[moodymonster]

Former secretary general of Nato Lord Carrington has warned that the current mission in Afghanistan could sound the 'death knell' for the organisation.

He agreed that France and Germany were not "pulling their weight" and said the organisation was "not working" at present.

"Not just defeat, I think it may be the death knell for Nato.

"I think when you get a situation in which so many countries in Nato are not prepared to join in and those that do join in say 'We mustn't fight'...I think this is very dangerous for Nato.

"I think we ought to ask ourselves if this doesn't work, what on earth Nato is for?"

MoD Oracle

My view is that countries in NATO have their defence policies built around the concept that if they were attacked they would be supported militarily by their allies. In reality it's not happening. If the proverbial hits the fan can we count on the support if our NATO allies - current experience would suggest: not. The military will in those countries may be there, but not the political will.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

My view is that countries in NATO have their defence policies built around the concept that if they were attacked they would be supported militarily by their allies. In reality it's not happening. If the proverbial hits the fan can we count on the support if our NATO allies - current experience would suggest: not. The military will in those countries may be there, but not the political will.

How does NATO countries not wanting to participate in Afghanistan lead you to conclude that they won't support you if the "proverbial hits the fan"?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How does NATO countries not wanting to participate in Afghanistan lead you to conclude that they won't support you if the "proverbial hits the fan"?

Remember, this isn't Iraq we're talking about here. There was a well-known link between Afghanistan and the attack on the Twin Towers. OBL even served some position in the Taliban Government, IIRC. That event was taken by many at the time to be a declaration of war against the U.S. on the part of Al Qaeda, which enjoyed support from the Afghan government.

The US triggered the mutual defense provisions of NATO after 9/11, and the other governments pledged support. But they did support our overthrow of the Taliban. Do they need to support our rebuilding of the country under the NATO treaty?

[Blasphemy]

Europe has a self-interest in keeping the Taliban and Qaeda suppressed and disrupted in Afghanistan. France and Germany don't care because they can't afford it and/or are interested in countering any policy that would appear to strengthen US influence.

[Dork.]

True, but Article V of the NATO treaty states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

I guess there can be some discussion of what actions each party in the treaty "deems necessary ... to restore and maintain the security" of the region. It was originally intended as a way to defend against the Soviets, but that article never needed to be invoked until September 12, 2001.

But if France and Germany do not want to help the US out of fear that it might strenghten US influence, then why do we still have the treaty in the first place? Remember, we were attacked by a group operating with the approval of the Afghan government, and this treaty holds that an attack on the US is the equivalent of an attack on Europe as far as NATO is concerned.

[macintologist]

True but they crafted NATO around the premise that the Soviet Union would attack Berlin.

NATO is irrelevant now that the cold war is over.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Remember, this isn't Iraq we're talking about here. There was a well-known link between Afghanistan and the attack on the Twin Towers. OBL even served some position in the Taliban Government, IIRC. That event was taken by many at the time to be a declaration of war against the U.S. on the part of Al Qaeda, which enjoyed support from the Afghan government.

The US triggered the mutual defense provisions of NATO after 9/11, and the other governments pledged support.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

But they did support our overthrow of the Taliban. Do they need to support our rebuilding of the country under the NATO treaty?

There have been two issues with respect to Afghanistan. The first was the Taliban's support for Al Qaeda. This issue has long since been resolved. The second issue is rebuilding the country and helping the current democratically elected government maintain stability.

The second is the issue I was thinking about since the first is no longer relevant. Should NATO countries help rebuild Afghanistan? I'm not sure. Is there anything in the NATO charter about this? I doubt rebuilding the Soviet Union was on their mind when they formed NATO. Canada is helping in Afghanistan, and I'm proud of that, but I'm not certain Canada is obliged to help now that the issue which trigger the mutual defense provisions is gone.

[moodymonster]

The problem in A'stan seems to be that the Taliban are still there and it is very much a frontline. UK etc went there with the intention of rebuilding the country, providing security etc

However the situation inside the country is not one that govts expected to be dealing with (apparently). They expected to go there without a shot being fired, and help rebuild the country, hopefully removing it as a future platform for extremists to operate from. Once there, the situation on the ground was very different - hell on earth is frequently used to describe it.

Some countries re-tasked their troops to fight, others kept their troops in the safer parts of the country. Some German troops have commented that they feel like 'bad comrades' for not being more involved - but there are some European troops engaged in operations.

Essentially the bulk of the European troops haven't had their mission changed to match the changed situation on the ground, which doesn't help anyone really.

While the issue of whether we should help rebuild A'stan is there, long term it is probably the better option that we try to make the country a less atractive prospect as a base for terrorists.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

NATO is irrelevant now that the cold war is over.

Bingo!

Dismantle the organization and let the European Union form its own unified military/defense organization for fighting off attacks against the EU. If they were to need our help they could ask for it. And, if the US needs/wants help in fighting its enemies, then we should ask for that help as well . . . on an as-needed basis. I see no need anymore for a permanent treaty between the US and Europe for "mutual defense".

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

True but they crafted NATO around the premise that the Soviet Union would attack Berlin.

NATO is irrelevant now that the cold war is over.

Simply because you and others view it as irrelevant does not mean the treaty evaporates. Legal agreements create obligations that may only be overridden in certain, very formal ways. If the European powers want an end to NATO, they have to formally declare their intentions to leave the treaty. Anything else is an unlawful abrogation of duty and violation of the treaty.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Blasphemy 

Europe has a self-interest in keeping the Taliban and Qaeda suppressed and disrupted in Afghanistan. France and Germany don't care because they can't afford it and/or are interested in countering any policy that would appear to strengthen US influence.

"Shut up. Just shut up."