NATO's function at this point is simply an assurance of non-hostile resolution of disputes in Europe. Just as the EU's expansion makes it possible for, say, French, Germans, Poles and others to settle their disputes and grievances under a unified economic umbrella, so NATO allows the countries of Europe to stop worrying about another Napoleon or Hitler who will attempt to integrate the continent by force. It is the Holy Roman Empire of the Third Millenium.

NATO will be highly relevant the moment an aggresive Russia, China, etc threatens a member. It's really more like an emergency response team more so now instead of the many other hats it wore. It wont go away and it seems like the UN is better suited for those other duties.

You are assuming that the real function of NATO has been its explicitly stated mission, to thwart military attacks upon its members by non-NATO countries. But isn't it possible that this has just been a mere instrument for a deeper, implicit function that its members have discovered in NATO: preventing wars between NATO members? Wars among NATO's member countries had been periodic affairs, every couple of decades or so, going back centuries. Since NATO, intra-European warfare has been eliminated, even allowing for the emergence of a pan-European polity in the EU. Can we really be so sure that military conflict between European states wouldn't begin again if institutionalized American sponsorship of European unity, through something like NATO, were to disappear?

I don't think Afghanistan is as big a catastrophe (for NATO!) as you do. Elite opinion is implicated in the fiasco all across the spectrum - for chrissakes in Norway the Socialist Left Party is still on board. Barring a major overturn in leadership, there will not be more than a half-hearted rethink because no one likes to say I'm sorry. (cf. Democrats on Bush WoT policies.)

Also, however dubious an enterprise peacekeeping/nation-building may be, and it is dubious, NATO is better at it than competitors. Compare the merely awful performance of NATO in Afghanistan with the utterly shambolic UN mission in the Congo.

Lastly, and not to get all Marxist here, but capitalist societies from time to time find it necessary to go to war for no good reason. NATO allows the smaller European nations to punch above their weight when there's a conflict to be joined.

So yes, I think NATO will continue to have relevance because ultimately European policymakers aren't much smarter than our own.

Stephen Walt should know better than spewing cliches and inaccuracies

1) todays NATO (European part) is roughly equivalent with the "EU-Army" and some non EU members like Norway are NATO members. This army is actually somewhat bigger than the US-Army and has a budget which is roughly HALF the one of the US, far, far ahead of even the combined budget of China and Russia.

2) Its oversea deployable troops are roughly 300 000 which is basically the same than for the US Army. The last 15 years (through NATO or other European combinations the EU has deployed on different missions an average of 70 000 men/year, with tops to 100 000. Those troops are deployable too in sensitive areas where US deployment is politically difficult or impossible like in Lebanon and mostly Africa.

3) 2 of these Armies (French and British) are considered as the best in the world with the US through professionalism, experience and top modern equipment. Besides those 2 countries still possess a network of bases throughout the world and a nuclear deterrent of roughly 550 350Mt MIRV that can reach any spot on the world and this with a second strike capacity. It has an independent satellite (spy, guidance etc...) which will soon match the one of the US. Besides it has reliable launchers when at the same time the US is practically dismantling its space program.

4) It is true that the European forces have lacked the same projection capacity than the US, but within two-four years and the arrival of new planes like the A400M, new Air refuelers annoying Boeing, new aircraft carriers (the European fleet will soon have 2 new major modern carriers and already has one modern major and 4 modern minor ones) will change that radically. The current standing European transport fleet could today project 25 000 men with following equipment within 48 hours in a first wave, a capacity which will double round 2015. The current European Navy is of about 160 ships only for France and the UK, add roughly 80 for the rest which makes it the second biggest navy in the world, not far behind the US and far ahead of Russia and China.

5) the current cuts are temporary and mostly affecting the UK, somewhat Germany and not France. A lot of the cuts are aiming at modernizing existing structures. A Fulda Gap war against Russia is not likely because of the nuclear deterrent and the new geopolitical situation. And a missile war with Russia not being likely either, the money goes to more modern units adapted to rapid reaction overseas. And "AR" is wrong about the energetic dependency on Russia, it's another canard that applies somewhat to Germany and former Soviet satellites. Most of the European oil comes from diversified sources where OWN resources play a big role. And there are other gas producers than Russia.

6) The passage about Bosnia/Kosovo is borderline insulting. Since 1993 the participation of combat-engaged GROUND troops has been to 85% European and maybe 5% US (who never saw combat). It's true that the US air participation has been overwhelming but at the same time specially in Kosovo a TOTAL military failure (the Serbian Army suffered only minor losses). The EU paid for the reconstruction and the "occupied territories" are all to become EU members in the coming years, meeting modern economical and democracy criteria. That's why the European presence has been cut down from 80 000 to 10 000. Compare with Iraq and Afghanistan and weep.

7) Turkey isn't reliable and we'll have to deal with it. Turkey was important in the cold war context, the new context is different.

So most of Walts arguments fall flat. It's truly amazing that the US can't accept its shortcomings (it hasn't won a SERIOUS war since 1945), been attacked on its own soil, is currently unable to conduct a third massive conventional war without turning its bankrupt economy into a war economy and readopting mass conscription, but still disses others as sissies, refuses to acknowledge that their technology is equivalent or even superior, has an ageing airforce with no real replacement before 2015 (if the current winged brick called JSF really flies)... this to signal some major flaws.

And at the same time it wonders when its own pandering President is ridiculed in China, if the Europeans will "help". Let me tell you something, European leaders and the majority of its citizens are VERY aware of the Chinese threat because we hate mercantilism, to the difference from the Walmart guzzlers. And the Chinese don't own our debt and currency. So maybe we have good reasons to doubt if the US will be a reliable partner the day we may have to strike.

"7) Turkey isn't reliable and we'll have to deal with it. Turkey was important in the cold war context, the new context is different."

That may be true for us, but the opposite is true for Europe. Turkey is an increasingly attractive outlet for European finance capital - in part precisely because Erdogan has finally brokered peace with the neighbors inc. Iran and Syria. Since domestic concerns have precluded Turkey's EU membership for now, Turkey-in-NATO is even more relevant.

Furthermore, several European countries run ply a profitable sanctions-busting trade with Iran, even as they vote for more sanctions. Having Turkey as a go-between is valuable.

And Turkey's I/P policy is less of a drawback in the EU; in fact, it's becoming a political asset - just look at David Cameron's remarks on Gaza during his recent visit.

Fri Sep 24, 2:00 PM

GHENT, Belgium (AFP) - Europe decided Friday to explore how to strengthen military cooperation as France warned that drastic defence budget cuts would leave the continent under Sino-American domination.
ADVERTISEMENT

French Defence Minister Herve Morin said he had told his European Union counterparts at a meeting in Ghent, Belgium, that plans to step up European military cooperation would falter without proper budgets.

"Most European states have given up on a simple ambition, which is that Europeans obtain a military tool allowing them to weigh on world affairs," he told reporters on the sidelines of a two-day meeting of EU defence chiefs.

"At the pace we're going, Europe is progressively becoming a protectorate, and in 50 years we will become a game in a balacing act between new powers in which we will be under a Sino-American dominion," he said.

Morin warned that "every country in the world is rearming" while European states that already had weak military budgets before the economic crisis were proceeding with new cuts.

"Do Europeans want to be actors on the international stage or do they want to be the actors in a play they are not writing?" he said.

Morin urged Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign and security policy chief, to take the mantle of Europe's military ambitions.

"It is up to Mrs Ashton to give this impetus," he said.

European governments should examine which capacities they want to keep sovereign and which they would share, he said. Concretely, European armies could cooperate in the fields of transport, logistics and training.

Poland backed calls to step up efforts nearly one year after the Lisbon Treaty, the EU's landmark reform treaty, came into force with provisions allowing states to enhance military cooperation on a permanent basis.

"We are not moving fast enough to apply the Lisbon Treaty in the area of defence," Polish Defence Minister Bogdan Klich told reporters.

Belgian Defence Minister Pieter De Crem told his counterparts at a dinner Thursday that there was "discontent about the way military cooperation has been conducted up to now."

His country holds the rotating presidency of the 27-nation EU.

The European Defence Agency was asked in Ghent to explore ways to enhance cooperation between EU states and report back at a formal meeting of defence ministers in December, De Crem told a news conference on Friday.

The EDA was established in 2004 to help EU states improve the bloc's defence capabilities but it has a budget of 30 million euros, a drop in the bucket compared to national defence budgets.

"We insisted on the strategic role EDA has to play in the future," he said.

A recent agreement between Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands to pool 200 transport aircraft under a single command stood out as a prime example of closer cooperation, De Crem said.

"This is the kind of cooperation we will develop more," he said, adding that Luxembourg and Spain had expressed interest in joining the arrangement.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100924/world/eu_military_france_us_china

No...to simple an article.

Do we want a multilateral future? If so, NATO could be an excellent building block for multilateral safeguards.

For the multinational enforcement of rules we will surely need wide acceptance of the definition of failed and dangerous states, where 'Foreign Policy' has made considerable efforts. The magazine publishes an 'Index of Failed States'.

This week's global governance report from US and EU intelligence services included at P31 a comment on troubling states:

"A joint initiative by the Brookings Institution and New York and Stanford Universities on Russian, Chinese, Indian, and South African approaches to fragile states found there are deep-seated concerns within emerging powers about the consequences of the proactive management of state fragility. . . The researchers on the project argue that the eventual verdict on the interventions in past years in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States and NATO will have far-reaching impacts on how pro-active emerging powers will be when faced by future calls for intervention"

It is a bit unkind to say NATO is irrelevant, it simply needs tweaking and could become a wonderful organisation for military ceremonial and tattoos for soldiers to flaunt their plumes and feathers and show off their skills, a Europe wide Royal Tournament; very good for the tourist industry. The US might be better backing out since their soldiers don’t have much in the way of feathers and plumes. We could rename it the ETO to preserve a flavour of its past.

The US might also usefully close bases and withdraw from Europe altogether while they are at it since there isn’t any likely threat to an area so impoverished and politically fractured it is hard to imagine who else would want it. Anyway, the proper ‘major power’ for Europe to take up with is Russia; the last Tsarina was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria, and Peter the Great had a whale of a time in Paris.

From above:
"The researchers on the project argue that the eventual verdict on the interventions in past years in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States and NATO will have far-reaching impacts on how pro-active emerging powers will be when faced by future calls for intervention".

Interventions in the future depend on final verdicts on the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? A crucial matter for NATO. Therefore what is preventing the final verdicts that the many US researchers apparently need?

"We came into this to support you and have lost too many of our young men and women as a result. It's your war and if you can't come up with a workable strategy we're out of here. You've got five years and no more."

That's just a guess, but it sort of rings true. The reality is that nobody trusts the US capability to win wars any more. That makes the inevitable US leadership of NATO an albatross around the neck of the alliance.

I feel that most NATO countries in Europe need Russia for their economic trade. There are also cut back in the budget of the NATO members in Europe. I feel that none of the European NATO members would be able to take Russia in a battle.

I feel like it would be good for the European hegemon to watch the world for a little so that America could pull out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home.

The logistics and scope of NATO, while impressive on paper is not entirely the correct question to ask. The correct question is, does Europe via NATO have the political will to make NATO afford any difference in any conflict, potential conflict or so called 'peace keeping' operation. The answer to THAT question, clearly, is no. And with the UK, France and Germany all looking at 10-20% defense budget cuts, even the logistics and scope of NATO on paper let alone in practice will soon dwindle to nothing.

For example. the UK is once again, for the second time since the late 1970's giving serious thought to abandoning its nuclear capability. This would leave France as the sole nuclear power in Europe. France is not prepared politically to provide the nuclear shield for all of Europe, The other factor to consider is that in Europe more than 50% of their defense budgets are consumed by salaries and benefits. The EU states, e.g. NATO are no longer making even replacement levels of investments in their own equipment. NATO will shortly become nothing more than a source of employment for its member states.

Perhaps the US researchers will soon get the final verdict they want on the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re the evolving index of failed states, it is surprising that nuclear armed Pakistan is not yet considered a higher priority - it is reported to be reeling in the wake of a devastating flood, rampant militancy, bad governance and a crisis between the executive and the judiciary.

Not at the moment but it will be. NATO, as a symbol of transatlatic cooperation, it won't be dissolved, but his voice in international problems won't have such importance. The UE, in time, will have it's own force and army, a reunited one, and will initiate the procedures for Russia's accession to the Union.
Appartamenti Bucarest

OPINION EUROPE, WSJ.COM, OCT 6, 2010
"The hardest question for Atlanticists to answer these days from members of the U.S. Congress is why the defense burden should fall so much on American shoulders, and increasingly so. Our NATO allies aren't spending enough to be credible security partners anymore. The fact is, however, that Europe's decline in defense spending is directly related to an increase in social-welfare spending over the past two decades. Now, because budgets are squeezed, the allies' instinct is to look to defense expenditures as a source of savings. Two cents on the dollar hardly seems an exorbitant amount for free states to pay for the defense of peace and prosperity. And if this does seem like too much money, NATO countries might consider the costs of the alternative."