The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Just What is NATO For?

Text Size

Just What is NATO For?

By Doug Bandow on 10.4.09 @ 5:30AM

Now Bosnia wants to join. Reports the Kuwait News Agency:

Bosnia-Herzegovina Presidency Chairman Zeljko Komsic on Saturday submitted a request for receiving the NATO membership action plan. The military alliance's Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said after his meeting with the Bosnian delegation on Friday in Brussels that the bid was "the best way toward lasting stability in the Euro-Atlantic region." "I would like for all Western Balkans countries to be integrated into NATO, " he said.

The Bosnian delegation also included Foreign Minister Sven Alkalaj and Defense Minister Selmo Cikotic. The action plan in question is meant to prepare candidate countries for a full-fledged NATO membership. Rasmussen also discussed Bosnia's contribution to the NATO mission in Afghanistan with the Bosnian delegation, and the progress made in the Partnership for Peace program.

What conceivable value does Bosnia--an artificial state which remains sharply divided internally along ethnic lines--add to the Western alliance? Why should Americans promise to defend such a bizarre and unstable geopolitical creature?

Bosnia's request illustrates yet again why Washington should step away and leave Balkans affairs to the Europeans. Even if the latter make a mess of it--again!--it doesn't matter for the U.S. which is, if people haven't noticed, rather busy elsewhere.

View all comments (7) | Leave a comment

Rich| 10.4.09 @ 11:20AM

The Europeans did such a good job before, right. Why don't we quit the pretenses and call "realism" what it really is, bigotry.

S.L. Toddard| 10.4.09 @ 11:40AM

"The Europeans did such a good job before, right. Why don't we quit the pretenses and call "realism" what it really is, bigotry."

What a worthless post. Why waste the time to even write something so bereft of substance? The implication is that America must offer security guarantees to the entire world or else it is racist. It is a position so idiotic and indefensible that it's not even worth the scorn I've already lavished upon it. Pathetic.

Thanks again, Mr. Bandow, for being one of the very few sane voices at this publication.

Red Phillips| 10.4.09 @ 1:49PM

Thank the Good Lord for Bandow's sanity amongst all the war crazed interventionists who post here.

Red Phillips| 10.4.09 @ 1:49PM

Thank the Good Lord for Bandow's sanity amongst all the war crazed interventionists who post here.

J.C.Eaton| 10.4.09 @ 5:33PM

Treaty terms can vary widely I suppose, and probably each and every treaty out senate ratifies and our presidents sign doesn't commit our citizens to risk their necks on the matter. But IF said treaty DOES commit us to that kind of obligation....then for the love of Mercy, make goddam certain it's an alliance worthy of the sacrifice.

Tim| 10.5.09 @ 9:48AM

Bosnia can't defend itself, much less contribute anything to an alliance. Plus, half the population wants to kill the other half. If Bosnia attacks itself- which happened many times in the last century, who would NATO support? Insanity.