US General asks for more troops

[Berkut]

As for your last sentence, people in the defence sector have been having that exact debate since at least Kosovo.

And yet NATO is still here, so apparently the idea that NATO should just dissolve hasn't exactly won out.

But, since you don't know about that, it didn't happen. So much for your superior argumentation. 

Ahhh, I see you have moved onto the vague and indecipherable personal insult portion of your "superior argumentation".

[Warspite]

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

"Completely and utterly"?

Who are you arguing with?

The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.

I'm "going on" about the debate of the purpose of NATO that has been going on for the last twenty years. Of course, since you have never thought about it, it is clearly not an issue.

You claimed that CCs was demanding that NATO "utterly and completely" change - in a manner that of course suggests that this was some kind of incredible request. Those are your words.

Of course NATO does not need to do any such thing to create the capability to deal with situations like Afghanistan. The members just have to spend some more money, time, and blood. Bringing the purpose of NATO when it was formed a half century ago into the argument is just a red herring.

If NATO were simply a command structure, and a piece of paper with a treaty on it, then you would have a point - but it is more than that. It is the basis of transatlantic defence co-operation, and is therefore also a political bargain.

The circumstances have changed with reference to this bargain. Many people went along with the idea that NATO should continue after the end of the Cold War, even though Russia grumbled it was not overly keen on having its old foe keep going. Rightly, they were not listened to.

Then the new idea was that NATO should respond to insecurity in the European neighbourhood - ex-Yugoslavia, for example. More people, now within Europe, grumbled about this, because this is not what NATO was designed to do. A NAC that operated on unanimity, for example, does not work so well in operations that are politically divisive (such as Kosovo, for which the French were never really enthusiastic and a different German government could quite concievably have refused to take part in).

Then the idea was that NATO would also a political tool, starting the painful reforms in ex-Communist states needed for membership of the alliance, and then the EU. This is one of its unsung triumphs, IMO. But it is a far cry from its original aim and was a marked expansion of its activities.

Now the idea that NATO is some kind of pan-global organisation reaching across continents. Even more people are grumbling now, especially because multi-national operations are frought with such problems. Some observers worry that by risking failure or discrediting in Afghanistan, what remains still a very useful 'in-area' defence pact between EUrope and North America is being sacrificed for the sake of a creeping mission in Afghanistan that went from kicking the Taliban out to state-building.

What I am saying is that the political commitment and the fundamental strategic concept that governments sign up to or whole-heartedly support is very, very different when you compare the territorial defence of Europe, near-abroad operations, and far-abroad operations. As a hypothetical example, you would not see the dithering of European states to contribute troops if the Russians were suddenly pouring across the Belarussian border into Poland.

In my opinion, transforming NATO into an organisation that is focused on out of area stability, state-building and anti-terrorist operations is a complete and utter change in the political sense and, to a great extent, the organisational sense. It might work - but then again, it might not, and we end up with a NATO that is held together only by its own bureaucratic inertia.

[Berkut]

In my opinion, transforming NATO into an organisation that is focused on out of area stability, state-building and anti-terrorist operations is a complete and utter change in the political sense and, to a great extent, the organisational sense. It might work - but then again, it might not, and we end up with a NATO that is held together only by its own bureaucratic inertia.

Nice post.

But I think it still misses the point.

The Afghanistan mission being under the auspices of NATO is a result of NATO making it so since they responded to the 9/11 attacks as an attack on a member. Maybe that was or was not the right thing to do - I don't know. More to the point, I don't think it matters to MY point.

If you are arguing that NATO countries should not contribute more to Afghanistan because that is not what NATO is all about, or should be about- fine. Of course, the problem you cite already exist - NATO is already in Afghanistan, and a failure will already be seen as a NATO failure. This would argue for making sure the failure does not occure however, rather than arguing that we should bail, ensuring failure.

So that argument fails.

However, the point still remains anyway - it is not like all these countries would love to help out in Afghanistan, but are just a little nervous about what that means in regards to NATO. That is an excuse. If Afghanistan fails, it won't be because NATO should not be involved in nation stabilization in Afghanistan, it will be because the West lacks the will to put in the treasure and blood necessary. Whether that is under the auspices of NATO, the UN, or some special arrangement created just for this crisis is not relevant to my point.

[Neil]

We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".

Not really.  We're still back on 'We can't!'.  We never moved past that.

[crazy canuck]

We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".

Not really.  We're still back on 'We can't!'.  We never moved past that.

Actually the argument Warspite is making now is "We dont want to"

[Valmy]

Actually the argument Warspite is making now is "We dont want to"

Which is the reason we can't.  So long as the German people feel the way they do about Afghanistan nothing is going to happen.

[Berkut]

Actually the argument Warspite is making now is "We dont want to"

Which is the reason we can't.  So long as the German people feel the way they do about Afghanistan nothing is going to happen.

That does not mean they cannot, it means they choose not. "Can not" implies that they are not capable. I think that is pretty insulting - the idea that one of the wealthiest nations on the Earth cannot send several thousand soldiers to Afghanistan to actually fight if they wanted to is rather pathetic.

[crazy canuck]

The Afghanistan mission being under the auspices of NATO is a result of NATO making it so since they responded to the 9/11 attacks as an attack on a member.

This is really the point.  Once NATO committed to this mission all the debate of whether they should do it or not is moot.  Warspite, you seem to be justifying the lack of commitment to the notion that they should not have committed to the mission in the first place.  But that is a separate issue.  The decision was made.  The sad fact is that it was not fulfilled by NATO and we have several hundred dead from each of the nations that did participate who will likely have died for no purpose in part because NATO did not back up its commitment with action.

I have to tell you it makes me a bit angry to think Canada committed troops in good faith to a NATO mission only to hear our allies say NATO didnt really want to do it in the first place.  That is the worst kind of misrepresentation.

[Sheilbh]

So long as the German people feel the way they do about Afghanistan nothing is going to happen.

I don't think it's Afghanistan-specific.  I think Afghanistan's only the second military mission post-war Germany's taken part in.  It'll be difficult for the Germans to shift from viewing their military as a conscript force necessary for the defence of Germany and Europe (largely from Russia) to a military like the US or the UK has, that is able and willing to deploy abroad.

[Warspite]

The Afghanistan mission being under the auspices of NATO is a result of NATO making it so since they responded to the 9/11 attacks as an attack on a member.

This is really the point.  Once NATO committed to this mission all the debate of whether they should do it or not is moot.  Warspite, you seem to be justifying the lack of commitment to the notion that they should not have committed to the mission in the first place.  But that is a separate issue.  The decision was made.  The sad fact is that it was not fulfilled by NATO and we have several hundred dead from each of the nations that did participate who will likely have died for no purpose in part because NATO did not back up its commitment with action.

I have to tell you it makes me a bit angry to think Canada committed troops in good faith to a NATO mission only to hear our allies say NATO didnt really want to do it in the first place.  That is the worst kind of misrepresentation.

I was explaining how NATO is hamstrung by a split within itself over differing interpretations of its purpose.

The British will stick it out because our governments are committed to the alliance with the US, even if the cost is high. This is partly due to cultural affinities but also partly due to a realisation that a close relationship with America helps us punch above our weight elsewhere.

However, for other European states, this motivation is not present - especially those in which there are key constituencies that believe in a Europeanist defence orientation.

The other related issue is that no one thought, when NATO invoked Article V, that it would involve 10 years (and indeed many more) of nation-building in Afghanistan.

That last point is the basic crux of my argument - in retrospect, we were all wrong when we thought the job would be easy, and we may have gotten a number of small militaries in over their heads. The point is not whether or not Europeans can contribute more. They could, yes - if they had the will. But we knew even then that many European militaries would be reluctant - indeed, the US didn't really call on its partners in the first phase of OEF (apart from select British assets).

I'm saying you have to have an appreciation of what is politically feasible in your partner countries. In essence, "They can't" is not really a useful question - it is more important to ask "what will they", and "how will they do more"?

Take France - it spends the same as the UK on defence (about 3% of GDP, IIRC), but has a markedly smaller contingent. Yet, aside from this disparity, would we really doubt their commitment to countering terrorism? Like I said, they do not see AFghanistan as the central theatre in this battle. I presume they are more concerned with their own minorities. Even in the UK attention is increasingly focused on Pakistan's instability as the great threat.

I have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!

[Jacob]

I have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!

So what you're saying is that Berkut's position is solidly grounded, academically sound and has more than twenty years of thought behind it?

[Berkut]

I have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!

So what you're saying is that Berkut's position is solidly grounded, academically sound and has more than twenty years of thought behind it?

[Warspite]

I have to say there's something of deja vu about this whole debate - you could take Berkuts argument, stick it in academic terms, and there you have the whole burden-sharing debate of the last 20 years!

So what you're saying is that Berkut's position is solidly grounded, academically sound and has more than twenty years of thought behind it?

Yes, but without the normative dimension. 

[Queequeg]

The Afghans fought (and arguably won, at least in the immediate sense) our war in the 1980s with our weapons at a cost higher than any American can imagine.  Then we just pulled our dick out and let the Taliban turn what was once a vacation spot into an economically, environmentally and political hell hole where the lot of half the population is so terrible that they regularly set themselves on fire.

[Neil]

I have to tell you it makes me a bit angry to think Canada committed troops in good faith to a NATO mission only to hear our allies say NATO didnt really want to do it in the first place.  That is the worst kind of misrepresentation.

An argument could be made that NATO didn't really want to do it.  They were signing on to annihilate the Taliban and then to set up an Afghan government that was somewhat friendly towards the West, not to participate in an occupation longer than either Germany's or Japan's.