NATO at 60

In an article for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, David Jones offers an assessment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at 60. Jones begins by pointing out that NATO is "flailing" in Afghanistan, which could be the biggest understatement of any made concerning the alliance and the war against Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

NATO is doing much worse than just "flailing." It is dying. Formed as a defense alliance to counter the threat of a Soviet invasion of Europe after World War II, NATO seemed to have lost its reason for existence after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The alliance remained uncertain of its future until the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when NATO invoked the collective defense article of its charter and joined the United States in prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism.

The results have been less than spectacular. Inadequate troop contributions and restrictive national caveats limit the effectiveness of European contributions to the alliance's effort in Afghanistan, forcing the United States and a handful of other nations, most notably Great Britain, Canada and The Netherlands, to do the vast majority of the fighting and dying. Repeated calls by military commanders on the ground have been met with virtual silence from European governments and with increasingly loud opposition from European publics. The United States has learned over the past several years that NATO as an organization cannot be relied upon in the fight against Islamic extremism. Jones characterizes Afghanistan as "a bridge too far for NATO." But it's more than that. Afghanistan is quickly becoming the alliance's graveyard.

President Obama entered office promising to pressure America's NATO allies to contribute more forces to the war in Afghanistan. Thus far his requests have garnered only minimal contributions that are more gestures of good will than meaningful efforts to fulfill NATO's article 5 obligations. If NATO cannot find its way in Afghanistan, it is once again left wondering what the future holds for it.

Jones concludes that NATO is not an "out of area" alliance. That may well be true. If it is, the question then becomes this: what is NATO's purpose? Who is the enemy that will unify NATO member states around a common mission / purpose? It certainly is not a semi-resurgent Russia that has thus far demonstrated only an ability to exercise its power on a regional basis, and is not currently a military threat to Europe. If not Russia, then who?

Given NATO's ineffectiveness in Afghanistan and the uncertainty surrounding NATO's future, the United States should carefully consider its relationship with the alliance going forward. It may well be time to examine the possibility of forming enduring alliances with like-minded nations that are both willing and able to confront the threat of Islamic radicalism, and to leave NATO behind.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=98225