It was an honor to participate in this survey and a good opportunity for
reflection as well as to think about some big questions. In addition to 28
multiple choice questions, we were asked to complete four sentences and I
believe there is a common theme in my answers:
NATO today is... the best "insurance policy" we have to remain free and
secure, when (not if) we are once again surprised by a new threat.
NATO's biggest mistake in the past 10 years has been... giving up the
light footprint policy in Afghanistan in 2003. We have since expended huge
investment in the country out of proportion to our achieved objectives or the
level of threat that Afghanistan poses.
NATO's mission in Afghanistan is... an important reminder of our limited
capabilities for state and nation-building as well as for big expeditionary
out-of-area missions.
The biggest problem with NATO today is... the constant pressure from
many politicians and pundits to prove its relevance beyond the Article 5
guarantee.
An "insurance policy" sounds boring and could appear to some to be
insufficient justification for NATO's existence, since Europe and North America
are considered quite secure and risks like terrorism should be addressed by
police, intelligence agencies and special forces rather than large militaries. I
side with John R. Deni, though, who wrote for the Atlantic Council about
"Interoperability
in an Age of Austerity":
Former House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton was fond of highlighting the American success rate-which by his measure was near zero percent-over the last 40 years in predicting where the next armed conflict would occur. The only certainty, noted Skelton, was that there would undoubtedly be another conflict that would demand the application of skilled military force.
Since our analysts will probably miss the next geopolitical earthquake (as
they did 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union), we need to have what NATO
Secretary General Rasmussen describes as "NATO
Forces 2020", "modern, mobile, connected forces able to operate together in
any environment and to conduct complex joint operations at short notice, and
equipped with the right mix of military capabilities." Don't get me wrong, NATO
should avoid expensive out-of-area missions and not try to be a "global
policeman", but it still needs to be prepared to defend the Allies when (not if)
a conflict materializes in the future.
That's why I consider giving up the light footprint policy in Afghanistan as
the biggest mistake of the last ten years. The West missed many early
opportunities and wasted much of the good will and support of the Afghan people
after toppling the Taliban. We should have done more in those early years in
2002 and 2003, but we did not understand Afghan culture sufficiently and we
lacked the knowledge and skills for state-building, let alone nation-building.
Germany and the EU, with all their much trumpeted development experience, failed
utterly in building up a police force, the vital element for any state.
These mistakes were of a civilian nature; military harm like collateral damage
with airstrikes only became a problem much later.
As a consequence of mission creep we now have huge investments which are out
of proportion to our achieved objectives or the level of threat that Afghanistan
poses. Thus I said that the mission in Afghanistan should serve first of all as
a reminder of our limited capabilities for state-building and big expeditionary
missions. We need to be more humble if want to avoid such failures in the
future.
Besides, NATO does not have to constantly go out of area to avoid going out
of business, as Richard Lugar argued in 1993. I believe this constant pressure
from many politicians and pundits for NATO to prove its relevance beyond the
Article 5 guarantee is the biggest problem NATO faces today, and is out of sync
with the public views on NATO. Solid majorities of both Europeans and North
Americans have considered the Alliance "essential" to their country's security
in each of the last ten years according to the Transatlantic
Trends surveys.
This is an indication of NATO's success. To achieve security despite
austerity, we have to get our priorities straight: let's avoid non-essential
missions and focus on modernizing our militaries and improving interoperability,
for when NATO, as a defensive alliance, is needed again.
Joerg Wolf is editor-in-chief of atlantic-community.org and would like to
thank Dr. Jorge Benitez and Damon Wilson for including him in the expert survey
and thereby motivating him to write this article.
Check out the survey results with the very interesting answers from 59
experts to the four open questions at Foreign
Policy and to the 28 multiple choice questions at the Atlantic
Council.
- 14
May 29, 2012
Lawrence Efana
This era of defense austerity is that of great lessons: also an opportunity as implied in many of the arguments. Effectiveness of defense challenges, coupled to jobs growth and military industrial complex growth in a "real world", can also carry with it some real moral burdens. Balancing both rationalities, must constantly be kept in the mind for best results and sake of peace. A few might be worried that "precedents" are conflicting when it comes to NATO store of experience and history. The reason is partly "the changing faces and values of politics and its leading players. Even if the design of NATO and its treaties are good, circumstances and the weight of demands, threats, etc., are good to democratically managed. For that NATO's transformation brings hope to many. For Allies, and Members, the room for expansion and improved co-operation, capped hopefully by trust will go a long way for all.
Ffrederick Kempe - the CEO of Transatlantic Council has come up with a "dict" of great significance in the history of NATO lessons: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....it was the age of wisdom.....it was the age of foolishness. It was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair. We were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way"!
Most always like to say "a word is enough for the wise". Let is so be also on the theme of challenges to face whoever wins the US 2012 Presidential election, in view of the firestorms of issues to face. The grace from above is all many of us pray and wish!