NATO. Should the US reevaluate it's role?.

This administrations been trying to back-peddle from day 1 on this war in Iraq. From WMDs immediate danger to the US, to getting rid of Saddam, to helping the Iraqi people convert to a democracy. They've struck out on all three, but the majority of Americans are still buying. This administration doesn't want to let go of the oil or the purse strings, so NATO wants no part in rescuing the US from this unilateral action - and with good reason. With the short attention span of Americans, our war on terrorism and Osama has been lost in the shuffle. We've lost the good will of the world community, and most Americans do not understand the meaning of "international cooperation," because we're the most powerful nation in this world, and we can just nuke anybody that doesn't agree with our politics. And to top it off, most Americans will reelect GWBush into office in 2004.

C.I.

I am confused what has your response to do with the question asked?

Two observations on your opening post, AU. The United Nations was created to defeat Hitler and Tojo, which is why the Soviet Union was a founding member. The U.S. had only indifferent success in using it as a tool during the cold war.

Since the Reagan administration, if not earlier, the U.S. has neither paid for the UN, nor provided the firepower. They just wish we would. No reason not to keep it going, it's good for the local economy in New York.

Setanta
The post was about NATO not the UN.

OOoops . . . i can only plead old age, and early monring reading comprehension difficulties . . .

my apologies . . .

An EU force
BRUSSELS The protracted labor pains of European defense seem to have entered a new stage in the past few weeks, with an apparent change of direction by Britain. The final stage is nowhere near, but breathing exercises may now be useful - not least for the United States..
Britain, traditionally opposed to any real military capacity outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has issued cautious endorsement in the past weeks of an independent European Union force, though not of an independent headquarters. Both on the surface and in fact, this is a real shift, but it has been brought on by changes in circumstance rather than in ideology


http://www.iht.com/articles/118840.html

I guess that the only consolation we have by having NATO that the US wont think of attacking Europe. After all, they wont like to fight their own forces will they ?

<au, this is totally tongue in cheek, pls dont beat me up>

Gautam
I promise we won't attack Europe. Now can I be relieved of the burden and expense protecting you.

ON a serious note, yes - I really don't see any point in having an organization like NATO, not with the emergence of EU (bickering, screaming, kicking but still a substantial force to reckon with).

However, with the current buddy buddy relationship (and I am being so generous here not mentioning master-poodle relationship) between Bush and Blair, I am pretty sure that any discussions for disbanding of NATO will be vetod by UK.

NATO might have continuing value in Europe even if the US pulls out. Many of the former Warsaw Pact nations have applied for admission, as has Russia. With the US gone, it might be easier to unite European nations in a security cartel which could obviate the sorts of tensions which threatened Europe in 1878, 1893, 1905, 1911, 1912, and which resulted in war in 1914.

I am under the impression that the proposed European force would be a NATO like organization without US membership. The US could always have mutual aid treaties with the EU if need be.

Like England, the US has traditionally had bi-lateral agreements. I would think that no such agreement would be made with the EU, unless and until there were a unified diplomacy within the EU.

I find the EU a disturbing entity--it is backing into unification, and sovereignty issues have never been directly confronted. Military coordination doesn't require a unified sovereignty--but diplomacy would.

I believe NATO is as dead as are the sentiments that accompanied its creation. We haven't yet had the funeral, but it is quite dead.

Britain will (as Gautam has already suggested) likely veto any funeral because it helps her stop at least one step short of commitment to a politically unified Europe - the ambiguity of multiple relationships suits her purposes. That position likely also well suits the interests of other NATO members, including the United States. No one counts on NATO anymore, but it suits nearly everyone to maintain the illusion for a while.

The new Central European members of both the EU and NATO will become increasingly skeptical of the loss of national sovereignty to an EU dominated by France and Germany. Today's remarks by the new President of the Czech Republic are likely a foretaste of more to come.

The United States is already planning the disestablishment of military bases in Germany and their replacement by new ones in Rumania and Poland. Our government is also developing bilateral agreements with several of the Central European governments on this and other matters.

France will likely work to develop a strategic accord with Russia. Hard to tell what Germany will do, given the importance of German trade and interests in Central Europe.

Might really well be that NATO is nearly dead already.

In case you missed that:

on Monday this week, Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac announced an agreement on plans for a small rapid-reaction force of European peacekeepers to assist UN troops, showing thus - as media pointed out - "unity on the issue of Euroepam defence".


source:
Deutsche Welle

Did I really miss that there were again presidential elections in Czechia?
(I've thought - and actually couldn't find any other news - that the right-wing Vaclav Klaus was elected in third round in March.)

Walter,

OK. Delete "new" and substitute, "elected eight months ago". What is your point?

Nothing specific.

Just the Europeans - and the UK belongs to Europe - are still going to install am own EU-force.

Oh, and that Blair has re this about the same opinion as Chirac and Schröder.

Walter,

I don't claim to know what are Blair's true opinions any more than I do those of Chirac and Schroeder. I doubt that you do either.

While the UK "belongs" to Europe (to some extent) in a geographic sense, it remains to be seen just what position it will finally take with respect to the creation of a government for Europe. Many issues remain, and now that the process of common political governance and their effects have become more visible (the recent German budgetary matter is a case in point) to the public, I believe we can expect to see the debate take on a more fractious nature.

An EU military force organized by European states that are generally unwilling to fund their own significant national military forces is not likely to amount to much. Organizing the forces is the easy part: creating and paying for them is difficult. Organizing that which does not exist is an absurdity.

I am waiting to hear the large sucking sound of the US pulling their forces, equipment and all out of Europe. It will cost many Euro's to fill the vacuum.