• “Is NATO Relevant?” Sarwar Kashmeri with UK MP Mike Gapes, on Skynews

  • What’s Next For NATO: A “Reboot or Delete?” Robin Young, host of Here & Now asks Sarwar Kashmeri

  • Sarwar Kashmeri & NATO 2.0 on Fox News

  • To preserve NATO bridge it to the EU

    NATO used to be the world’s most formidable military alliance. But, its original reason for existence, the Soviet Union, disintegrated years ago, and its dreams of being a world cop are withering in the mountains of Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile, the European Union’s Common Security & Defense Policy (CSDP) has deployed twenty-seven successful military/civil missions from Africa to Asia in the last ten years. Through CSDP, Europeans are increasingly taking charge of managing their own foreign and security policy. NATO is no longer the sole and preeminent Euro-Atlantic security actor.

    But watching NATO fade into irrelevance would be a mistake. It is a tried and true platform to harness the resources of North America and Europe. NATO’s future usefulness depends on its willingness to accept its reduced role, to let the EU handle the day-to-day security needs of Europe, and to craft a relationship with CSDP that will allow North America and Europe to act militarily together, should that ever become necessary.

    It is time for NATO 2.0, a new version of NATO, to fit the realities of an ever more integrated Europe in the twenty-first century.

  • Advertisements

OP Ed: NATO’s Existential Crossroad

Its come to this—military commanders in Afghanistan must consult an operations checklist before virtually every mission. They must be sure the NATO forces being sent out are properly fitted to the mission. Some NATO member countries don’t want their soldiers in a shooting zone, others won’t let military intelligence be shared between all NATO countries, and so on. A bit different from General Eisenhower leading his superb integrated fighting machine up the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.
 
If NATO can no longer deploy an integrated fighting force, for what can the venerable Alliance be used in the future?  It is a serious threat to NATO’s existence as a military alliance.
 
I continue my conversation with Mark Mardell, North American editor of the BBC to flesh out my thoughts. 
 
Listen to MP3 Podcast:
Advertisements

What is this alliance all about?????

 Excerpt from President Obama’s Dec 1, 2009 West Point speech on AFPAK strategy:

The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.  They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.  And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies.  Some have already provided additional troops, and we’re confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan.  And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. 

For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Forgive me, I am a bit confused. Are NATO countries behind the President’s strategy?  If so where are the NATO commitments? Shouldn’t the President have been able to say something like:   ” I am here to announce that NATO is going to deploy x thousand troops to Afghanistan…half of these will come from our European allies, and the other half from the United States.”  

The EU now has a GDP exceeding the United States, with a greater population. So the question might well be asked: why couldn’t NATO countries deploy h.alf of the 40,000 troops General McChrystal requested.

Secretary of State Clinton will travel to Brussels today to beg NATO for more troops. She shouldn’t have to do any such thing. NATO’s Secretary General ought to travel to Washington to announce that America’s allies are going to fight shoulder to shoulder and are ready to deploy half of the troops required in Afghanistan and/or half the civilians that will be needed to stabilize the country.

 I am a strong believer in the transatlantic alliance of which NATO is a central piece. But today’s NATO is very hard to take. It is (was?) a great military alliance, but what do we do with it now? NATO’s new Strategic Concept is overdue.

NATO: A Strategic Concept For Transatlantic Security. Hearings: Oct 22, 2009

          [READ COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE CHAIRS & WITNESSES] Senator Kerry’s Opening Statement         “Today we will discuss the future of our NATO alliance…..”

Senator Lugar’s Opening Statement         “…When discussing NATO, I start with the premise it is still a work in progress…”

 

      

 

 

 
+  
 
    Witnesses:
    Panel 1:
+The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of State“…NATO is above all an alliance of democracies…”.    

 

 

 

 

    Panel 2:

 

 

General John Craddock, U.S. Army (Ret.)Former Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, U.S.Army. “…Development of the Strategic Concept must include timely and relevant input by military authorities…”
   
+The Honorable Kurt Volker, Former Permanent Representative to NATO & Managing Director Center on Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins Univ, Washington, DC.
   
“…we need a renewed potlitical compact on security between Europe and North America…”   
+Dr. Charles A. Kupchan
   Professor of International Affairs
   Georgetown University
   Adjunct Senior Fellow
   Council on Foreign Relations
   Washington, DC.”…NATO no longer enjoys the unity and solidarity that it did during the Cold War…”