Bush: Leave NATO Alone

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Am I the only non-Russian who thinks NATO is too weighed down by history to be any effective? Its name invokes Cold War imagery of airlifts and agitprop. One of its members, Greece, is still squabbling about the historical name of Macedonia, a NATO aspirant. And many of its European members -- with World War II scars strewn across their continent -- remain too gun-shy to chase down terrorists in Afghanistan or stop genocidal killings in Bosnia. So remind me again: Why are we expanding this alliance exactly?

President Bush is breaking bread over borscht with our East European allies while dangling a prized carrot in front of them: NATO membership. Let's be realistic and honest though. Decision-making is already bogged-down with too many cooks in NATO's kitchen. Case in point is Afghanistan, where NATO shows signs of strains, lack of will, and no enforced rules of engagement. Second, the collective security mechanism, as articulated by the charter's Article 5, will get further watered down with new members. Were NATO to admit Georgia and a conflagration between Russian and Georgian forces erupted over Abkhazia, a breakaway province, by law, an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. Would Albanians, much less Americans, be shipped off to keep peace in the Caucasus? It's unlikely. Also, by adding more states with weak militaries -- virtually none of NATO's member states besides the United States meet the 2 percent criteria of military spending per GDP -- we really aren't making the alliance any stronger. Let's call a spade a spade: We just want these new members for their territory, not to reward them for their democracy progress (otherwise, why is Finland or Austria not a member?). Croatia will bolster our peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans. Ukraine would provide a buffer to Russia. Georgia would help us patrol a popular corridor in the Caucasus for terrorists and drug traffickers.

Seems to me we are bent on recklessly expanding NATO, without giving much afterthought to its overarching mission statement. I think it's merely a way to provide cover for an expensive missile defense system in East Europe that serves no purpose -- other than defense contractors' pocketbooks. I also don't buy this argument that NATO is the world's most successful military alliance -- frankly we don't know what a world without NATO looks like. Maybe a leaner, less-bloated alliance would be more successful at preventing genocides and chasing down terrorists.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for a strong NATO, particularly one with a broader mandate to bring peace to far-flung places like Darfur or Somalia, but only provided that new members bring something value-added to the alliance, meet their requirements, and do not complicate decision-making. I also hope that the tenured European members of NATO continue their heavy lifting. But that isn't happening. Bringing in a state like Ukraine, given its sheer size, airlift capacity, and wobbly politics, would severely alter the alliance -- the equivalent of allowing Turkey into the European Union. Not to mention its membership would needlessly upset the Russians at a sensitive time. Macedonia and Albania, both economic backwaters, hardly make sense for membership. Only Croatia, which has modernized its military and arrested the war criminal Ante Gotovina, really deserves to be included into the club. President Bush should focus on reforming NATO, not expanding it eastward.

Comments

[outnow]

NATO is part of the Grand Chess Game. It is being used as an instrument of conquest against the former Soviet countries. Old warriors never die, they just find new enemies. The Cold War morphed into the GWOT. Weapon systems are sold for immense profits while resources are targeted. The missile defense shield is a big war toy. There are so many huge financial fortunes to be made that NATO's mission is obscured. Just who is the "enemy?" Bush is saying that it is Iran. Bush is "spreading liberty around the world...the calling of our times." Somehow Vladimir Putin doesn't see things that way. Neither do many in Europe.

Henry Luce stated that as the coming of the American Century,

"The time had arrived (for the United States) to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit, and by such means as we see fit."

That was in 1941. Luce owned Time, Life and Fortune Magazines.

The Project for the New American Century laid out a similar global manifesto before the turn of the century. The Bush Doctrine even after the fall of the Soviet Union is to "establish U.S. full spectrum dominance everywhere." The U.S. now has over 1,000 military bases with new bases in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, the desert of Qatar, the Gulf of Oman, the Horn of Africa and wherever a compliant government may be bribed or coerced.

[wm1066]

Lets see... how does Bush benefit from watering down Nato? Well there are some pretty big oil interests in Russia...hmmmm

[mgloraine]

NATO should be appropriated by the European Union as the basis for a collective defense organization going forward, with its focus remaining on its mission of protecting Europe (the EU) against outside aggression. The US should resign or get booted out as a result of being geographically out-of-bounds, i.e., not a part of Europe or the EU. Consideration and inclusion of new members should be based on criteria relevant to European security policy, not the agenda of US imperialism.

NATO in its current incarnation is a relic of the Cold War dominated by the US nuclear arsenal. As such, it still stands as a threat to Russia and its sphere of influence. It's not surprising that Bush's intention to expand NATO into the former USSR looks like an aggressive continuation of the Cold War, which practically demands the formation of an alternate defense structure to oppose NATO expansion. At the moment there is no formal organization anywhere which can match and oppose NATO; why is Bush intent on forcing somebody to create one? To start a new arms race? That (not surprisingly) sounds profitable for defense contractors...

[PackyJ]

The line "Seems to me we are bent on recklessly expanding NATO, without giving much afterthought to its overarching mission statement." also describes Dubya pretty well.
Bush has been in the Oval Office for eight years "without giving much afterthought" to his actions.
His NATO efforts underscore his desperate need to find SOMETHING positive to leave as his legacy, everything else he has done has pretty much gone straight to hell.

[ThermoChemist]

I was thinking the same thing. I doubt that Bush has given this any degree of thought. He just wants "something" to place as a "positive" as his list of achievements (like you said, his legacy). Something like "Hey look, everybody. I increased the number of NATO members while I was President. How dare anyone say I didn't accomplish anything...!"

[RepublicanBrain]

NATO reform is a good thing, and should be done before any other member-states are added. However, let's not rule addition out just yet. If we can use them to help reform it, then it should be done.

[RoseMerry]

I think the time for NATO is over. No more of this planetary gangbanging - time to civil the nieghhood and play nice.

[Horst]

I'm a European living (happily) in the US. While most Europeans have a low opinion of Bush it's certainly not as strident as one might think. Europe has serious demographic problems and is begrudgingly accepting the fact that America does a far better job of assimilitating immigrants. Post-colonial Europe is extremely weak militarily, a major factor in the awkward military expansion of the US. Europe has virtually no airlift capacity and the tiny European navies can't project power - or humanitarian aid - anywhere. Let's face the Europeans couldn't even handle Milosevic without US help.

[wadenelson1]

NATO is looking more like the Emperor's club every day except its the United States that pays the tab for everyone. Why the heck do we even need NATO anymore? It's only useful goal was to defend Europe against a Russian invasion. That threat no longer exists.

[julianne]

Like many Americans, Europeans didn't sign-up to rebuild an tribal and archaic Afghanistan, rather to capture or kill Bin Laden as soon as possible. The Czars tried to defeat the Afghans and then the Soviets. Before the Soviets invaded, whatever tribe happened to be dominant would pay those guys living in the mountains and passes not to shoot and rob the tourists on Tuesdays and Thursdays (the truth). This is just another pit of money and bodies for the energy syndicates and the insane globalists that don't want to live in their own hemisphere but rather go our and destroy weak, indigenous civilizations and steal their resources. These are the same oligarchs who have colonized the U.S. and have no long term plan for anything except themselves. The same people that promulgated the Iraq invasion. The Europeans just turned down the freak cretin's attempt to expand NATO because they don't want NATO to be used by the white trash syndicates that he fronts for.

[grammology]

It is of course, and what is really chilling, today we add and tomorrow the same country we support will vote against us. It's troubling and sad that things never change. The only word I might add to your description of NATO is convoluted...

Dorothy from grammology
remember to call gram
www.grammology.com

[stonepier]

The Soviet Union collapsed 17 years ago. I don't think it's 'reckless' to allow Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato. They should be encouraged, not denied.

[Gasparilla]

For exactly what reason? I agree 100% with this article. There are only negatives as far as I can see. It seems to be the contention of the Bush administration that if you can do something, you do it, the consequences and expenses be damned. The reason for NATO was to stop Soviet expansionism. I think we accomplished that?

[Purple Girl]

I'm over Global "Alliances' that do nothing but drag each other into regional scuffles- the one with t he Biggest Brother Wins- and Resolves Nothing of global Importance. Toss Out the UN, the World Bank too- they either DO NOTHING or Creat Issues to Profit From. -Global Inc's

[Paskalis]

You are twice-wrong about Greece. Far from a dispute over history, Greece's "squabble" with Slav-Macedonia is over that country's territorial claims against Greece's northern province with the same name. Greece's military budget is over 5%. I agree with the main point of your article, however.

[Paskalis]

You are twice wrong about Greece. Far from an "arcane" argument, Greece's dispute with Slav-Macedonia is with Skopje's territorial claims against Greece's northern province with the same name. Greece's military budget is over 5% (and so is the budget of some other NATO countries). I agree with the main point of your article, however.

[RogerHWerner]

Your thoughts more or less parallel mine. Expansion of NATO reminds me of the alphabet soup of alliances the western powers established in the 1950s and 1960s in an effort to encircle the USSR (CENTO, SEATO, etc). On paper, these alliances looked splendid but in reality that were perfectly useless and committed the US (along with UK, Australia, and NZ) to protect nations that were essentially incapable of defending themselves.

The fact that the NATO powers fully supported the Afghanistan invasion and now seek to back peddle is troublesome. We may debate forever the legality or usefulness of the Afghanistan invasion but setting aside the finer points of realpolitik for a moment, NATO remains engaged in Afghanistan and the question today is whether the alliance fulfills its commitment or pulls out leaving that nation to the Taliban or other extremist groups. I don't have an answer to this question but I fail to see how expansion of NATO provides one. I agree that, watering down NATO with militarily and economically weak Eastern European nations (and Georgia) seems counterproductive and provocative towards Russia. Perhaps there is alternative way of protecting Eastern European nations (I am a little unclear who they must be protected from) short of full NATO membership.