How Much Longer Does NATO Have?

[sgtgunn]

From my perspective, it seems increasingly likely that as a viable defense alliance, NATO's days are numbered. The likely future of warefare seems be heavily oriented towards long, drawn out asymetric conflicts like Afganistan, which NATO members seem to have a rapidly decreasing political will to fight in.

Canada's former top General has made some scathing comments about NATO recently, refering to it as a "corpse".

NATO "a corpse," fumes former Canada military boss - Yahoo! News

Anyone want to comment of the future of NATO?

Can the alliance survive when many of it's members refuse to or are politically incapable of make meaningfull comitments to it?

Is a NATO member entitled to the benefits of the treaty's defense umbrella if it refuses to fairly honor its responsibilities to fight when called on?

Should the US replace NATO with a smaller, more robust treaty - perhaps built around countries with the political will and capability to make meaningful contibutions to military operations?

How is it fair when small (population wise) countries like Canada and Denmark bear a disproportionat burden of fighting and casualties, when much larger countires like Spain and Germany prohibit thier armies from engaging in the worst of the fighting?

The Canadian Army has about 66,000 active military and has taken 130 casulaties in Afghanistam - 1 casualty per 507 soldiers.

Denmark has about 25,000 active military and has taken 27 casualties - 1 per 925 soldiers.

Germany has 253,000 active military and has taken 39 casualties - 1 per 6487 soldiers.

Spain has 177,000 active military and has taken 26 casualties - 1 per 6807 soldiers.

France, arguably the 2nd most powerful NATO member, has 259,000 active military and has only taken 36 casualties - 1 per 7194.

No wonder Canada is planning on leaving ISAF soon.

Adrian

 

[Waylander]

I always get the feeling that many people are not aware of what NATO really is.

It is a defensive alliance.
The current situation in A-stan is, as important as it may be, not within the boundaries of the treaty.
It is a united operation of souvereign nations which are willing to support it according to the agenda of their elected governments.
That some countries might not behave like other want them to behave has nothing to do with being in NATO or not but with the internal politics of these countries and the nature of the people living in it.

For me such threads always look like the US want to have an alliance which jumps as soon as the US defines a goal. That is defenitely not my idea of a defensive alliance with equal members.
If NATO would be such an organisation we all would have gone into Iraq because the US government of this time thought it to be a wise step.
With this in mind I can say that I am happy that NATO isn't such an organisation.

As for the commitment of the individual countries. I can comment on Germanys commitment and it is indeed complicated.

Germany as a country is maybe one of the most pacified countries out there. We started sending troops abroad after our reunification with Somalia being the first overseas mission.
It takes alot of time and a change of general thinking in this country before we can even think of acting like other european nations.
But especially this year showed that german forces are no longer afraid of fighting it out with the enemy. German forces in RC North are conducting offensive operations against the guerillas including the use of heavy weapons like Marder IFVs, heavy mortars and air support. And we got smacked seriously for one airstrike by McChrystal and many of our other allies. Including the ones which might have killed thousands of civilians as colateral damages during the fighting of the last years.
Thus doesn't help either...

What hampers additional operations is lack of manpower. Our newly elected government may change this in december but nothing is certain.
Nevertheless. Our troops are in contact on a regular base and take casualties during such operations just like other nations.

And especially the US should remember how much depends on the currently elected government.

Bush Jr. went into Iraq and left the A-stan theater without the needed rescources.
Had the US poured even a fraction of the resources they pumped into the Iraq adventure instead into Afghanistan...
I am sure we wouldn't face the same problems like we do today.

It is easy to blame NATO and some of it's members for the problems in A-stan but in the end there is enough dirt on everyones doorstep and the US one is anything but clean.

 

[swerve]

As Waylander says. The NATO treaty requires members to defend each other, if requested, if they are attacked within Europe, North America, & certain seas, & the air above those areas.

Participation in any other military operations is outside the scope of NATO. The NATO administrative & command apparatus is being used in Afghanistan, with the consent of members, but it is outside the scope of the NATO treaty, just as the Falklands, Aden, Tchad, etc. were.

 

[matthew22081991]

I have just been sitting and reading up to this point, but a valid point has been made here which is enough to get me to talk! This is my first post, so I had better make it good!

I agree with the view that NATO is a defensive alliance and the war in Afghanistan is not in the alliance's scope (although I disagree with Swerve and I think the Falklands War was within its scope, as that was a direct attack against a NATO member). As much as the Americans might like to think 9/11 constituted enough of an attack to activate NATO, I don't think this is so.

It is certainly right that NATO cannot be expected to run around at America's beck and call. That would simply make NATO an extension of the US military and threaten national sovereignty.

As for whether this is the end for NATO, I think there is a risk. It was a Cold War entity anyway, and it, as much as it tries, isn't ready for the modern world. The EU and the much more complicated politics than the former East-West divide threaten NATO for nations who feel nowhere near as threatened by conventional warfare as they used to. NATO, if it were to adapt, could be very useful in the modern world, but it isn't adapting yet. Perhaps some incentives for members to fight? Seeming as the threat to a lot of NATO countries is low, why should they fight?

Finally, I suspect Afghanistan will persuade the EU to integrate further and give European countries, which are vital to NATO, an alternative. Then the fact the US is no longer the supreme power in the world it was before very recently capable of taking on all with barely a scratch. The world is dividing into new blocks now, and the US hasn't managed to get a new one, like everyone else has.

Well, it'll be interesting to see what happens, at least.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have just been sitting and reading up to this point, but a valid point has been made here which is enough to get me to talk! This is my first post, so I had better make it good!

I agree with the view that NATO is a defensive alliance and the war in Afghanistan is not in the alliance's scope (although I disagree with Swerve and I think the Falklands War was within its scope, as that was a direct attack against a NATO member). As much as the Americans might like to think 9/11 constituted enough of an attack to activate NATO, I don't think this is so.

It is certainly right that NATO cannot be expected to run around at America's beck and call. That would simply make NATO an extension of the US military and threaten national sovereignty.

As for whether this is the end for NATO, I think there is a risk. It was a Cold War entity anyway, and it, as much as it tries, isn't ready for the modern world. The EU and the much more complicated politics than the former East-West divide threaten NATO for nations who feel nowhere near as threatened by conventional warfare as they used to. NATO, if it were to adapt, could be very useful in the modern world, but it isn't adapting yet. Perhaps some incentives for members to fight? Seeming as the threat to a lot of NATO countries is low, why should they fight?

Finally, I suspect Afghanistan will persuade the EU to integrate further and give European countries, which are vital to NATO, an alternative. Then the fact the US is no longer the supreme power in the world it was before very recently capable of taking on all with barely a scratch. The world is dividing into new blocks now, and the US hasn't managed to get a new one, like everyone else has.

Well, it'll be interesting to see what happens, at least.

With regards to the Falklands involving NATO, the answer is 'no'. The Falkland Islands are/were a British colony, but in the South Atlantic. The NATO charter specifies the area which is covered by NATO, which IIRC does not include some of the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean, never mind islands as far south as the Falklands.

Afghanistan itself is in a curious sort of position, as it was where non-state actors organized, planned and trained for attacks upon their 'enemies'. One such series of attacks (9/11) did occur within the US, and therefore was covered under NATO. However, with the attack being launched by a non-state actor, and with their bases being in Afghanistan mostly, the issue is a bit muddled.

I do find it somewhat ironic though, that NATO, which was largely created to defend Western Europe from Soviet/Eastern Bloc agression with US support, has only truly been used to defend a member-nation once, and is was the US being defended.

-Cheers

 

[matthew22081991]

With regards to the Falklands involving NATO, the answer is 'no'. The Falkland Islands are/were a British colony, but in the South Atlantic. The NATO charter specifies the area which is covered by NATO, which IIRC does not include some of the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean, never mind islands as far south as the Falklands.

OK, having read the treaty (it's incredibly short!) I have to say yes you are right. I suppose Afghanistan could be included, since it mentions nothing about statehood. Murky stuff!

 

[kato]

The NATO charter specifies the area which is covered by NATO, which IIRC does not include some of the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean, never mind islands as far south as the Falklands.

The southern defense border in the Atlantic is defined in Article 6 as the Tropic of Cancer, i.e. 23°26' N, roughly the southern tip of Florida. This excludes all possessions of any member nation in the Carribean, i.e. also Puerto Rico and any US bases on Cuba.
The southernmost islands in the Atlantic included in the mutual defense zone are the Canary Islands on the eastern end and the Bahamas and Florida Keys on the western end.

As much as the Americans might like to think 9/11 constituted enough of an attack to activate NATO, I don't think this is so.

Actually, the NATO Council called in a Article 5 case - NATO mutual defense - after 9/11 on September 12, 2001. It's [official]. However, subsequently, the US did not call in a collective action. Operation Enduring Freedom is not a NATO collective action stemming from Article 5, but an "alliance of the willing" based upon UN Resolution 1368; ISAF was subsequently based upon other UN resolutions.

 

[matthew22081991]

The southern defense border in the Atlantic is defined in Article 6 as the Tropic of Cancer, i.e. 23°26' N, roughly the southern tip of Florida. This excludes all possessions of any member nation in the Carribean, i.e. also Puerto Rico and any US bases on Cuba.
The southernmost islands in the Atlantic included in the mutual defense zone are the Canary Islands on the eastern end and the Bahamas and Florida Keys on the western end.


Actually, the NATO Council called in a Article 5 case - NATO mutual defense - after 9/11 on September 12, 2001. It's [official]. However, subsequently, the US did not call in a collective action. Operation Enduring Freedom is not a NATO collective action stemming from Article 5, but an "alliance of the willing" based upon UN Resolution 1368; ISAF was subsequently based upon other UN resolutions.

Article 5 was used though. The NATO Council declared it sufficient that 9/11 was an attack on all NATO member states. I didn't realise the UN justified any action in Afghanistan though. So what was the name of the force which was under NATO, is that ISAF?

 

[kato]

There is no force in Afghanistan "under NATO", only if one simplifies it. There is a US-led force using some NATO assets, but not controlled by NATO - Operation Enduring Freedom. This operation includes a number of NATO nations, but also "foreign" assets.

 

[stoker]

"Afghanistan has revealed that NATO has reached the stage where it is a corpse decomposing and somebody's going to have to perform a Frankenstein-like life-giving act by breathing some lifesaving air through those rotten lips into those putrescent lungs or the alliance will be done," Hillier wrote.

"Any major setback in Afghanistan will see it off to the cleaners, and unless the alliance can snatch victory out of feeble efforts, it's not going to be long in existence in its present form."

Actually Afghanistan is most probably going to turn out to be a good thing for NATO.

It is definitely testing its mettle as a military entity,and its definitely shaken a few skeletons out of the dusty NATO cupboards, and sorted out the 'wheat from the chaff'' in who has the courage of their convictions and who hasn't.

Germany for one , who is in a similar situation to Japanese because of the aftermath from the days of WW 2, has been given the opportunity to put the ghost of those days behind them ( as should be happening) and put Germany's armed forces in to combat in a foreign country (Afghanistan) and after initially putting them under stupid restrictive operation combat rules finally remove these restrictions and allowed German soldiers to fight under more robust ROE's which safeguarded their frontline troops by being allowed to defend themselves in firefights with Taliban insurgents.

From now on if Germany has to field troops overseas again, their ROE's won't have to be restricted by political timidness over concern of the actions of old Germany's past 60 years ago.

What NATO (E.U.) has achieved is that not only have it helped prevent the Cold war from becoming WW3 merely by being in existance, it has also provide a safe haven for ex-East bloc countries fleeing the breakup of the USSR from the clutches of Russia.

Had there been no NATO, the USSR most probably would still been in existance and aslo remained as the dominate military power in Europe, and still holding all its Soviet bloc countris, these Countries now enjoy freedom under western democractic mores, and also under their own democratically elected governments.

Actually the most stupid thing about the whole raison d'etre for NATO's birth and its ongoing existance is Russia/ USSR's belligerent designs on its neighbours, is how easy it could be resolved to the mutual benefit of both partners.

All that needs to happen is that Russia joins the NATO/ EU organisation as a fully compliant member. This would be of a major benefit to Russia militarily, as its only potential threat China would not be game to taken on NATO in the process.

It would also provide immense benefits in solving any energy distribution distruptions by using the EU legal authorities to resolve these issues, lawyers are cheaper than soldiers.

Unfortunately this is highly likely ever to occur, Mr Putin has elected himselve the new Czar of Russia and we know what the Czar's have done to Russia over the days of yore..:flaming

 

[kato]

Not to piss in your wheaties, but you realize that Germany originally essentially only joined NATO and rearmed because otherwise it wouldn't have gotten Saarland back? That 60-80% of the German population oppose the ISAF mission? And that Afghanistan isn't anywhere near the first out-of-area mission the Bundeswehr has performed - and not the largest either?

 

[Todjaeger]

The southern defense border in the Atlantic is defined in Article 6 as the Tropic of Cancer, i.e. 23°26' N, roughly the southern tip of Florida. This excludes all possessions of any member nation in the Carribean, i.e. also Puerto Rico and any US bases on Cuba.
The southernmost islands in the Atlantic included in the mutual defense zone are the Canary Islands on the eastern end and the Bahamas and Florida Keys on the western end.


Actually, the NATO Council called in a Article 5 case - NATO mutual defense - after 9/11 on September 12, 2001. It's [official]. However, subsequently, the US did not call in a collective action. Operation Enduring Freedom is not a NATO collective action stemming from Article 5, but an "alliance of the willing" based upon UN Resolution 1368; ISAF was subsequently based upon other UN resolutions.

Thanks Kato for this. I had thought the southern limit was the Tropic of Cancer, but could not remember specifically and did not have the opportunity to check for myself at the time. On a side note, it does make me wonder if the charter would need to be modified if Puerto Rico (current US commonwealth) does elect to become the 51st state of the US.

Something else which might need consideration on the part of NATO/NATO members is what the response will be in the future if there is an attack within the NATO area, but launched from outside of the area. An example of that would the somewhat humorous notion of Cuba invading Florida...

-Cheers

 

[kato]

On a side note, it does make me wonder if the charter would need to be modified if Puerto Rico (current US commonwealth) does elect to become the 51st state of the US.

No - Hawaii isn't covered either (since it is located in the Pacific, and not part of North America).

Something else which might need consideration on the part of NATO/NATO members is what the response will be in the future if there is an attack within the NATO area, but launched from outside of the area.

An attack on a military asset (of a member nation) located within the mutual defense zone by a state actor, no matter whether inside or outside, is a rather clear-cut case.

A much more dubious case is e.g. the defense of the Asian parts of Turkey back in 1991 during the Gulf War, which in Germany was reasoned based on the mutual defense clause (Germany deployed a CAS wing and SAMs to Eastern Turkey in '91), or attacks upon NATO soldiers deployed in other extreme/contested areas of Europe such as the UN contingent in Georgia, or the Perejil Crisis between Morocco and Spain.

 

[Todjaeger]

An attack on a military asset (of a member nation) located within the mutual defense zone by a state actor, no matter whether inside or outside, is a rather clear-cut case.

A much more dubious case is e.g. the defense of the Asian parts of Turkey back in 1991 during the Gulf War, which in Germany was reasoned based on the mutual defense clause (Germany deployed a CAS wing and SAMs to Eastern Turkey in '91), or attacks upon NATO soldiers deployed in other extreme/contested areas of Europe such as the UN contingent in Georgia, or the Perejil Crisis between Morocco and Spain.

In terms of defending vs. the attack, or possible subsequent attacks, yes. However, launching counterstrikes to destroy the hostile nation/group/whatever is where it can get sticky, if they are based outside of the mutual defence zone.

In the example I gave of Cuba vs. Florida... NATO could be called upon to assist the US in defending Florida, but could NATO also be called upon to launch strikes upon Cuba? From a military standpoint it should, since defending an area without destroying an opponents ability to carry out attacks/operations is no way to achieve victory. However, that does not mean that is how NATO members would consider the situation.

-Cheers

 

[riksavage]

NATO was formed to keep the Russian's out, the Germans down and the Americans in Europe. Since the end of the Cold War this no longer applies, Russian for one is a shadow of its former self (conventional forces).

NATO must adapt or die, we currently have a two tier organisation, with a selected few members paying an increasingly heavy burden both in casualties and economic cost in A-Stan. The Canadians, Brits and Yanks are getting pissed off with the petty excuses made by other members,and to be honest how can you blame them. The recent scandal surrounding the Italian deployment and paying off of the Taliban further exasperates the situation. How can anyone justify a member taking unilateral decisions to minimise casualties at the expense of others (in this case the French). Remember A-STAN is a NATO sanctioned operation - end of story, arguments about the conflict being out of the alliances remit are quite frankly meaningless because all members of the organisation agreed to it being a NATO affair.

Win or lose in A-STAN, NATO will not be the same and the US will chose its future partners very carefully on a case by case basis. The world is changing and so are the threats. Over the next 10-20 years the US's German bases will be run down and resources deployed elsewhere to deal with a rising PRC, South and Central America and to deal with failed states caused by social, economic and climate related collapses.

Mainland Europe will have to start standing on it's own two feet. NATO's demise will force the European Union to move from a monolithic stationary land based military structure to one which can act unilaterally both at home and overseas. I anticipate a situation not too dissimilar to pre-1914, with a number of alliances being struck based on mutual aid. I can see Germany and France integrating even more closely. The UK will go one of two ways, join a European military structure along with the French and Germans or stick with it's traditional English speaking allies (US,Canada and Aus). My vote would be with the latter with additional increased interoperability with the rising commonwealth nations. The recent deployment by the UK's 2 Rifles to A-STAN comprised of no less than 23 different nationalities recruited from the commonwealth.

 

[kato]

The UK will go one of two ways, join a European military structure along with the French and Germans or stick with it's traditional English speaking allies (US,Canada and Aus).

That "European Military Structure" is the WEU, has been in existance for 55 years, and the UK has been a member of it since its founding. And the WEU has a far more in-depth mutual defense commitment than NATO btw.

 

[swerve]

Thanks Kato for this. I had thought the southern limit was the Tropic of Cancer, but could not remember specifically and did not have the opportunity to check for myself at the time. On a side note, it does make me wonder if the charter would need to be modified if Puerto Rico (current US commonwealth) does elect to become the 51st state of the US.

Something else which might need consideration on the part of NATO/NATO members is what the response will be in the future if there is an attack within the NATO area, but launched from outside of the area. An example of that would the somewhat humorous notion of Cuba invading Florida...

-Cheers

The second contingency is covered by the current wording. The origin of the attack is not mentioned. Only the location of the territory, ships or aircraft attacked is relevant. Nor does the treaty limit the scope of the response to the NATO area.

Why should the treaty need amending for Puerto Rico becoming a state? Neither the French DOMs (integral parts of the French state, as much as Paris is) nor Hawaii are currently covered. Why should Puerto Rico be different?

In the example I gave of Cuba vs. Florida... NATO could be called upon to assist the US in defending Florida, but could NATO also be called upon to launch strikes upon Cuba?

Yes. That was what was planned throughout the Cold War: counter strikes against the source of attacks. But in practice, the USA would be unlikely to ask for help with counter strikes against Cuba.

 

[matthew22081991]

Mainland Europe will have to start standing on it's own two feet. NATO's demise will force the European Union to move from a monolithic stationary land based military structure to one which can act unilaterally both at home and overseas. I anticipate a situation not too dissimilar to pre-1914, with a number of alliances being struck based on mutual aid. I can see Germany and France integrating even more closely. The UK will go one of two ways, join a European military structure along with the French and Germans or stick with it's traditional English speaking allies (US,Canada and Aus). My vote would be with the latter with additional increased interoperability with the rising commonwealth nations. The recent deployment by the UK's 2 Rifles to A-STAN comprised of no less than 23 different nationalities recruited from the commonwealth.

I suspect you'll find that we'll go the way of Europe, no matter what you (and I agree with you!) want. The Commonwealth is never going to re-integrate with Britain, the EU killed it off. The Canadians, Australians have no reason at all to help us, even if we have a reason to try and persuade them to. I'm not sure it'll be like 1914, because in 1914 there was no communication between the alliances, I suspect you'll find we've moved on somewhat. Also any further integration internationally will be promarily economic and any diputes between major world powers will be about the economy. I don't predict the Third World War!

Personally, no country will be able to hold its own in 20 or 30 years time and the world will be very multi-polar, the EU in particular will be an important group and I suspect you'll see Britain go that way.

 

[Firn]

There have been some good post concerning the de jure and de facto nature of Nato. I might just add that all the talk about COIN being the future of warfare strikes me to be at the very least very simplistic if not dangerous.

It almost seems that many simply take the present and draw it into future, making the assumed future a clear extension of the present. I would be very careful about doing so.

 

[matthew22081991]

There have been some good post concerning the de jure and de facto nature of Nato. I might just add that all the talk about COIN being the future of warfare strikes me to be at the very least very simplistic if not dangerous.

It almost seems that many simply take the present and draw it into future, making the assumed future a clear extension of the present. I would be very careful about doing so.

Well COIN is the immediate future, but whether conventional warfare is an immediate threat isn't that certain. But with the likes of Russia, India, Brazil and China becoming more assertive it certainly hasn't gone away. And the West isn't necessarily free of it either, North Korea and Iran are still what the West likes to term 'rogue states' and could precipitate conflict. Wars can come out of nowhere too, whilst everyone was preparing for the Cold War to go hot, the Falklands War came out of almost nowhere. We must be prepared for every sort of war. COIN is the immediate priority, but it would be short sighted to just think of that as being the future. Conventional warfare is not an impossibility by any means.