Some columnist or other was saying that the WTC bombing will be just the thing to make our NATO allies join America in the fight against international terrorism, their interest evidently having proved lukewarm so far, maintaining that NATO is just for “outside our borders” stuff, not internal problems.
But now, apparently, they are going to see the light and join us.
So, how exactly would you use NATO to combat international terrorism? I thought NATO was for shooting bombs at the Russians, and now that the Cold War is over, it’s basically just a carrot-and-stick affair to keep countries like Yugoslavia and Romania in line. “Act right and we’ll let you in our clubhouse.”
NATO has armies and planes and things, but I thought most of the “fight against international terrorism” took place in the FBI and CIA’s intelligence-gathering arms. Are we going to work together with MI5 (or is it MI6) to catch Osama Bin Laden? I thought we already were working with other countries’ intelligence-gathering arms, like the Mossad. No?
Or is it just all window dressing? They’ll have some NATO club meetings, make an announcement to the effect that we are all working together to combat international terrorism, sing the club song, and then go home, and it’ll be business as usual, with the FBI and the CIA doing most of the work.
That depends on what sort of action we’re talking about, doesn’t it ?
If we’re talking military interdiction, the statements I’ve heard seem to assume that the US will prefer to do the actual fighting using their own forces - but military spokesmen have said, openly, that the US can just ask.
As every fighting man needs at least 10 people to support him, if I were to plan an op like this, I’d be more than happy to know that logistical support was mine for the asking. It makes life WAY easier if you know that landing fields, fuel, ships, hospitals, vehicles and that-crucial-piece-of-gear-we-didn’t-expect-to-need will be available.
As for intelligence: Cooperation is in place, but everyone has limited ressources. Or had. Lots of data has presumably been archived as irrelevant, unlikely or unconfirmed. Analyzing the data with a new focus might turn up lots of interesting stuff.
Wouldn’t that be something. If this Bozo gets the US, who helped Afghanistan against the USSR to gang up with Russia and turn the joint into a parking lot? What a loser.
Wel, first of all, the columnist in question is apparently a dimwit. NATO countries have always been interested in combating terrorism; a lot of those countries have been suffering from terrorist threats for years. I didn’t see the U.S. rushing to find links to Americans who funded the IRA when the IRA was terrorizing Great Britain.
The reason this event has caused NATO to invoke article 5 is because it’s NOT an internal problem - it IS for something “outside our borders.” This was a military-scale attack from a foreign threat, which is what NATO exists to fight.
Reports in the National Post today suggest that NATO is already drawing up contingency plans for an invasion of Afghanistan. I imagine they’re drawing up similar plans for an invasion of Iraq, if it turns out to be Saddam Hussein’s handiwork.
One could see the NATO decision as little more than window dressing, but the symbolism probably is much more significant. The assumption that the U.S. will want to take military action alone is surely wrong. The more sensible course will be for the Bush administration to seek to construct the largest and widest possible coalition of nations prepared to participate in any military action. Bush needs as many foreign governments as possible to prove by their deeds that they support him. The Gulf War is the obvious example to follow. The U.S. military might feel that, in operational terms, their job would be simpler without other forces becoming involved, but the diplomatic advantages of a combined operation would be an overriding argument. The NATO governments are, in effect, offering that help before Bush asks them. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Russians also offered to become involved and if Bush accepted their assistance. That really would be a New World Order.
The scope of the intelligence-sharing agreements between the various NATO members varies and is probably not the main issue behind the decision.