The Belgravia Dispatch: The Forgotten, Forgotten War

October 09, 2007

The Forgotten, Forgotten War

For a hint as to why things aren't going particularly swimmingly here recall that the North Atlantic Treaty was consummated back in 1949--with the main goal having NATO, of course, serve primarily as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Article 5 states:

The Parties of NATO agreed 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-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, 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.

But not a single one of the original signatories in a million years would have imagined half a century on that this provision would be invoked to engage in decades-long nation building efforts in the wilds of Kandahar. Don't get me wrong. Invoking the collective security provision of NATO's charter— that any attack on a member state would be considered an attack against the entire group of members--was an understandable reaction to the 9/11 attacks. But decimating al-Qaeda's encampments and capturing its top leadership (which we've still failed to do, incredibly) should have been accomplished with exacting, rapid-fire precision--with the alliance than focusing anew on its primary area of responsiblity, which is to say, preservation of stability in Europe and the broader Atlantic Community.

Given the death of the Soviet Union (Fred Thompson aside) and Warsaw Pact--and prodded along by the events of 9/11--NATO is casting about somewhat clumsily for a new role, perhaps akin to some pan-global 'missionary-style' force for long-term peace and security. And amidst this muddled, to be determined mandate, there's seems to be quite a bias towards further expansion. There's the Partnership for Peace, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Individual Partnership Action Plans, not to mention a couple "dialogues" underway (Mediterranean, Intensified). Where will all these exciting dialogues lead, one wonders? Likely the steady deterioration of a cohesive NATO alliance, I'd wager, if for no other reason than it gets gradually rendered irrelevant and/or becomes overly unwieldly given all this dilution...still, it's really cool the Georgians (that's one of the "Intensified Dialogues", mind you) are helping protect us against the Iranian threat... Very serious!

P.S. Tangential, I guess, if somewhat related, but of all the many photographs we've seen of the Iraq War, this one is well up there for most surreal espied to date...

Posted by Gregory at October 9, 2007 01:02 AM

Comments

This soldier in Afghanistan has something to say about that:

...ultimately, protecting America involves more than just killing bad guys. That means I’ve often got different missions than the ones I envisioned in my sleep-deprived days of Ranger school, where I dreamed of mowing down the Islamist horde with an endless belt of 7.62. Despite what Brian DePalma and his ilk might think, I don’t go around dictating law with the muzzle of my rifle...

Read it all.

Posted by: Solomon2 at October 9, 2007 01:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

Gregory,

I usually find myself agreeing with your judgments, but the photo you link to does not hold a candle to http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=99999999&g2_itemId=1487

Posted by: Wendell at October 9, 2007 09:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

Wendell, you're wrong. Your photo show the inanity of the Americans, Gregories the inanity of the Iraq war itself. Forget the Orthodox priest, what are Georgians doing there in the first place. Even they are not members of NATO.

As far as NATO is concerned, it should have folded its tent around 1989-1990 since the reason d'etre behind its establishment fell with the Berlin wall. But like all good bureaucratic groups who have thousands dependent upon its existence, it redefined it mission to: well never mind. It's one chance to act as a military power in Afghanistan is now becoming undone as some of its members start saying, "what the hell has this to do with my country anyway."

But going back, NATO has always been an empty suit. That the Soviets were also an empty suit gave it some semblance of a legitimate outfit. But we all knew that if the Soviets launched an attack against a NATO country, none would have responded but the USA.

Which brings me to the basic question, since when did it become our job to protect the Europeans. I think Ike saw that our inability to extract ourselves from Europe after WWII was going to bring about the Military-Industrial-University combination that would benefit financially from an aggressive foreign policy. The result of the debacle in Iraq is a call for increasing our Army and Marines. You'd thin that we would want to cut back on our forces since we should have learned that having them is a great temptation to foolishness.

Having a great Army means you have to use it. Having a great Navy and Air Force requires the same mandate. Therefore, as Senator McCain said tonight, Iran is very close to being attacked. All we need is for the Harry S Truman and one other of our carriers to get in position.

Posted by: Llyonnoc at October 9, 2007 10:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

Llyonnoc:

"we all knew that if the Soviets launched an attack against a NATO country, none would have responded but the USA."

That is questionable. To put it mildly.

Ever hear of the BAOR (British Army of the Rhine) or RAFG (Royal Air Force Germany)? ACE Mobile Force?
And that's just for starters.

As regards the Soviet Union, it may have been an empty suit by 1989; that was hardly the case in 1949.

Posted by: John Farren at October 10, 2007 05:49 AM | Permalink to this comment

This photo (and comment), I think sums up the occupation of Iraq best for me.

Posted by: blowback at October 11, 2007 01:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Actually, Article 5 has nothing to do with Afghanistan. NATO participation occured in 2003 under Article 4 to support the UN mandated ISAF mission. THis is a UN mission with NATO providing command and control for the military forces. Note: Not all participating militaries are from NATO nations.

Posted by: Mike at October 16, 2007 05:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

	« Policy-Making as Travesty \| Main \| Force of Example Vs. Preaching Under the Barrel of a Gun » October 09, 2007 The Forgotten, Forgotten War For a hint as to why things aren't going particularly swimmingly here recall that the North Atlantic Treaty was consummated back in 1949--with the main goal having NATO, of course, serve primarily as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Article 5 states: The Parties of NATO agreed 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-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, 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. But not a single one of the original signatories in a million years would have imagined half a century on that this provision would be invoked to engage in decades-long nation building efforts in the wilds of Kandahar. Don't get me wrong. Invoking the collective security provision of NATO's charter— that any attack on a member state would be considered an attack against the entire group of members--was an understandable reaction to the 9/11 attacks. But decimating al-Qaeda's encampments and capturing its top leadership (which we've still failed to do, incredibly) should have been accomplished with exacting, rapid-fire precision--with the alliance than focusing anew on its primary area of responsiblity, which is to say, preservation of stability in Europe and the broader Atlantic Community. Given the death of the Soviet Union (Fred Thompson aside) and Warsaw Pact--and prodded along by the events of 9/11--NATO is casting about somewhat clumsily for a new role, perhaps akin to some pan-global 'missionary-style' force for long-term peace and security. And amidst this muddled, to be determined mandate, there's seems to be quite a bias towards further expansion. There's the Partnership for Peace, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Individual Partnership Action Plans, not to mention a couple "dialogues" underway (Mediterranean, Intensified). Where will all these exciting dialogues lead, one wonders? Likely the steady deterioration of a cohesive NATO alliance, I'd wager, if for no other reason than it gets gradually rendered irrelevant and/or becomes overly unwieldly given all this dilution...still, it's really cool the Georgians (that's one of the "Intensified Dialogues", mind you) are helping protect us against the Iranian threat... Very serious! P.S. Tangential, I guess, if somewhat related, but of all the many photographs we've seen of the Iraq War, this one is well up there for most surreal espied to date... Posted by Gregory at October 9, 2007 01:02 AM Comments This soldier in Afghanistan has something to say about that: ...ultimately, protecting America involves more than just killing bad guys. That means I’ve often got different missions than the ones I envisioned in my sleep-deprived days of Ranger school, where I dreamed of mowing down the Islamist horde with an endless belt of 7.62. Despite what Brian DePalma and his ilk might think, I don’t go around dictating law with the muzzle of my rifle... Read it all. Posted by: Solomon2 at October 9, 2007 01:48 PM \| Permalink to this comment Gregory, I usually find myself agreeing with your judgments, but the photo you link to does not hold a candle to http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=99999999&g2_itemId=1487 Posted by: Wendell at October 9, 2007 09:48 PM \| Permalink to this comment Wendell, you're wrong. Your photo show the inanity of the Americans, Gregories the inanity of the Iraq war itself. Forget the Orthodox priest, what are Georgians doing there in the first place. Even they are not members of NATO. As far as NATO is concerned, it should have folded its tent around 1989-1990 since the reason d'etre behind its establishment fell with the Berlin wall. But like all good bureaucratic groups who have thousands dependent upon its existence, it redefined it mission to: well never mind. It's one chance to act as a military power in Afghanistan is now becoming undone as some of its members start saying, "what the hell has this to do with my country anyway." But going back, NATO has always been an empty suit. That the Soviets were also an empty suit gave it some semblance of a legitimate outfit. But we all knew that if the Soviets launched an attack against a NATO country, none would have responded but the USA. Which brings me to the basic question, since when did it become our job to protect the Europeans. I think Ike saw that our inability to extract ourselves from Europe after WWII was going to bring about the Military-Industrial-University combination that would benefit financially from an aggressive foreign policy. The result of the debacle in Iraq is a call for increasing our Army and Marines. You'd thin that we would want to cut back on our forces since we should have learned that having them is a great temptation to foolishness. Having a great Army means you have to use it. Having a great Navy and Air Force requires the same mandate. Therefore, as Senator McCain said tonight, Iran is very close to being attacked. All we need is for the Harry S Truman and one other of our carriers to get in position. Posted by: Llyonnoc at October 9, 2007 10:24 PM \| Permalink to this comment Llyonnoc: "we all knew that if the Soviets launched an attack against a NATO country, none would have responded but the USA." That is questionable. To put it mildly. Ever hear of the BAOR (British Army of the Rhine) or RAFG (Royal Air Force Germany)? ACE Mobile Force? And that's just for starters. As regards the Soviet Union, it may have been an empty suit by 1989; that was hardly the case in 1949. Posted by: John Farren at October 10, 2007 05:49 AM \| Permalink to this comment This photo (and comment), I think sums up the occupation of Iraq best for me. Posted by: blowback at October 11, 2007 01:20 PM \| Permalink to this comment Actually, Article 5 has nothing to do with Afghanistan. NATO participation occured in 2003 under Article 4 to support the UN mandated ISAF mission. THis is a UN mission with NATO providing command and control for the military forces. Note: Not all participating militaries are from NATO nations. Posted by: Mike at October 16, 2007 05:16 AM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan Recent Entries A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Archives March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch