Is NATO approaching its end game?

NATO gets slapped around, sort of like this:



In October, I asked the question, "What has NATO done for us? " in which I concluded,

I think the United States should reassess whether the NATO alliance really is serving American interests. I don't think it is, and I don't think it will do better in years to come. Though we must stay politically engaged, I think we'd be better off withdrawing from the military alliance, and work toward building an Anglosphere military alliance in its stead.

Then in December came Nick Witney, "former chief executive of the European Defense Agency: and "senior policy fellow with the European Council on Foreign Relations," who agreed with me. Witney said that the alliance itself should be dissolved ("The Death of NATO"). That's implicit in my argument also because without the United States, there is no military trans-Atlantic alliance in any meaningful sense, anyway. Witney says that the European Union should establish its own security arrangements and let NATO shrivel away.

Comes now David Davis, a former British Foreign Office minister and shadow home secretary, who says, "Nato is creaking - The alliance is imperilled from within and without. Members urgently need to reassess its ambition."

Nato is at risk. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's principal purpose is preserving the peace in Europe. In maintaining that peace it has been arguably the most successful international organisation to date. But as we approach its 60th anniversary in April, its historic effectiveness is now being put in jeopardy.

Defence secretary John Hutton has indicated that he would be willing for a European army to sit alongside Nato. This is not a proposal for new forces, simply a new organisation. By definition it will have different aims, and so will only deplete Nato and undermine its efforts. It would also deplete Britain's ability to use its national army. For every soldier under European Union command, there is one less soldier able to fulfil British military obligations.

As for Nato's fighting capability, its reputation has taken a heavy knock after involvement in Afghanistan. Isaf, its organisation there, has been crippled by the so-called national caveats of many of the members, which limit where individual armies can be deployed and their operational purposes.

Like I said. And returns from Vice President Biden's diplomacy at the 45th Munich Security Conference give no cause for encouragement that with Barack Obama in the Oval Office that NATO will be more supportive of US goals in Afghanistan or anywhere else.