It was assumed that all was well and that all of NATO's member nations agreed on the fundamental principles and purpose of the alliance. It was also agreed by the leaders of the NATO member nations -- of which there are now 28 with the addition of Albania and Croatia -- that since the Soviet Union, the biggest threat, had graciously removed itself from the horizon, they should keep working together for the preservation of their shared values through their commitment to NATO as their regional security institution. But how did this go?

Fast-forward to the current conflict in Afghanistan. This is admittedly a complicated and, in many ways, botched affair because of poor American leadership. After the initial success in 2001 resulting in the removal of the Taliban, by 2002 the Bush administration thought Iraq presented a greater strategic challenge.

Focusing on Iraq and the actual war that began there in March 2003, the Bush administration thought it could safely "subcontract" Afghanistan to NATO and other assorted do-gooders. The idea was that the Taliban had been routed and therefore, going forward, it was all about governance, development and the training of police officers. The Europeans under the NATO umbrella could take the lead on that. And so they did.

Except that they really did not. Living up to the sarcastic characterization of NATO as "No Action, Talk Only," the alliance proceeded to create initiatives not backed by resources.

Some countries -- such as Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland and in varying degrees France, Germany and Italy -- have done something. All the others just showed up, with literally token this or that: Some sent 20 soldiers; others, 100 or so. And this may have been fine when things were relatively calm. But we know that the situation has unfortunately deteriorated -- quite significantly in the last few years. We know about a resurgent Taliban. We know about the sanctuary offered to them in the lawless North-West Frontier province of Pakistan.

This marked deterioration produced a needed reassessment of the effort required to stabilize Afghanistan. And the reassessment is premised on the notion that a safe haven for radicals in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan is dangerous for reasons that reflect on the future credibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself.

Part 3: The mistakes NATO has made in Afghanistan
The marked deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan in the face of the resurgent Taliban over the past year has produced a needed reassessment of the effort that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization needs to expend in order to stabilize that country.

This reassessment is premised on the notion that a safe haven for radicals in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan is dangerous, not just for these two countries but for the security and stability of the entire Central and South Asian regions. NATO policymakers also fear that the harboring of radicals in a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan may create future dangers for the security of Western countries -- and that would be the member nations of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization, front and center.

This analysis has, in fact, already been done. And there is no serious disagreement about the diagnosis.

The U.S. government has admitted that mistakes were made and that allowing Afghanistan to fester in large measure contributed to the regrouping of the Taliban and their assorted allies. While further analysis and a more detailed plan will follow, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates under the direction of President Barack Obama has already increased the number of U.S. troops operating in Afghanistan. In all, an additional 21,000 American soldiers are going to be sent there to augment the 38,000 already deployed in that country.

Therefore, there will be more resources and a deeper engagement in the complicated effort of building a viable economy in Afghanistan. In all this, the operation continues to be a NATO mission.

However, what have we heard from America's allies in the 28-nation North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Well, not much. At least not much in terms of concrete fresh commitments to the operation.

President Obama's appeal earlier this month in Strasbourg, France, for increased military commitments to Afghanistan from NATO's European member states produced only a single pledge of perhaps 1,000 more troops and military trainers from Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain. The other 25 European member nations of NATO, with a combined population of more than 400 million, offered virtually nothing. And this means that the U.S. urgency about Afghanistan is not shared among the allies.

This fiasco reveals the underlying problem of shared purpose and vision that NATO faces at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. The alliance was and is supposedly based on common values and a shared worldview, which would include a shared understanding of what constitutes a threat. But that shared view is sadly lacking today across the many member states of the sprawling alliance.

Part 5: How NATO has become a defensive alliance without any conception of war

(Paolo Liebl von Schirach is the editor of SchirachReport.com, a regular contributor to Swiss radio and an international economic-development expert.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News