Seeing how the USSR has fallen, and they have (i think) allowed Russia to be a junior partner and are currently thinking of allowing 7 ex-bloc countries in, what is their purpose? Will they be peacekeepers, will they contain China if China becomes aggressive, what function will they serve?
Maybe this belongs in GD, or more aptly MPSIMS. But i fail to see their function. Hopefully they will be peacekeepers and intervene for human rights purposes but i have no idea.
Seems like a GD to me because in addition to the question about Russia, you may also want to know why the rest of NATO (excepting the UK of course) didn’t join in the fight against Iraq or in any attempts at reprisals after 9/11.
The concept of mulilateral peacekeeping is up in the air now.
ISTR that NATO did invoke the “common protection” clause after 9/11, which meant they would aid the U.S. in getting medieval on Osama’s ass (which they did.)
Iraq is a different story since they never directly attacked the U.S. or any other NATO country.
I think this will bit better in GD, so I’ll move it over there.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
The purpose of NATO is quite simple; for democratic governments to pool their strength as a defensive alliance. If one is attacked, everyone else has a casus belli. It’s a remarkably simple, straightforward, classic arrangement. It doesn’t require a Soviet Union to make sense.
Of course, the limitation of the North Atlantic Treaty is that it’s limited to… the North Atlantic and Europe (and Turkey.) A worldwide defensive alliance of democratic countries would logically include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and would probably start incorporating some Central and South American countries before too long, but NATO by definition is limited in geographic scope. I’ve always thought it would be worthwhile for NATO to become something bigger, but given the schisms caused by Gulf War 2.0 that seems unlikely in the near future.
The stated purpose of NATO has not changed, mutual defence.
The unstated purpose, to dissuade Europe from setting up its own army, is now opposed by France & Germany (especially France) who want to expand the ludicrous ERRF. They say they dont want to have to run to the US every time a prob pops up on their ever increasing borders.
The US must decide whether it is tired of helping out or if it really wants to see a big army ouside its control in Europe.
Sorry, but there is nothing ludicrous about the ERRF, and it has nothing to do with French or German opposition to anything. Belgium and Luxemburg have already pledged support for a joint armed force. The reason behind it is quite simply a streamlining of military coordination. On top of that, it allows members to concentrate on strengths rather than having to have all capabilities just to be operational.
People can’t on the one hand complain that ‘Europe’ is too slow to get is act together military and then call a joint European force ludicrous. It’s a different thing coordinating a dozen different armies than coordinating one.
For decades, there was a joke commonly told in the halls of NATO that the organization’s purpose was “to keep the Germans down, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Americans in.”
Now? Who knows!