The French have gone too far. They are prepared to block US efforts to backup our NATO ally Turkey in the event of an Iraqi attack. Germany and Belgium have pledged to go along with it.
According to CNN:
France, Germany and Belgium argued that sending defensive military equipment to Turkey would undermine diplomatic efforts to prevent a conflict. The U.S. wanted NATO to begin planning as soon as possible.This is outrageous! It violates the very spirit and purpose of the North Atlantic Alliance--to support any ally in the event of a hostile attack.
It is one thing to disagree with one’s allies as France and Germany have done up to this point, but another thing entirely to inhibit a fellow ally’s right to self-defense. This is especially egregious considering that said ally shares a common border with an international pariah who has demonstrated no compunction against attacking his neighbors let alone his own people.
Like many, I grow tired of our supposed allies’ attitudes toward taking direct action to lance this boil. I normally despise either/or choices, but in this situation it comes down to: are you with us or against us?
Furthermore, it may be time to rethink the US’s participation in outdated, Cold War alliances that constrain our ability to act in ways I believe are on the right side of history and morality.
---
(The above was written by Paul Fallon. I'm posting it for him because he's having trouble getting into his account. --Dean)
I hate to admit it, but France has a point. If Turkey allows us to use its bases, Iraq can rightly claim that they are responding to an attack. NATO might therefore feel no reason to get involved.
You can't dispute that from their perspective, if Turkey takes part in an attack, it doesn't have the right to drag France in with them.
--
The Wall Street Journal this morning proposed that the US consider pulling out of NATO.
As irritating as the French action is, it is not wise to consider that. Although threatening it might have some usefulness, just as Rumsfeld's criticisms might be. Rattling cages can be diplomatically useful.
But it is increasingly clear that the French wish to be a power player in the world, and their only way to do it is to oppose the U.S. at every opportunity. So then. How to get what we want from them?
Rumsfeld!
So let me get this straight: We threaten to pull out of NATO to rattle some cages, but when the Saudis suggest that we'll be escorted out of their country soon, we .... smile and move on?
Just asking, is all.
For the record, I can see both sides of the issue re: France, Turkey, NATO.
Not qualified to make an informed decision on the right thing to do.
If it serves our purpose to rattle one country's cage, and be polite to another, then we should rattle one country's cage, and be polite to the other.
The French clearly know this. Apparently, so do we.
>>… (I)f Turkey takes part in an attack; it doesn't have the right to drag France in with them.
Yes, Dean, I agree. But what does “participate in an attack” mean in today’s military environment?
Use of NATO air bases on one’s soil? Hosting allied troops in compliance with pre-existing treaties?
Certainly Saddam could/should see this as a threat, but to my thinking, unless US troops cross the Turkish/Iraqi frontier blitzkrieg-style it is hard to pin down an exact definition of what “participating in an attack” means in the world of vertical deployment. If the US sends troops from its bases in Germany to Iraqi soil--does that constitute Germany’s participation in an attack? My sister’s stepson flies C-5’s stationed in Spain to the ME on a regular basis. Would Spain be participating in an attack? I dunno, I’m asking.
Allow me to present a “what if”:
Let’s say that during the Hungarian crisis of 1956 or the Czech crisis of 1968 (dealer’s choice) The United States chose to put its troops stationed in Germany on high alert. Furthermore, the US gave substantial aid to the Germans to beef up their own defenses should the Soviet tanks continue to roll across the East German border. Let’s say France found this inexcusable and declared they would not participate in any action to defend Germany despite treaty obligations.
Granted the above scenario, presents a different world under different circumstances, but the choice remains the same.
We are facing a scenario akin to what many armchair historians liken to what the world should have done when Hitler marched into the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia. It took the invasion of Poland and the treaties that bound the Western democracies to force the world to respond. If the French had decided to look the other way in 1939, the history of the world would be shockingly different.
Turkey, against its own interests, has sided with the US. It faces the threat of retaliation for that alone. If Saddam chooses to turn his wrath on another neighbor for showing some spine we must/should abide by our treaty obligations and defend them—as should France, Germany and Belgium, an attack on one is an attack on all.
France wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants defended against its enemies, but it doesn’t want to display the courage that requires a nation to choose between two obvious moral alternatives.
Dean, as you know, I am one of those people frequently frustrated by the pragmatic needs of the war against terrorism--like our alliance with the House of Saud. But I grudgingly accept it to achieve our stated goals. Allying ourselves with two-faced Saudi islamofascists is one thing, but France et al. have turned their backs on the very Western morality that saved it twice in the 20th century. I have to side with the chorus of dissent which questions the future of our “old European” alliances and the relevance of the UN.
When a party to a contract does not perform, the contract can be nullified. This is not a situation where France or Germany can pay at a later date. The contract calls for mutual defence when attacked and if they have no intentions of holding up their end of the bargain there is no bargain.
France and Germany are bad faith partners and any country who expects them to show any honor to any contract is seriously deluded.
NATO is dead, it just hasn't started stinking yet.
As you all know, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed for the purpose of defending western Europe against the then-agressive stance of Stalin's more or less monolithic communist empire, which by 1949 embraced eastern Europe from Stettin on the Baltic down to the Adriatic Sea, and which had just swallowed China.
The only communist state still threatening anybody today is North Korea, and most of the other few remaining communist countries, such as China and Vietnam, have party-led governments but increasingly capitalistic economies. Cuba is a communist state that one supposes will more or less disappear with the death of its long-time dictator, Fidel Castro -- now an old man. In Europe, there is no longer a hint of communism anywhere, except among souvenir collectors seeking Soviet era memorabilia.
What, therefore, is the conceivable overriding function for NATO today, and why should the United States play any role in it? France, Germany and the rest were America's allies when they needed us, because they faced a very real threat of being overrun by the Soviet Union's vast ground armies back up by significant air power.
But the only Russian invasion of central and western Europe these days comprises ordinary Russians looking to relocate in places where they can find steady jobs and a better way of life. The Europeans undoubtedly see us now as an unnecessary nuisance, and they perceive that our interests and needs have diverged from theirs.
Perhaps I am overstating my case. A large number of the European states do in fact support the Bush administration and see the danger in allowing a dangerous dictator Saddam Hussein to hide weapons of mass destruction or materials to manufacture them. Certainly, the United Kingdom will be with us as allies through thick and thin, because we share with the brotherhood of the English-speaking world.
But some of the leading European states, and especially France, Germany and Russia, apparently share neither our apprehensions about Iraq nor our readiness to pull down its present government. They in fact are not allies, and they will not again be allies until their perceived interests coincide with ours, and ours with theirs. This has always been the shifting nature of coalitions, therefore it should not be surprising to anyone. The message to Americans is quite clear: Where it does not apply, drop the multilateralism, and pursue a policy based strictly on consideration of OUR national interests.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Clearly, Germany and France want to be at the center of a European superstate.
Disassembling NATO means doing away with the nuisance of America, and will allow the all-Europe defense force (i.e. the "EU Army") to become something real. This will draw other countries in Europe inevitably further from America.
Which may be what they've actually had in mind all along. With NATO gone, Germany and France become far more powerful.
>>You can't dispute that from their perspective, if Turkey takes part in an attack, it doesn't have the right to drag France in with them.
Dean,
I am not sure what you mean here. If you mean that Turkey invoking the mutual defense clause of NATO drags France into the Iraq War/War on Terrorism then I believe you are missing an important component.
It is time to fish or cut bait. Turkey cast her lot with her allies, not the Arab world.
Turkey by helping the United States defend itself against Iraqi support of Al Qaeda exposes herself to inevitable reprisals. This is an absolute given due to the Arab character. Attaturk removed Turkey from the Arab world four score years ago. Turkey is a NATO member; she allies herself with Europe; and is knocking for admission to the European Union. She does align herself with the Arab world.
Turkey already knows that Hussein will lose as surely as if she were clairvoyant. The United States will depose Hussein. He will die. Therefore, what real choice does Turkey have? Why should Turkey forsake any of these advantages to support another corrupt, totalitarian Arab dictator? France is making a very dumb move. I doubt you can embarrass a frog. But we will try.
Removing Saddam Hussein from the list of living people will reduce the number of terrorist sponsoring states by one. We will also flank two other terrorist sponsoring states: Iran and Syria. Look at a Middle Eastern map if you do not agree.
This will necessarily further disrupt Al Qaeda communications, command, and control. Those terrorists must then assemble, train, and receive succor elsewhere besides Afghanistan or Iraq. Turkey knows full well we are the winners on this issue. I see this as a no-brainer for Turkey.
>>But it is increasingly clear that the French wish to be a power player in the world, and their only way to do it is to oppose the U.S. at every opportunity. So then. How to get what we want from them?
Dean,
We do not. Let the French hang themselves. Their credibility is shot. They probably have beaucoup contracts with Iraq to build nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors, and poison gasses.
>>Turkey, against its own interests, has sided with the US. It faces the threat of retaliation for that alone. If Saddam chooses to turn his wrath on another neighbor for showing some spine we must/should abide by our treaty obligations and defend them—as should France, Germany and Belgium, an attack on one is an attack on all.
Paul,
Turkey obviously has cast her lot with Europe, the EU, NATO, the USA and the west in general. This is increasingly so ever since Mustafa Kamal (Kamal Attaturk) began westernizing Turkey in 1921. He liberated women allowing them to vote; ended the veil requirement; adopted the Latin alphabet dropping Arabic. Attaturk adopted numerous westernizing reforms. I seriously doubt Turkey sees supporting the United States as much of a risk. If they do not support us then Turkey must tolerate another unstable Arab dictator. This is another historical no-brainer.
>>France wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants defended against its enemies, but it doesn’t want to display the courage that requires a nation to choose between two obvious moral alternatives.
Paul,
Not only that, France also wants all the benefits of NATO without all the concomitant responsibilities. DeGaulle withdrew France from the military wing of NATO thirty-five years ago. Perhaps NATO might withdraw France from NATO.
>>I have to side with the chorus of dissent which questions the future of our “old European” alliances and the relevance of the UN.
Is it possible for NATO to survive intact without a UN?
>>Clearly, Germany and France want to be at the center of a European super state.
Disassembling NATO means doing away with the nuisance of America, and will allow the all-Europe defense force (i.e. the "EU Army") to become something real. This will draw other countries in Europe inevitably further from America.
Which may be what they've actually had in mind all along. With NATO gone, Germany and France become far more powerful.
Dean,
You must be kidding. Both France and Germany dedicated themselves to the socialist welfare state following the end of the Cold War. About 60% of their government budgets go toward social programs. Germany and France each dedicate about 1% of their GNP to national defense. How in the world can you project a strong foreign policy beyond your borders without a military? You cannot.
If France and Germany are disassembling NATO then maybe NATO will continue while ignoring them. When Germany and France are threatened, NATO might just not respond. This EU Army will then exist without France or German armies. I doubt the other members of NATO want to eliminate this military alliance. It is integral in fighting the War on Terrorism. I expect their dissonance will portend more ominously for the European Union than NATO.
I have to go with what Arnold said above.
I don't see how the EU reaction force can come close to NATO in at least a generation. In fact most NATO countries can't meet current military requirements except for (say) Great Britain.
Oops, gotta run, more later.
I'm baaacck!
Dean: I agree about Germany's and France's ambitions. I disagree with your interpretation of the results, should NATO dissolve.
Arnold did a nice job of summarizing some of the major points concerning NATO, except one thing: NATO originated from the Treaty of Dunkirk, which Britain and France signed in 1948 if memory serves, which was designed to face the possibility of a resurgent Germany originally. It wasn't hard to reorient it to the new Soviet threat.
Arnold also asks the $64 question: what is the central mission of NATO today? Fighting terrorism? It's very evident that Britain is the only country that has kept their forces up to America's standards these days. As I started to say before, most NATO countries are currently not up to spec in terms of their capabilities and NATO requirements. France and Germany especially have been lax. Anyone following the news can see which countries are doing all the heavy lifing. So absent the UK and the US, what capability is left? Not much. The same observation follows for the much-discussed "EU rapid reaction force."; all reaction, and no force.
So we have a continent that doesn't have much of a collective military capability, that has displayed no interest or initiative in enhancing that capability, and that does not demonstratably serve America's interests.
Just why do we need American troops in Germany now? It used to be that they were the trip-wire that guarenteed US participation in the event of a Soviet attack, but that is no longer a motivating factor.
The same applies for Japan and Korea. Japan has one of the strongest economies in the world, as well as a world-class military, for what they have. The Koreans are no slouches either. They rank with the Marines, Texas, and Ireland, as true scrappers. Both countries are more than able to defend themselves.
So why not save money and resources by allocating our forces more efficiently? This, of course, would be determined by our strategic needs and goals. It is evident that Britain and Australia have remained loyal allies. These two, as well as some of our newer allies should be the beneficiaries of our resource allocation.
Also, you claim that dissolving NATO would allow a "EU army" to coalesce. Not unless Hell freezes over, or the major EU leaders (such as, say, France and Germany) make serious and dramatic changes in their budgets and force structures.
Considering that many of the economies in question are, at best, stagnant right now, increased military spending is definitely not on the horizon, especially when you look at the "Old Europe" propensity for diplomatic posturing over armed force.
It is my analysis that many countries would realize that becoming more tightly bound to "Old Europe" would be 'fusion with a corpse', to quote an old Froggy politician. One US move discussed lately would be turning NAFTA into the North Atlantic Free Trade Organization for Britain. I've read that Britain expressed just such an interest when NAFTA was passed.
Kevin, columnist Austin Bay raised a good point recently: another good reason to force the fight here and now is that Al Qaeda will feel obliged to fight for Hussein, just because he runs a Muslim country that is willing to fight the US. So they either come out and get killed, or hide out and get dissed. Slick move; I just wish I could believe someone in Washington planned it that way. Heh.
Kevin,
Occupation of Iraq will outflank three terrorist supporting states. You forgot the Saudi Entity.
I include a post from a recent NRO list:
"In a week when the chairman of the EU’s ‘convention’ has produced a first draft of a laughably grandiose ‘constitution’, Brussels has shown that its overreach is not confined to the big picture. The latest step in the Commission’s bid to build a united Europe is a requirement that farmers must stamp every egg they sell with their home address, the details of the hen which laid the egg, the method of production, the code for the producer-packer, and a sell-by date."
World-beaters, or egg-beaters? I ask you... :)
The purpose of NATO at its foundation does not define what it is or can be in the future.
There is no reason a NATO cannot exist even if we remove most of our troops from Germany and France.
NATO remains the single greatest alliance of democratic republics in world history, one of extraordinary strategic advantage--and potential moral purpose.
By allowing it to be imperiled, Germany and France are throwing away something incredible. Obviously we cannot stay with the alliance if others within it have broken faith, but it remains worthwhile to salvage if possible.
Damn the French, and damn the Germans.
As for the European force: with NATO gone, unless something else takes its place, it seems likely that however laughable the force, it'll be the only game in town 20 or 30 years down the line. Which is where I'm really thinking on these things.
Broad military and economic alliances are far more powerful things than any jibber-jabber joke like the OAS or the UN, and far more flexible than a centralized state such as what the EU is trying to evolve toward.
Can't NATO just kick out Germany and France?
If they break faith - bye, bye - they are gone.
It would leave them incredibly vunerable, if they were out on their own with no "friends", wouldn't it?
Maybe I'm just being naive - I'm just saying, ya know?
>> Kevin,
Occupation of Iraq will outflank three terrorist supporting states. You forgot the Saudi Entity.
Mike,
You make you very interesting point about Saudi Arabia. I purposefully did not include them as terrorist sponsoring states since relationship with America is uniquely complex. Our relations with them are especially complex for some reason or another. Is it because they see us not as allies in the Middle East but as rivals? I believe that goes a long way to explain why the Saudis are always on all sides of every issue.
I am sure they want to rid their neighborhood of Saddam Hussein. But I am equally convinced they do not want a United States that always gets its way in the Middle East, either.
I am not convinced the Saudi government sponsors terrorists. However, I can see them supporting Moslem charities that have members who might be terrorists. Whether they turn a blind eye, or knowingly support these organizations is an open question. I am sure our CIA and NSA are working over time to find the answer.
>>Kevin, columnist Austin Bay raised a good point recently: another good reason to force the fight here and now is that Al Qaeda will feel obliged to fight for Hussein, just because he runs a Muslim country that is willing to fight the US. So, they either come out and get killed, or hide out and get dissed. Slick move, I just wish I could believe someone in Washington planned it that way. Heh.
Casey,
Do not forget to add that Al Qaeda must also communicate to coordinate these activities against the U.S. also. That gives us more opportunities to intercept their communications and have a better chance of killing them. It also gives us more tactical information to further disrupt their entire operations.