Two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired a parting broadside at the NATO alliance. Gates argued that many European countries have chronically underfunded defense, to the extent that they are now incapable of contributing to the multilateral expeditionary operations that have become part of the alliance's portfolio. Gates' exasperation focused mainly on operations in Libya, which have now considerably outlasted expectations and may soon outlast the will and capability of NATO's European members.
It is worth noting, however, that protection of Libyan civilians through airstrikes sits so far outside NATO's founding purpose that the framers of the 1949 treaty that brought the alliance into existence would hardly recognize the mission. NATO is a tool that has been effectively repurposed since the end of the Cold War, but tools are not infinitely malleable. So while the alliance may not be the ideal tool for managing military intervention in Europe's "near abroad," that does not mean that the organization is -- or risks becoming -- useless. Instead of disparaging allies, it would make more sense for critics to consider what NATO can and cannot do, and adapt their expectations accordingly. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $18 monthly or $118/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- The Realist Prism: West Not Ready for Post-Yanukovych Ukraine
- Global Insights: Despite Mounting Costs, Russia Sticks By Syria’s Assad
- Diplomatic Fallout: Europe’s Struggle for Strategic Competitiveness, Part II
- Iran Nuclear Deal a Welcome First Step
- Diplomatic Fallout: Europe’s Struggle for Strategic Competitiveness, Part I