Based on comments from Joe from Great Britian in the thread on Europe as a super power, it dawned on me that we seldom hear of a role for NATO in the Global War on Terrorism. Question to the group: do you think NATO is a viable military force structure?
thanks
DJ

It is when the need to defend their own countries back in the Soviet Menance, it's not now.

No I think that France is out to upset the power of NATO as long as they keep interfearing
it will continue if France and Germany want to go it alone fine do it but I suspect that by trying for a euro set-up they can try and claim funding from the EEC and there was an article in the papers this weekend in the UK about the UK having to spare its nukes with this new army as Germany is banned from having them. I'm in the forces and I'm not in favor of it we are far to over streached as it is we've been in the Balkans for 10 ten years time for us to come out of there and let some one else replace us

Based on your comment, should NATO fold its tent? What are they defending against?

the answer to the original thread is No. NATO is a political structure looking for a mission to fulfil. Many defenders of NATO cite its involvement in various peace-keeping missions, the reality is somewhat different. There is little or no standardisation within member countries, one of the most influential members (France) is only a political member, it does not commit troops and jealously guards its basing facilities...

The 'War against Terrorism' most of europe has little or no perception of the dangers of terrorism, few governments pay more than lip-service to the concept. The charming Herr Schroeder and his organ-grinder, the equally charming M.Chirac, have a foreign policy based entirely on national interest and no conception of the dangers that terrorism poses to them (Ostrich Theory Foreign Policy) so the chances of NATO becoming a major player in the war against terrorism..nil. JIm

Well, if, as some contributors state, NATO has no discrnable foe on the horizon and a lack of standardization thorughout, what would be the consequences of dismantling the whole organization? I do not think that on my side of the big water anyone would even know it went except for some high ranking boys.

First off - I heartily echo jimbrae's thoughts in his post. He mirrored my feelings and impressions.

Secondly, I think NATO is a pseudo-military force now seeking a political reason for it's existence. I think it could be disbanded for lack of mission/reason to exist. However, the consequences might be to further isolate the French and Germans.

I never have considered France as a part of NATO - with its staunch stand to keep the Independent French Force (IFF) out of NATO command. There is no loss there because the French are only on France's side in any conflict. Their approach to Foreign Policy seems to be bent on isolating any and everyone not on their "side". Germany's policy seems to be at odds with a NATO Alliance, and therefore by default attractive to France.

Strange as it seems, NATO keeps both sides of the Atlantic engaged in some level of discussion/or discourse depending on your point of view. Sure, NATO could be disbanded today and perhaps few would mourn its passing - but is this a good thing considering the disfunctional UN Security Council and state of affairs between a non-member, minority member, and a large member of NATO?

Do we (US) need NATO leads me to the next question - does the US need the UN?

Gunnie

[quote]


i agree with both jimbrea and guntrucks points,
and gunnie raises a good point about the UN,
i believe the UN is in reality powerless, and really serves no more purpose than to create arguaments between nations.

the ineffectiveness of the UN was proven by the war on iraq, the US, britain etc went to war against the wishes of the UN security council, and they have done nothing.

although this lack of assertiveness was, for me,first demonstrated during the falklands war,
the UN told britain not to go to war over what was an unprovoked act of aggression against british sovereign territory.
obviously the UN was ignored.

i am unsure of the future of the UN and NATO, but would not be surprised if they disappear before long.
cheers
joe

The lack of unilateral action in the current 'war on terror', namely the attitude of France and Germany; may well actually be because over the last two hundred years they've both learnt that sticking their noses into other countries gets them a good kicking? Something that we're only just learning in Iraq.
Personally, having narrowly missed being involved in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, I support action against those organisation that practice this form of mass murder.
If Nato and the UN are too weak to act in unison then perhaps then it is time that they went, but should they be replaced with a single body that could co-ordinate political & physical activity without being a political body in it's own right?

Oh good, the UN is in the firing line as well ! I have to echo the above thought re. the UN. It is without a shadow of a doubt, the most corrupt organization on the planet. Does the US need the UN? I believe it does not. All that has happened in the UN in the last few years has been nothing more than a series of not-so-subtle attacks on US foreign policy. And I don't even dare start mentioning the absurd attacks against Israel when regimes like those of Libya, Iran and Syria are permitted to follow their own eccentric foreign policies. The image of the UN as some kind of benevolent organization is rarely challenged.
Back to NATO, in the sphere of arms procurement it is laughable to put it mildly.. I don't know how many of you have been in the situation during a NATO exercise of trying to communicate with ones allies. Thank god the sovs never came thru the Fulda Gap, we would have had to have waited for the BBC world service to tell us about it....
There fortunately is a force structure in existence which works, it is not formalized and has no top-heavy bureaucratic structure, its called the special relationship and has served both Britain and the USA well since 1945.... Jim

The UN General Assembly is a tower of Babel. How someone believes some small country is going to be on a equal footing with the Big Boys is pure folly. It is a meaningless forum. The real authority and action arm is the Security Council. The prinicpal players being the US, GB, France, China and Russia. The committment to do something to end the global threat of terrorism is in their hands. My own impression is that unless something happens within France (and Paris in particular) you will never see or hear the French doing anything. That leaves the other four members to form and act. Will they do it?
DJ

NATO, in my opinion, no longer serves a purpose. The threat for which it was organized, is gone. Does the US need to maintain a military relationship with Europe? Yes, absolutely. If for no other reason to keep an eye on France, and to ensure the newly liberated countries of eastern Europe remain so. We need to continue to move our military forces out of Germany and Belgium, and into Poland, Romania and Hungary.

I just had to check if you did actually use the words "France" and "Military Superpower" in the same sentence.

I think what you see is that France is the darling of our press corps. They just delight in telling us that "oh my, oh my" other Nations have different interest than our own. And, (here's the catch) that means that other people don't like us. If they don't like us then we are bad folks. Condescending to say the least. This is not a popularity contest. To stomp out terrorism, we have to come to the conclusion that there are nasty guys out there who wish us harm. They have nothing to lose and, therefore, will do just about anything to anyone. Like any other type of vermin, the only solution is to eliminate the cockroaches. NATO while envisioned as a defense alignement should be in the fore front of this campaign. It has the people and resources to make a difference. If it does grow with the times than it is doomed to pass.
DJ

I think that NATO has lost it's function. The "great foe" is no longer present. The lack of standardization is no longer present and the need for it has disappeared. The UN has lost sight of it's objectives. It was a way we were to limit aggression . Sanctions used to work a long time ago, but more and more countries chose to ignore them. Military peacekeeping became a joke with the UN forces ending up hiding in their compounds rather than getting in the middle of warring paties and forcing them to quit or face severe consequences. The UN does not need disbanding, just revamping

So, how do you propose the UN be revamped?