Future of Nato
The United States' military alliance with Europe - the cornerstone of American security policy for six decades - faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.
In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.
"Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think-tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/06/10/nato-gates-criticism.html
Canada's defence minister said he understands the frustrations of U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates when it comes to sharing the burden of NATO, adding that Canada does not want to see a "two-tier NATO."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/10/pol-mackay-gates-nato.h...NATO is a global equivant of a street gang. The powerful countries and their friends form a gang to look after their (the big guys) interests. Canada has been as essential part since the start. It would hardly be North Atlantic without us. And there were few contrary voices (the CCF though) when we joined. I hope Secretary Gates is right. I liked his stand on Libya
before Obama and Semantha Powers talked him out of it.
Of course Jack Layton has already stated NDP policy on that:
"The NDP position is that it would be better to change NATO than to abandon it. We've been very clear we don't think that NATO is the appropriate kind of institution for the future, so we would work to transform it..."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529
Obviously the union activists he spoke to weren't able or inclined to change his mind...
I guess that's as opposed to the two fiscal Frankenstein parties that have basically run the country like a banana republic and saddling us with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal debt since 1975.
I wouldn't get too excited about Defense Secretary Bill Gates' appraisal about NATO.
He's a very politically ambitious (and cynical) pragmatist who's looking to feather his future political career. Think high (elected office.) Think even future President.
Although I do hope his words become a prediction that turns out true.
Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires, and another failed quagmire war in Libya could spell the death of NATO.
Let's hope.
Canada's Top Soldier In Running For Highest NATO Job: Source
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/20/canadas-top-soldier-in-running-f...
"Canada's top soldier is in the running to become NATO's most senior military officer, according to sources within the alliance. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, is said to be keen to become the alliance's Chairman of the Military Committee when the post becomes vacant from September.."
perfect choise - closest thing to an American officer you can get without it actually being one. Fought in Iraq for them too.
Well, let's hope after these Afghan and Libya war fiascos are over NATO will no longer exist.
Buddy will become the nonexistent head of a nonexistent organization.
Caissa, a couple of things:
1. NATO's origin was not couched in the Cold War rhetoric of stopping "Soviet expansion". Nobody believed that crap. Instead, it was put forward as a common European security organization after the horrors of WW2.
It just so happened that when the Soviets applied for membership, they were refused. So they formed their own Warsaw Treaty organization. It would be more truthful to describe NATO as aimed at overthrowing the Soviet regime, continue to make mega profits for military producers with a justification for military production ad nauseum, and stopping progressive social change in general.
2. NATO is already, for all intents and purposes, on it's way to becoming two-tiered. OTOneH, NATO's puppet masters want countries like Saakashvili's militarist Georgian regime to join NATO and provide that brutal regime with billions in "aid". OTOtherH, there is no way in hell that if the Georgian regime, or any other 2nd class NATO member, decides to go to war with Russia than the NATO masters will consider that an act of war on them. (Recall NATO official doctrine/propaganda that an attack on one is considered an attack on all.)
So NATO is two-tiered since the official doctrine applies to some members and not others. This, in my view, will be the well deserved DEATH of NATO. Long overdue, of course.
I wrote about this in one of the Russia/Georgia/Ossetia threads that went down the rabbit hole ... but no one was interested as I recall.
2. NATO is already, for all intents and purposes, on it's way to becoming two-tiered. OTOneH, NATO's puppet masters want countries like Saakashvili's militarist Georgian regime to join NATO and provide that brutal regime with billions in "aid". OTOtherH, there is no way in hell that if the Georgian regime, or any other 2nd class NATO member, decides to go to war with Russia than the NATO masters will consider that an act of war on them. (Recall NATO official doctrine/propaganda that an attack on one is considered an attack on all.)
[Bolding added]
This is the bullshit I'm addressing.
The 'security' NATO was ostensibly meant to provide was one way: The U.S.A. providing 'security' for Europe. It was never (seriously) intended for Europe to provide 'security' for the U.S.A., except in the eyes of the military-industrial complex (to justify the very profitable for them, arms race) where should the U.S.S.R. expand militarily, Europe would be the battlefield and thus absorb the worst of the violence, destruction and aggression.
One has to look at the intent of the original framers of the NATO Charter to see/expose the "attack on one is an attack on all" for what it is - bullshit.
In order to do this, two questions need to be asked:
Q1: An attack against whom?
A: NATO - Western European countries plus Canada and the U.S.A.
Now we already know that the 'defense/security' was unilateral - the U.S.A. provided security for Western Europe, not the other way around. If the U.S.A (and/or Canada) were attacked the U.S.A. would provide the defense/security. Everyone realized that Western Europe would be unable to come to America's and/or Canada's defense, nor was it expected. Thus (an attack scenario on) the U.S.A. can be excluded.
Q2: What constitutes an "attack"?
A: The original framers of the NATO Charter would have envisioned a military attack by conventional Soviet military forces coming through the Fulda Gap. WW3 would have been fought much like WW2 with the possibility of escalating into a nuclear war later.
The Korean War (1950-53), the Hungarian Uprising (1956), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1964-1975), the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), the Mozambique Civil War (1975-1995) - and American ("capitalist") and Soviet ("communist") expansion into Africa - were proxy war sparring matches between the American and Soviet Empires.
Why is 9/11 different?
1. 9/11 were acts directed at the U.S.A. (and not Europe.)
2. 9/11 consisted of civilian criminal acts of terrorism. They were civilian acts perpetrated by non-state actors (i.e., civilians) - not military attacks nor acts of war carried out by the military or military personnel acting in that capacity by a recognized nation-state (i.e., by state actors.)
The original framers of the NATO Charter never imagined or envisioned such a scenario.
The correct response to 9/11 would have been for the FBI, CIA, all the other NSAs and NDAs (National Security and National Defense Agencies), RCMP, CSIS, MI-5 and MI-6, INTERPOL, Pakistan's ISI, Afghanistan's NDS, etc., to search for the perpetrators and either capture and bring them to justice or kill them in the attempt.
Responding to 9/11 by waging war on Afghanistan and thus collectively punishing the people of Afghanistan for the acts of a few criminals who had no ties to the people of Afghanistan, was illegal and constitutes multiple crimes against humanity and the ultimate crime: A war crime.
By October 7, 2001 the Bush administration had its reasons for waging war on Afghanistan:
As George W. Bush launched USAF bombers and attack aircraft that rained bombs down on the people of Afghanistan that night,
Laura Bush was on U.S. television explaining to the American people the reasons for the war on Afghanistan thus:
1. Vengeance for 9/11.
2. To 'get' Osama Bin Laden.
3. Regime change: To 'destroy' the Taliban.
4. (Although it wasn't put in these words, but to speak plainly:) Afghanistan was being destroyed and Afghans were being maimed and murdered so that Afghan society could be rebuilt. In this way, Afghans could enjoy liberty, democracy, security and economic prosperity. Afghan women could experience equality with Afghan men. Afghan children could have an opportunity to an education - especially girls.
5. The best defense is a good offense. By waging [a pre-emptive Strike First illegal War of Aggression] war [on] against [the people of Afghanistan] Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, we are defending ourselves (against future terrorist attacks.)
These are the same bullshit excuses Canada and the Western European countries used (still do) to explain why they are at war against Afghanistan.
Since the U.S.A. has been in a number of overt as well as covert wars since WW2, U.S. governments, the military and the Fawning Corporate Media have no compunction calling them wars.
Canada and the Western European countries not having such luxury, their governments, militaries and FCM (and many of their citizens) can't even wrap their tongues around the word "war," calling them "our mission in [place name of country here]" instead.
I'm trying to make some distinctions between public record / statements by our own and the US militarist regimes and what was really going on.
When Bush made reference to the doctrine of "an attack on one is an attack on all" he was correct about the official doctrine. However, in response to the request of the Afghan regime for the Americans to provide evidence on the events of 9-11, the Americans refused and basically said that they would bomb as it pleased them. And they did. And they are, still, 10 years later.
I don't think there was ever a serious threat by the Soviets to attack North America. "Rolling back communism" (by murdering P Lumumba in Africa, overthrowing J Arbenz in Guatemala, threatening the Italians in '48 with a virtual naval blockade during their election, etc, etc, etc, ) and acting as a brake to genuine progress around the world, and at home - these were more the aims. I don't think it's helpful to regurgitate the inflated early NATO claims as if they were facts.
When Bush made reference to the doctrine of "an attack on one is an attack on all" he was correct about the official doctrine.
No. He was not correct. He corrupted the (original) meaning of (that part of) the NATO Charter.
It's the leverage the Bush administration used to get the other NATO countries to join its (the U.S.A.'s) war on Afghanistan.
It's the excuse/fig leaf the other countries used to explain why they joined the war on Afghanistan.
You are looking at the symptoms, not the cause of the disease.
The disease is "exceptionalism" of the American Empire.
The cause is the (often unstated) firmly held belief that the American Empire and its willing partners/satraps Canada and the E.U. have the (unquestioned) right to "improve" the world by moulding it to their liking through waging war against whomever and whenever they damnwell please.
Just look at the American Empire's covert war on Pakistan, the war on Somalia, (until recently?) the war on Yemen, the saber rattling and sanctions against Iran, the tit-for-tat military exchanges between the Koreas that have resulted in the deaths and injuries of Koreans, the Saudi proxy war on Bahrain and our latest war on Libya.
I don't think there was ever a serious threat by the Soviets to attack North America. "Rolling back communism" (by murdering P Lumumba in Africa, overthrowing J Arbenz in Guatemala, threatening the Italians in '48 with a virtual naval blockade during their election, etc, etc, etc, ) and acting as a brake to genuine progress around the world, and at home - these were more the aims. I don't think it's helpful to regurgitate the inflated early NATO claims as if they were facts.
NATO is a military alliance.
Since the 1999 bombing and occupation of Serbia/Kosovo, NATO has been involved in overt or "hot" wars.
(You could also have mentioned the 1946-49 Greek Civil War.)
NATO had nothing to do with that other stuff - i.e., covert or "cold" wars conducted by the Pentagon/CIA with (sometimes) the U.K. thrown in with its military intelligence and (possibly) SAS troops.
The present purpose (since 1999) of NATO is to make Western European countries partners in crime in the American Empire's quest for aggressive military expansion.
NATO consists of foreign mercenary divisions of the American Empire.
Like the Foreign Legions of the Ancient Roman Empire.
Like the French Foreign Legion.
Like the Foreign SS Divisions of the Third Reich.
NATO is a dull club that is used in overt "hot" wars.
In contrast, CIA, Airborne, Green Berets, Special Forces, the SAS, MI-5, etc., are the more 'refined instruments' that are used in the more dirty covert, 'black ops' "cold" wars and operations.
NATO is used for direct military occupation.
The Pentagon/CIA etc., is used for covert "control", "influence" and "manipulation."
When Bush made reference to the doctrine of "an attack on one is an attack on all" he was correct about the official doctrine.
No. He was not correct. He corrupted the (original) meaning of (that part of) the NATO Charter.
It's the leverage the Bush administration used to get the other NATO countries to join its (the U.S.A.'s) war on Afghanistan.
It's the excuse/fig leaf the other countries used to explain why they joined the war on Afghanistan.
You are looking at the symptoms, not the cause of the disease.
The disease is "exceptionalism" of the American Empire.
The cause is the (often unstated) firmly held belief that the American Empire and its willing partners/satraps Canada and the E.U. have the (unquestioned) right to "improve" the world by moulding it to their liking through waging war against whomever and whenever they damnwell please.
Just look at the American Empire's covert war on Pakistan, the war on Somalia, (until recently?) the war on Yemen, the saber rattling and sanctions against Iran, the tit-for-tat military exchanges between the Koreas that have resulted in the deaths and injuries of Koreans, the Saudi proxy war on Bahrain and our latest war on Libya.
I'm going by this:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
NATO official doctrine
I'm going by this:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Notice the constant references to armed attack which would indicate a planned military attack/campaign by (a) recognized nation-state(s) and by state actors.
Article 1 among other Articles shows what a bunch of hypocritical bs the North Atlantic Treaty (or Charter) is:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Reread Article 6 (1)
It doesn't say anything about where these Parties have national sovereignty. It only talks about territories where they have jurisdiction and then later explains this by going into further detail about attacks on occupation forces, vessels or aircraft of the Parties "in the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
This is about overseas military bases and the overseas deployment of military forces in these areas.
The glaring contradiction between NATO doctrine and what NATO is, and has been, doing is a good angle on public debate. It would be, for example, a way for the milqtoast NDP (having now jettisoned the whole idea of withdrawing from NATO from their policy manual) to raise substantive issues in Parliamentary debate on whatever recent atrocities NATO is involved in (Afghanistan, Libya, yadda yadda).
The original intention of NATO was defensive.
After Rwanada (1994) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) - which was conceived by NATO - NATO's mission statement or purpose changed - it became a weapon of offense.
The concept of "peacemaking" was created. The U.N. was the peacekeeper - it attempted to end war through peaceful means. NATO is the peacemaker - it attempts to end (a) war(s) by waging war. NATO picks a war or civil conflict, choses (a) side(s) then attempts to end the war or civil unrest by waging war against whom it deems the 'bad guys.'
Since NATO consists of the U.S.A. which has the most formidable military in the world combined with the militaries of advanced Western European countries, it is assumed NATO will win by outfighting and 'outwarring' the 'bad guys.'
Combined with these conceptual changes to the purpose of NATO it expanded into areas outside of the North Atlantic starting with the 1999 bombing, attack, invasion and occupation of Kosovo, followed by same with regard to Afghanistan in 2001 to the present and with the current air war on Libya. Even though Libya made no armed attack against any of the territories under the jurisdiction of the NATO Powers or against any of their forces, vessels or aircraft in the Mediterranean Sea or North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Who's next and what is the future of NATO?
With the American Empire in financial ruin - Barack Obama referred to the U.S.A.'s financial state in his recent speech on U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan - and Western Europe (and most of the world) in the Great Depression II, when the Afghan war 'domino' finally falls, these combined conditions could mean the end of NATO.
Other future NATO victims:
Syria. Possibly.
Iran. Not likely, the EU would never go for it, would spell the end of NATO.
Asia and Pacific: Korea. Under Herr Harper Canada would go for it. Otherwise, not likely as the EU would never go for it. Also would spell the end of NATO. China, with its friends and allies Russia and India, would provide a check against NATO's effectiveness in these areas.
Asia, Latin America and Africa?
We've seen NATO being used against Libya. Conventional warfare may be effective in North Africa, but it wouldn't be effective in Central (Equatorial) or Southern Africa. Will Nicolas Sarkozy or France suddenly gain a renewed interest in Algeria, or Spain in militarily retaining Western Sahara? If so, will they be able to convince the U.S.A. to join in such military misadventures?
Concerning Latin America, Africa and Asia, I think the U.S.A. will continue to rely on the activities of the Pentagon/CIA which are more focused and cost-effective.
That is if the Pentagon/CIA also continues to exist much longer; another organization that needs to disappear for the benefit of humankind.