Happy Birthday NATO, and...many more?

Obama hails 5,000 more NATO forces for Afghanistan

In the build-up to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl, there has been a lot of speculation from every corner about President Obama's campaign to increase Allied support for combat and reconstructive operations in Afghanistan. The article above, courtesy of The Huffington Post, announces that the Allies have volunteered an additional 5000 troops for military training and police purposes. While not combat troops, this can be touted as a success on President Obama's part and an indication that while NATO may yet be suffering from an identity crisis, the time for this organization is not quite over.

Now more than ever, on its 60th birthday, NATO is suffering from a crisis of relevance that is not easily solved. The European Union has increased in strength as a viable economic and political agreement between its member countries, and for several years the discussion has turned toward supporting a military framework within the EU. Such a transition, of course, would ensure NATO's complete obsolescence in a few short years; after all, how many organizations are necessary to promote security on the European continent, and what sorts of drawbacks exist for the country that overextends itself through military commitment to two security-focused IGOs?

Anybody who knows me understands that I have a special love for NATO. I am the last one to hope that the organization falls into the category of irrelevant commitments, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. That being said, it is time for the Allied states to come together for the express purpose of determining where they will take the organization in the next several years. As convenient as it may seem for EU member countries to consolidate their cooperation into one overarching intergovernmental mechanism, I believe they run the risk of hyperextending themselves in other areas if they attempt military integration through the EU rather than updating the existing frameworks of NATO.

The biggest risk at this point, clearly, is economic. With the recession continuing across the continent (and indeed, the world), it is folly to abandon the bodies and protocols in place for military support and defence while attempting at the same time to build similar mechanisms under a different helm. It makes far more sense at the present to maintain NATO as the primary collective security alliance; redefine the organization's aims and abilities as necessary; and focus energy in the EU on turning back the tide of economic recession.

It happens every year, of course -- this question of NATO's relevance and if/when the foreign ministers will meet in the NAC for the last time -- but for the moment, if I had a chance to address those heads of state I would remind them that there are more pressing matters about which to concern themselves, and to waste the time and resources to shift gears at such a crucial juncture would be one of the worst possible decisions to make.

Rants and Raves home