"NATO - A Paper Tiger? A Tool of the U.N.?"
Sydney M. Williams
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an intergovernmental organization created to provide mutual defense for its members was formed in 1949 with twelve member states. Its purpose was to address the fear that the Soviet Union, in the aftermath of World War II, may try to move west. Lord Ismay, its first Secretary General, famously stated its goal: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the German’s down.” From the beginning it was largely American, in terms of its funding and composition. In 1951, General Eisenhower became the organization’s first Supreme Commander. (In the military structure of NATO, a U.S. military officer is always commander-in-chief of NATO forces; so that U.S. troops never serve under the control of a foreign power.)
In 1954, in a cagey move, the Soviet Union suggested it join NATO, a suggestion which was rejected by a wary Western Europe sensing this would be equivalent to letting the fox into the hen house. West Germany joined the alliance the next year. In the same year, the Warsaw Pact was formed by the Soviet Union to offset NATO’s growing presence. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, NATO began to refocus itself, permitting former enemies (members of the Warsaw Pact) to join. By 2009 NATO consisted of twenty-eight members – becoming, in essence, an organization in search of a purpose.
Following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, NATO became involved in humanitarian efforts in Bosnia (too late to prevent the massacres at Srebrenica and Markale) and in Kosovo, where NATO airstrikes caused the fall of President Slobodan Milosevic and prevented the killing and exiling of Kosovo Albanian refugees.
Libya is now a testing ground for NATO. United States’ led airstrikes, under a U.N. resolution, provided protection for civilians threatened by Moammar Gadhafi’s troops who were threatening the city of Benghazi in eastern Libya. However, within a few days, the U.S. handed responsibility to NATO. Claims by the United States that its planes were no longer taking part in airstrikes were apparently false.
The ensuing weeks have shown the difficulty NATO has without U.S. direct leadership. Germany and Turkey have been urging withdrawal. The UK and France have lobbied for increased efforts, and have called for the removal of Gadhafi from power – an action not covered by the U.N. resolution. Additionally, Libya has shown the difficulty of engaging in a military conflict where we have no national interests. Henry Kissinger and James Baker recently wrote in the Washington Post: “Our values compel us to alleviate human suffering.” However, they also issued a warning: “our country should [intervene] militarily only when a national interest is at stake.” They added: “The goals must be clear.” But how does one reconcile the use of military force solely on humanitarian grounds with the inevitable collateral damage our own bombs inflict? (Benghazi was saved – at least for now – but the western city of Misurata was shelled yesterday and thirteen people were killed.)
The U.S. has now joined the camp of the UK and France. Yesterday Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that the goal in Libya is regime change. This morning President Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy write in the New York Times: “Our duty and mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians and we are doing that [except for those in Misurata.] It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power…So long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations.” The President recommending violating a U.N. resolution? One can only imagine the fire-breathing from the press and Congress had President Bush penned those words!
On Thursday evening, U.S. television viewers were treated to a view of Colonel Gadhafi standing in an open car, pumping his fist in the air, as he paraded through the streets of Tripoli – the capital of a country engrossed in a civil war, a scene unimaginable for the President of the United States – a country at peace. It was not the picture of a man who was planning on quietly retiring anytime soon.
At best, it appears that NATO has achieved a stalemate in Libya. At worst (and more realistically,) it seems that Gadhafi’s forces are reclaiming lost ground. Airstrikes against Libya began four weeks ago, a month after the conflict began. During those two months, innumerable Libyans have been killed and made homeless. We like to believe – and it may well be true – that early strikes against Gadhafi’s forces saved thousands of lives in Benghazi. But it does not seem that Gadhafi is about to step down, nor does it appear that the rebels are winning. In fact, they appear to be losing. Perhaps a divided state will result? No one knows. When we look back with the perspective of time, will NATO have accomplished much? In a speech at the Brookings Institute in June 2000, General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and who directed the NATO airstrikes against Serbian President Milosevic’s troops, said “when you use force, it has to work.”
There is little point, at this time, arguing as to whether we should have responded to the Libyan crisis earlier or whether we should have looked the other way. (In a sense, the choices were on of a Morton’s Fork – neither one good.) We did. I do not agree with John McCain who believes we should militarily intensify our mission. If there is to be a quagmire, leave it to the Europeans. But, that being the case, neither should we up the rhetoric as the Secretary of State and President are doing. It is interesting to consider that among our least militaristic presidents were those like Washington, Grant and Eisenhower, men who had served our nation as leaders in combat. Better than most, they understood the consequences of war.
Despite its superior technology and military power, but with its internal squabbles and lack of real purpose, it makes one wonder – has NATO become a paper tiger? Or, does the fault lie with the U.N., from whom it takes its orders?
Thought of the Day
“NATO – A Paper Tiger? A Tool of the U.N.?”
Apr 15, 2011The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an intergovernmental organization created to provide mutual defense for its members was formed in 1949 with twelve member states. Its purpose was to address the fear that the Soviet Union, in the aftermath of World War II, may try to move west. Lord Ismay, its first Secretary General, famously stated its goal: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the German’s down.” From the beginning it was largely American, in terms of its funding and composition. In 1951, General Eisenhower became the organization’s first Supreme Commander. (In the military structure of NATO, a U.S. military officer is always commander-in-chief of NATO forces; so that U.S. troops never serve under the control of a foreign power.)
In 1954, in a cagey move, the Soviet Union suggested it join NATO, a suggestion which was rejected by a wary Western Europe sensing this would be equivalent to letting the fox into the hen house. West Germany joined the alliance the next year. In the same year, the Warsaw Pact was formed by the Soviet Union to offset NATO’s growing presence. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, NATO began to refocus itself, permitting former enemies (members of the Warsaw Pact) to join. By 2009 NATO consisted of twenty-eight members – becoming, in essence, an organization in search of a purpose.
Following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, NATO became involved in humanitarian efforts in Bosnia (too late to prevent the massacres at Srebrenica and Markale) and in Kosovo, where NATO airstrikes caused the fall of President Slobodan Milosevic and prevented the killing and exiling of Kosovo Albanian refugees.
Libya is now a testing ground for NATO. United States’ led airstrikes, under a U.N. resolution, provided protection for civilians threatened by Moammar Gadhafi’s troops who were threatening the city of Benghazi in eastern Libya. However, within a few days, the U.S. handed responsibility to NATO. Claims by the United States that its planes were no longer taking part in airstrikes were apparently false.
The ensuing weeks have shown the difficulty NATO has without U.S. direct leadership. Germany and Turkey have been urging withdrawal. The UK and France have lobbied for increased efforts, and have called for the removal of Gadhafi from power – an action not covered by the U.N. resolution. Additionally, Libya has shown the difficulty of engaging in a military conflict where we have no national interests. Henry Kissinger and James Baker recently wrote in the Washington Post: “Our values compel us to alleviate human suffering.” However, they also issued a warning: “our country should [intervene] militarily only when a national interest is at stake.” They added: “The goals must be clear.” But how does one reconcile the use of military force solely on humanitarian grounds with the inevitable collateral damage our own bombs inflict? (Benghazi was saved – at least for now – but the western city of Misurata was shelled yesterday and thirteen people were killed.)
The U.S. has now joined the camp of the UK and France. Yesterday Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that the goal in Libya is regime change. This morning President Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy write in the New York Times: “Our duty and mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians and we are doing that [except for those in Misurata.] It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power…So long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations.” The President recommending violating a U.N. resolution? One can only imagine the fire-breathing from the press and Congress had President Bush penned those words!
On Thursday evening, U.S. television viewers were treated to a view of Colonel Gadhafi standing in an open car, pumping his fist in the air, as he paraded through the streets of Tripoli – the capital of a country engrossed in a civil war, a scene unimaginable for the President of the United States – a country at peace. It was not the picture of a man who was planning on quietly retiring anytime soon.
At best, it appears that NATO has achieved a stalemate in Libya. At worst (and more realistically,) it seems that Gadhafi’s forces are reclaiming lost ground. Airstrikes against Libya began four weeks ago, a month after the conflict began. During those two months, innumerable Libyans have been killed and made homeless. We like to believe – and it may well be true – that early strikes against Gadhafi’s forces saved thousands of lives in Benghazi. But it does not seem that Gadhafi is about to step down, nor does it appear that the rebels are winning. In fact, they appear to be losing. Perhaps a divided state will result? No one knows. When we look back with the perspective of time, will NATO have accomplished much? In a speech at the Brookings Institute in June 2000, General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and who directed the NATO airstrikes against Serbian President Milosevic’s troops, said “when you use force, it has to work.”
There is little point, at this time, arguing as to whether we should have responded to the Libyan crisis earlier or whether we should have looked the other way. (In a sense, the choices were on of a Morton’s Fork – neither one good.) We did. I do not agree with John McCain who believes we should militarily intensify our mission. If there is to be a quagmire, leave it to the Europeans. But, that being the case, neither should we up the rhetoric as the Secretary of State and President are doing. It is interesting to consider that among our least militaristic presidents were those like Washington, Grant and Eisenhower, men who had served our nation as leaders in combat. Better than most, they understood the consequences of war.
Despite its superior technology and military power, but with its internal squabbles and lack of real purpose, it makes one wonder – has NATO become a paper tiger? Or, does the fault lie with the U.N., from whom it takes its orders?
Labels: TOTD
posted by Thought of the Day @ 5:50 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home