Does NATO matter? After all, this is a 60-year-old institution, created in the aftermath of WWII to keep the Soviets out, the Germans down, and the U.S. in [Europe] as the quip goes. Today, Germany is a critical ally rather than a wartime aggressor. The Soviet Union doesn't exist. (Although Putin is doing his best to recreate some of its glory days). And the U.S. is trying to extract forces from Europe to pivot towards Asia.
Shouldn't we put NATO out of its misery?
To answer that, just look at Libya -- and then Syria. In Libya, the hated dictator Qaddafi threatened to hunt down his own people in their homes and closets. At the request of the Arab League and Libya's opposition, NATO helped local Libyan forces fight back.
Very few Libyans were killed in the fighting. A madman who fomented war throughout Africa, funding noxious war criminals such as Charles Taylor and terrorists who brought down the plane over Lockerbie, no longer rules his people through fear. Civil society groups, debating organizations and meetings have appeared in a society formerly closed with an iron fist.
Libya isn't perfect. Tribal rivalries are flaring a bit in the South. Militias only recently gave up their guns. But it is largely peaceful, human rights abuses are minimal and democracy is starting to take hold.
Meanwhile, in Syria, we watch in horror as Bashar-al-Assad has killed more than 10,000 of his people. Many hoped that the apparently mild-mannered, British-educated ophthalmologist would change his country. He did not. Ruling a structure set by his dictatorial father and henchman, he rules through torture and murder.
Hope and naiveté does not fight such methods. Militaries do.
Sometimes, in other words, it takes a military alliance to bring peace and to protect innocent people. That idea is not popular in my adopted home of Boulder, CO -- where "a world without war" rivals "a kitchen without gluten" as the city mantra. But peace signs and good intentions do not protect people facing murder at the hands of their governments or rebel armies.
Boulderites are right that war is never good for children and other living things. It always has unintended consequences, and should not be undertaken lightly. Acting through NATO means that when military force is necessary, that decision is not made at the whim of a single country -- but by a group that shares values and intelligence, that can argue, debate and come to a strong and unified conclusion. That process is what makes a standing alliance so much more valuable for legitimacy than a coalition of the willing.
In Syria's case, of course, even NATO can't intervene; it is blocked from acting by the United Nations, the lack of Arab League mandate, and military realities. In the UN, China cravenly supports state sovereignty and Russia even more callously supplies arms to Assad. Meanwhile, those Russian weapons and the fractured state of Syrian forces preclude outside help, due to worries over casualties, and the possibility of accidentally helping extremists working amidst the rebels.
But it is better to stop one mass-murderer than none. In just my lifetime, NATO has helped to end genocide in the former Yugoslavia. It prevented Qaddafi from the slow-motion destruction that Assad has unleashed on his people. And it has allowed Europe to maintain its military force more cheaply, with integrated equipment and forces -- so that it could rebuild itself after WWII, keep peace on its own continent, and maintain smaller militaries in each country.
If I have that kind of track record at 60, I'll feel pretty damn good. So should NATO.
Follow Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@RachelKleinfel
Joshua W. Walker: Taking Advantage of Ankara's Resurgence with NATO
NATO massacre of Zliten civilians unreported by media
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25966
30,000 people were killed in Libya, which is evidently "very few", while 10,000 in Syria are "too many". Goodness, lady, are you even trying or the double standard goes so far that there is no need to cover it up anymore, its just assumed and accepted?
"But it is better to stop one mass-murderer than none." -- where were you in 2003, could have saved a million Iraqis.
Look at all those wonderful states these interventions have created: Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan... all great democracies on their way to peace and prosperity..wait, what?
There are 200 other countries in the world why is it the responsibility of American taxpayer to pay to police the world? Europe's NATO contributions have fallen to below 20% and their new austerity plagued feckless militaries lack any projective force.
By the way, Yugoslavia would have never taken almost a month if not for NATO, they were a hindrance.
NATO is now Snow White and the 27 European Dwarfs.
Furthermore, without the US, NATO would NOT have been able to overthrow Gaddafi , an African despot on their own doorstep who'd already lost half his country and military.
Explain to me how Greece contributes to the National Security of the United States to a degree that we need to protect them.
As for Syria is concerned, the US and the rest of NATO will get sucked in via treaty once fighting spills into Turkey.
Why is it the job of the US taxpayers and veterans to police the world?
Time to get out of NATO and time for Europe to pay for their own protection.
Since Pakistan closed the supply routes, it can even be argued that Russia is contributing more to the war in Afghanistan than the Europeans in NATO.
Really, it is as if the Confederate Army commanded by Robert E. Lee came into the North, occupied it, set up puppet governments and then enslaved all the dark skinned people, slaughtered their freinds, and called it liberation.
Which is EXACTLY what they would have done. What do you think would have happened?
But mostly, those operations fell outside NATO's own strictly defined mandate. It's supposed to be a defense organization, not a global policekeeping or regime change force. This mandate change - never voted upon, never ratified by national governments or parliaments - may have worked here and there, but does that mean we have to be comfortable with it?
As for cost cutting, that is of course true, but there's a downside - and Libya showed it. Specialization has meant that refueling and other activities could only be performed by the USAF, leading to a worrying dependence of Europe on the US. Without NATO, is it conceivable that the French and British would allow such a situation to develop?
I'm not saying throw the thing out, but it certainly needs fresh discussion and thought.
As in thousands or tens of thousands killed to prevent a hypothetical massacre?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_overall