NATO was made to ward off the Soviet threat. Then the Soviet Union ended, and NATO looked for a new mission, instead of being disbanded. A standing military force looks for work. Didn't George Washington say so?
Witness what Bush says: "See, NATO is no longer a static alliance focused on defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion," he said. "It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions."
Expeditionary? Makes me shudder. To me, it has implications of looking for places to go to. It seems to replace diplomacy.
[Some] observers say that -- judging from how the U.S. expansionist view keeps winning out -- nothing can reverse NATO's trajectory. Beneath the surface in NATO debates, "we've seen incremental change over the last couple of years that...indicate to me that we are ultimately moving towards the more bold, ambitious vision," said Julianne Smith, the Europe program director for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Right now what happens is a big, bold, ambitious proposal is put on the table, often by Washington, then it's walked back ever so slightly, and then it creeps back onto the NATO agenda."
Mission creep. It just gets bigger, without enough check.
NATO's involvement in Afghanistan "has morphed far beyond what was initially agreed upon," says Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, of the Council on Foreign Relations. "And there is a big strain on the alliance over whether this is something that can be sustained."
No comments:
Post a Comment