATO members
are not looking for a pretext on which to intervene and therefore
they do not want one of their members to drag them into such an
action.” Dutch Foreign Minister Uris Rosenthal declared: “Military
intervention in Syria is out of the question.”
Wars have a way of happening unexpectedly, however. And Ankara
might be tempted to provoke war in order to force regime change.
Imagine if Turkey attacked Syrian military units in their own
territory, sparking retaliation by Damascus followed by a call from
Ankara to NATO for support. The U.S. could not easily remain aloof.
Bomb Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya which threaten no
American allies yet ignore combat between Syria and long-time NATO
member Turkey? That would be the end of the official
Washington-Ankara friendship, beautiful or otherwise.
The fact that the “North American” Treaty Organization could
land America in yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East
should trigger a serious U.S. rethink of the alliance. Not the
usual reaffirmation of NATO as “more important than ever.” But a
challenge to the raison d’être of an organization which decades ago
fulfilled its original purpose.
Alliances make sense when directed against a common outside
threat. The Soviet Union constituted one. Then there’s reason to
back one’s partners essentially unconditionally — even when the
parties’ interests are not always aligned. This is especially true
when smaller states are dependent on a large, more distant power.
If you want to be protected, pay the price.
However, the trans-Atlantic alliance can’t be justified on these
grounds today. Neither America nor Europe faces a hegemonic threat,
or any other danger beyond its capability to respond. Russia
doesn’t qualify. Nor did Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Syria
certainly doesn’t do so.
That doesn’t mean there’s no cause for diplomatic and even
military cooperation involving other issues when interests
coincide. But there’s no reason to believe that interests
automatically will coincide on every issue. There’s certainly no
justification for automatically backing other governments,
especially when they choose to go to war for their own purposes. As
Turkey might against Syria.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a nasty character and good
people should wish him ill. However, joining Syria’s expanding
civil war would be bad for Western peoples and possibly for the
Syrian people. If Ankara decides to intervene militarily, it should
bear the full cost of doing so.
This isn’t a problem limited to Turkey. Proposals to bring
Georgia and Ukraine into NATO are short-sighted for many reasons.
The most important is that the U.S. has no cause to make their
disputes, especially with Russia, America’s own. There’s certainly
nothing at stake which warrants promising to go to war for them
against a nuclear armed Russia. Indeed, Tbilisi shot first in its
short 2008 conflict with Russia, yet apparently still expected U.S.
backing even while outside the alliance.
Instead of expanding or even maintaining NATO, Washington should
be leaving NATO. The security argument for Washington’s defense of
Europe disappeared years ago. The U.S. is essentially bankrupt
while the Europeans have a larger GDP than do Americans. Other
issues warrant cooperation with rather than defense by
Washington.
The worsening confrontation between Turkey and Syria offers a
sharp reminder that NATO is not only expensive for but dangerous to
America. This is no time to preserve an outmoded alliance for the
sake of nostalgia. The U.S. cannot afford to be drawn into
additional disastrous wars in Syria or elsewhere.
