Is NATO's Future In The Past?

NATO's long delayed mid-life crisis can't be ignored any longer. The sixty year old residuum of the long dead Cold War is facing a genuine existential dilemma. It's not pushing the envelope unduly to say that NATO has to seriously question its continued existence.

The Geek can hear you muttering, "What about Afghanistan?"

To which question he has to reply, "So what about Afghanistan?"

The half-hearted commitment of NATO forces to that gawdforsaken place was the result of one, hopefully never-to-be-repeated circumstance: 9/11. The horror and shock of that day stimulated NATO to invoke The-Attack-On-One-Is-An-Attack-On-All clause for the first and only time in its history.

The true worth of the invocation has been amply demonstrated by the reluctance of most of NATO's members to do anything beyond the lightest of light lifting. The unwillingness of the majority of NATO to translate the verbal to the actual has increased as the war in Afghanistan has rolled along year after endless year with the vision of defeat looming ever larger.

With the notable exceptions of Canada, the UK and France, NATO forces have been restricted to no-risk, non-combat settings where death from violence has been more rare than cool days in hell. Now even the Canadian and British governments, responding to popular disapproval of what is seen as an American adventure, are grumbling over the seemingly open ended commitment.

The quick, easy and not inaccurate explanation for NATO's status as a major non-participant in the Afghan War as well as the disenchantment with the effort ever more evident in Canada and the UK is that the Americans have blown the mission. A strong case can and has been mounted by the Geek and many others to the effect that the current US administration has been wrong as a soup sandwich in how it defined the mission as well as how it went about accomplishing it.

A far more important question lies below the surface of NATO's on-going failure in Afghanistan. That question is simple. Does NATO have a reason to go on living?

The outgoing NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, spoke optimistically regarding the future of the organisation during his appearance at the London meeting of the group's Foreign Ministers. His optimism was not widely nor obviously shared around the room.

What was evident at the meeting was a genuine fondness for the past. Thanks to the utter stupidity of the Georgian pretty-much-one-man-government and the eagerness of the Putin regime in the Kremlin to do a bit of neighborhood impressing muscle flexing, the specter of the Great Glowering Bear on the other side of the Trace has reemerged.

The Geek has a sneaking fondness for the past, particularly the Cold War part of it. The Trace (or Iron Curtain for those who prefer the more melodramatic) not only divided the Good Guys of the Free World from the Baddies of Commie Land, it was the reassuring, physical sign of stability. Get a grip on this: The Cold War period might have had its breathless moments of high risk as in the Cuban Missile Crisis but generally it represented a half century of very high stability and predictability.

Overall, the face off between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was a contest in stasis. A fight without real risk. A time when certainty persisted year after year.

Sure, there were proxy conflicts in the periphery. Yes, there were the dirty, pointless wars of peace in Asia, Africa, Latin America. But, in the heartlands of both NATO and the WarPac, all was stable, safe and predictable.

Thus there nothing surprising or mysterious in more than a few NATO member countries seeing the reappearance of an aggressive Russia as a development more to be welcomed than feared. NATO can revert to its roots. Once more have the mission of deterring any Kremlin ambitions of regional hegemony.

Seeking the future in the past is one option for the aging alliance. It is not the only one. Several alternatives have been mooted recently both within NATO offices

The organisation could redefine itself as the protector, exemplar and exponent of the European and American values and norms which under girded NATO at its creation. In this model, states such as Georgia would not be considered for quick or certain membership in the alliance but would be both protected and mentored as they further developed the requisite norms and values.

Another option includes the first but adds to it responsibilities for stability maintenance operations on the fringe of Europe. This concept takes as its paradigm NATO actions in the dissolving Yugoslavia, which apparently are seen as having been highly successful.

A more expansive version of the stability oriented model adds limited out-of-theater responsibilities such as anti-piracy patrols. This version also contemplates a continued capacity for anti- and counter-terrorist actions in venues far removed from the NATO heartland.

For the truly ambitious there is yet another potential. NATO could serve as the political and military bridge between the European Union and North America. As such it would be the core group of what Senator John McCain called for as an alternative to the UN.

Following the path first marked by former French intelligence chief, Admiral Lacoste, this understanding of NATO would serve as the beginnings of an international league of genuinely democratic, pluralistic and liberal nations. (That they would also be the repository of much of the world's wealth can go unmentioned.)

It can be argued that the formation of this sort of NATO centered league of democracies would threaten both Russia and the Peoples Republic of China. It would. Be seen as a threat that is.

It's an easy perception to counter. Invite both nations to join. As soon as they can pass the test of being authentic democracies complete with a rule of law, independent judiciaries, multiple parties and elections somewhat more fair and transparent than those conducted in Chicago.

Of course both countries would refuse the invitation just as the Soviet Union rejected participation in the Marshall Plan. However, the door would be open and remain so. The choice to enter would always reside with those on the outside.

Perhaps this most expansive option is too idealistic for the present moment. Still, it has its appeals. A good offense is always preferable to a good defense. NATO has the potential for a real future. As long as its members recall that the future is never found in the past.