http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53790,00.html
What’s the point of NATO, now?
It seems to me that since the whole Kosovo incident, they’re using NATO as a tool to justify arbitrary NATO intervention in whatever world affairs it chooses to perform a ‘police action’ in. I suppose that if you integrate all the powerful countries in the world in there, there won’t be many people around to object.
NATO as the new world’s police… can’t wait.
Well, it’s nice to see the post-9/11 deal coming together and to formalise protection of the Caspian oilfields.
I wonder if it might also have a beneficial effect on better controlling what goes absent from those degrading silo’s ?
But NATO isn’t meant to be an anti-Russia tool. It is and was a group committed to mutual defence - primarily against communism during the Cold War, but that has no relevance now.
As Russia moves towards capitalism, why shouldn’t it join NATO? Just cos it used to be an enemy?
It can’t hurt to have the Russians included in the North Atlantic Debating Society… If nothing else, it should calm some of the Rusian’s fears and improve communication.
It would seem that NATO has largely outlived it’s usefulness. There seems little point in the increase in the basic cost of the bureacracy.
That is, of course, unless NATO is going to be used as an excuse, as it was before, to be the imperial world police that we seem to be craving so much.
Nah. NATO doesn’t want to be “Imperial Police” (Where’d you get that phrase from, anyway?) What empire? Whose police?
It’s turning into an international military debating society, and that’s not a bad thing, IMO. It keeps everyone’s military in contact with each other, which allays suspicians, reduces chances for misunderstandings, and allows nations to keep smaller forces, as they can now rely on allies to be able to work alongside effectively.
NATO’s certainly outlived one of it’s original and primary purposes, but that doesn’t mean it’s become useless. It’s just got a different (and smaller) mission these days.
**
There was a lot of talk during the Kosovo incident of NATO “re-defining” it’s role as basically the world’s policeman. Since I don’t believe any country acts strictly out of benevolence, I’d imagine NATO’s ‘world police’ forces would only be used when it was a benefit to one of the countries. And interfering with soveriegn nations, even making war on them, for the gain of your country seems imperialistic to me. Hence “Imperial world police”, although I do understand why the term sounds funny.
Fair enough.
I don’t necessarily agree, but I can see why you might use that phrasing.
SenorBeef, this is kind of silly.
What’s the point of NATO, now?
Same as it always was – mutual self-defense and military cooperation amongst its members. That is to say, a military alliance. Russia, BTW, is not part of that alliance, but that’s neither here nor there.
And you don’t need a threat to make a military alliance useful (even though there are threats aplenty.) If nothing else, a military alliance may deter threats from arising.
Admittedly, there is a real and relevant question about the future of NATO - if various and sundry European nations are unwilling to develop the military capability to meaningfully contribute to mutual self-defense and military cooperation, should the US continue to effectively subsidize, through NATO, Europe’s defense?
But that’s not the question you asked…
Sua
I don’t think it’s “silly”.
When NATO decideed it was going to enter the realm of trying to be the World Police Force in Kosovo, who was the only major party to object to the whole thing? Russia. Remember that standoff when British troops tried to enter the country?
Now that Russia is NATO’s pocket, it’s less likely to be a concern.
Of course, I could just be entirely cynical and ridiculous, but it doesn’t seem that far fetched to me.
Actually, NATO didn’t ‘decide’ to enter Kosovo, the member nations directed it to do so… NATO is nothing more or less than an extension of the member nations’ collective will.
Now, if you wish to debate on the subject of whether or not the member nations are attempting to use NATO as means to achieve hegemony, you may have something to chew on.
Yes, that’s what I was saying. I meant to say if they establish the idea that NATO has a responsibility to be the world’s policeman, they’d, by default, have an ‘excuse’ to enter any situation as the Saviors/Policemen.
Russia, seeming to object to such a policy, will be a lot less of a problem if they’re in NATO.
At least, that’s my take on this.
Well, outside Europe, I can’t see this happening, and inside Europe, well, the member nations mostly are European, so I imagine they’d be intervening anyway, and NATO has this nifty set of processes worked-out for military cooperation, so it’d be silly not to use them, right?
Frankly, I’d be dumfounded to see any NATO Member -nation attempt to get units employed outside of Europe as NATO forces. I have no doubt that forces nominally committed to the NATO treaty are going to be used by their parent nation outside of Europe, but not within the NATO structure.
Fair enough. The whole thing just makes me a bit nervous, when you add in the Kosovo thing. The US already does enough ‘police actions’ all over the place… the last thing we need is a more imperial policy due to NATO being ‘obligated’ to be the world police, since that seems to be the job they’re trying to give themselves.