What has NATO done for us redux

Alas, I write too calmly. Last October I pointed out that NATO's raison d'etre had disappeared with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and that in the face of Isalamist terrorism, NATO has pretty much rolled over and gone back to sleep, excepting Canada and Britain.

What NATO has not done, even under Article 5, is actually fight al Qaeda or the Taliban (again, except for Britain and Canada). For example, Germany sent an entire special-forces detachment to Afghanistan. They literally never left their base camp for a whole year, then Germany brought them home. Except for Canada and Britain, this is typical of the NATO troops, paltry as they are, in Afghanistan. (NATO, qua NATO, had no involvement in Iraq.)

But let us imagine that al Qaeda mounts a truly devastating attack against a NATO capital city, killing thousands. Just how can NATO respond? It can't, certainly not for any response that would require self-lifting across strategic distances. The strategic transportation of NATO has always been oriented one way: US and Canadian forces flowing into Europe to defend it from the USSR, not forces flowing out of Europe to somewhere else in the world. NATO forces cannot go anywhere in the world in substantial force without the US Air Force or Navy carrying them.

Let us then ask the pointed question: Just how does continued NATO membership actually benefit that United States? I can think of only one way - forward stationing of US forces as a deployment point to locales farther east or toward the Middle East.

That's it. Is that worth the cost of national treasure and aggravation we have with the alliance, and which show no sign of abating?

Well, no, it's not. Comes now The Gorgomons blog with "Afghanistand By," making much the same points, though more pithily.

Unfortunately, none of the European NATO countries had a backup plan if the Soviet Union would—inconceivable!—go away, that Russia would turn its attentions elsewhere, and that America would need their help now. NATO is like that jerk friend who calls you up everytime he moves to a new apartment, and has you carry up sleeper sofas, pianos, and boxes of books up three flights of stairs while he carries a couple of pillows up the elevator; then, when you sell your place, he is nowhere to be found that weekend.

Except Canada. They still help whenever they can. But Europeans pissed away their defense budgets on socialized healthcare, housing, and welfare absolutely convinced that if the Soviets ever invaded, it wouldn’t matter a jot whether you had an army a million strong or fifty strong, because you would get crushed in the first 24 hours until the Americans pushed some button on some computer somewhere and the Soviets disappeared in a blue but slightly pleasant flash of light.

Well, as I said, add Britain. It needs be added as well that Poland and most of eastern Europe have also been steadfast with the US, though not as part of a NATO commitment even though Poland and the Czech Republic are NATO members. Poland sent a substantial contingent to Iraq, for example, which practically no Americans ever learned.

All this is one reason why I am not nearly as inflamed as many others about President Obama's cancellation of missile defenses for Europe, to have been emplaced in Poland and the Czech Republic. On one hand, as I wrote here, the cancellation of the deployment was in itself a good decision.

In my view, Bush erred substantially when he ordered the deployment of the missile defenses to eastern Europe. Vis-a-vis Iran, there was no need for the rush with which the deployment was ordered. If Iran was actually seen as the threat, rather than signaling Russia, then there was plenty of time for the North Atlantic Council to proceed with a European-based initiative for such a deployment, even time for Russia to be included in a consultative process, though certainly not with veto authority.

As it was, Bush hurried to demonstrate against Russia and make the deployment a done deal before his term expired. I am reminded of the old aphorism, "decide in haste, repent in leisure."

Yet the amateurish clumsiness with which this administration cancelled the deal is simply breathtaking, so much so that it's hard to pass it off as unintended. There is a difference between valuing Europe and questioning the value of the NATO alliance. It's becoming more and more apparent that President Obama values neither.