Happy 60th Birthday NATO; Time to Go Out of Business?

As President Barack Obama prepares to attend the 60th anniversary summit of NATO
in Strasbourg, France and Kehl, Germany on April 3rd and 4th the question has to be asked among all the hoopla and celebration: Is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization still necessary?

Everyone will welcome France back to NATO's integrated alliance structure and a document will come out of the summit proclaiming the strong transatlantic unity and strong bonds of NATO. We will all agree that it was very successful in its initial goal of keeping the peace in Europe and Soviet troops from crossing into Europe.

But, the Soviet Union is gone and has been for a long time. The main threat from Russia comes not from their military but from their economic role as a provider of natural gas and oil to Europe. Europeans fear a cutoff of energy from Russia more than any type of military action.
NATO was successful in its original goal and Europe is a peaceful place these days; the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact no longer exist; and the European Union now encompasses most of the countries of Europe.

It is a completely different situation now than in the 1940s and during the Cold War years. NATO was successful and NATO was competent and NATO kept the peace but a new era is upon us and NATO is grasping for a new role and it may not have a role to play in 2009 and beyond.

The main threat today to Europe and the United States is the economic meltdown and the huge financial crisis we are all facing. Certainly we are facing terrorist threats but is NATO really the organization to keep terrorists at bay?

The crunch for President Obama will come in Strasbourg when he asks for more troops for the NATO mission in Afghanistan. And, the reply from many of our NATO allies will be sorry but we will not provide any more troops because we do not see Afghanistan as that large of a problem. Europeans are more inward looking today. They see no huge threat to their countries from Afghanistan.

President Obama is seeking more NATO troops from countries who do not want to provide them and if they do provide them have certain restrictions--not going into battle in the southern part of the country--that makes them almost useless.

We now have a military alliance where many of the members do not want to engage in military operations. This is hardly a recipe for a successful future for NATO.

When I interviewed NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer several years ago he told me: "We cannot lose in Afghanistan. We have to succeed in Afghanistan. If we fail, then who will have confidence in us again? Our credibility as NATO, as the Euro-Atlantic community is on the line. And our credibility is one of our strongest assets. To preserve it, we have no choice but to succeed. NATO has a tradition to keep. NATO has never made empty promises. So NATO should not make empty promises now."

Well, NATO is not succeeding in Afghanistan at the moment and the political will seems to be missing from many of our NATO allies to continue the mission in that war torn nation.
There are many military threats in the world today that will rear their ugly head and take over the headlines from the economic crisis in the near future but the question is: Is NATO the right military organization to deal with these crises?

Maybe we should call NATO a huge success, pat every one on the back and dissolve the military organization and move on. Could the European Union take on the military role?
Could a new military organization take the place of NATO?

Instead of planning new missions around the globe for NATO why not ask the basic question: Is NATO still necessary anymore?

NATO did its original job and the peace was kept in Europe and Soviet tanks did not attack during the Cold War--its goals were met and met successfully so why keep coming up with new out of area missions that do not have the full backing of most of the members.

Re-think NATO. It may be time to say happy birthday and goodbye.

Comments

[MilwaukeeDan]

Mr. Guttman. in other news, Croatia and Albania join NATO. This must be an April Fools thing, right?

[foster1990]

Why does it bother you?

[MilwaukeeDan]

Things like NATO cost money, I'm not sure where you have been the last 12 months, but we are in a financial and economic crisis, read the headlines. If the EU wants to have a military wing, let them, as long as they pay for it.

[foster1990]

After all, this country has a security agreement with New Zealand, an isolated country with no enemies and no strategic importance to us.

At the very least, NATO membership for Croatia and Albania and the standardization of their armed forces improves security in the Balkans and Adriatic areas. Albania, despite its small size, is important to the West not least for purposes of future pipeline development in the Eastern Mediterranean. And both of these countries have EU memberships in their very near future....

Try not to piss all over countries that want to be our allies just because they seem irrelevant to you.

[foster1990]

If NATO isn't needed anymore, is ANZUS? Are our security agreements with Japan and SK necessary? Should we designate major non-NATO allies?

NATO is evolving into a formalized military alliance between the US and EU. It's critical. Should Tblisi and Kiev join? Maybe, maybe not. Something tells me they won't. But think twice before you advocate scrapping this countries most important security pact for no good reason.

[MilwaukeeDan]

NATO is a Cold War relic that should have gone the way of the Soviet Union. NATO now is all about the American Empire and it's expansion. As a military organization, it's a paper tiger without the United States. Get rid of it.

[kimleehan]

We should get rid of Nato and than the United Nations, After all there is only one remaining superpower in the world, which is the United States. The United States should become the worlds police. I mean look at the great job we did bringing democracy to Iraq.

[holeybuybull]

NATO's time has surely passed. The only reason for its existence is to project military power. The beast of the MIC must be fed with money and lives. Disband NATO and strike a blow for peace.

[foster1990]

Um. Disbanding the Western worlds largest security pact is a blow for peace? Remember this current debate about NATO was started by Pat Buchanan.

[CanisLatrans]

NATO is no longer needed. It is a granb opportunity to say "now that France is back in the fold, the US can exit with confidence" and be all diplomatic about it. Let NATO become the "European Military" now if they so desire; or if they want to become, instead, a vast isolationist power of loosely-co­nfederated states, that's fine too. Europe is big enough to stand on its own, and with just a few exceptions have done little more than provide token flag-waving forces.

[foster1990]

NATO isnt just about European defense. Remember Canada is a crucial member. NATO is about the axis between Europe and North America, and it benefits the US just as much as it benefits West or East Europe.

[MilwaukeeDan]

What benefits are those?