National Journal: “Strategic Convergence” and the revitalizing western alliance
An assessment of “the western alliance” and NATO in Afghanistan — by James Kitfield in The National Journal.
Key excerpt:
“I think it goes back to President Bush’s visit to Brussels in February 2005, which the media underestimated in terms of its impact, because that was a rather decisive moment of outreach,” Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO secretary general, told National Journal. Along with many senior officials and security experts, de Hoop Scheffer believes that a major miscalculation in the prelude to the Iraq war was Washington’s failure to use the North Atlantic Council — the main decision-making body at NATO — to try to reach a strategic consensus among the Western democracies. By contrast, senior U.S. officials and security experts have constantly shuttled to Brussels over the past year.
Not all of the media missed it’s significance. (See the column from February 22, 2005, “The Second VE Day.”)
Kitfield’s thoughts on what he calls “strategic convrgence”:
Signs of greater strategic cooperation are evident on numerous fronts.
The West’s recent response to Iran’s nuclear brinkmanship has so far stood in stark contrast to its response to the Iraq war, when France and Germany eventually sided with Russia and against the United States. Recently, Paris and Berlin have joined the United States and Great Britain in taking the crisis to the U.N. Security Council to bring greater pressure on Iran, despite the resistance of Russia and China. Meanwhile, Western nations have largely spoken with one voice in denouncing Russia for temporarily cutting off European energy supplies over a price dispute with Ukraine in January. And within the alliance, members have been offering blunter criticism about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s backtracking on democratic reforms.
In response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a flash point of trans-Atlantic tensions in Bush’s first term, both the United States and its allies have so far remained steadfast in their mutual insistence that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel before it can be considered a viable partner in the peace process. Regarding Asia, in contrast to last year, there has been very little talk in Europe about the European Union lifting its arms embargo on China, something Washington has fought vigorously.
“There is a definite feeling across the European Union and in European capitals that for all its complexity, the trans-Atlantic relationship has improved markedly in both style and substance over the past year,” said a knowledgeable E.U. official who was not authorized to speak on the record. “When Bush came to Brussels last year and visited European Union headquarters for the first time, we understood that it was a big gesture and that we needed to seize America’s outstretched hand.”
The conclusion:
When the history of the long war with Islamic extremism is finally written, it may reflect that in this period of disorder and uncertainty the alliance of democracies rediscovered some common strategic ground, at least for a time. Such unity, though, may not necessarily be a prelude to victory. Much as the United States did in staking its flag in Iraq, NATO has now wagered its credibility on success in Afghanistan. If either venture should decisively fail, this period of history may mark the point when the West began a long and collective retreat in its confrontation with radical Islam.
Even granting that that body is willing, it may not be able. Czar Putin can close down the western alliance with a turn of the faucett. And he isn’t acting like any friend.
Comment by chickenhawklittle — 4/7/2006 @ 3:17 pm
“Scheffer believes that a major miscalculation in the prelude to the Iraq war was Washington’s failure to use the North Atlantic Council — the main decision-making body at NATO — to try to reach a strategic consensus among the Western democracies.” A different opinion is expressed as a “rumor” also on StrategyPage but by a different author: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005111504023.asp “In December, 2002, a French staff officer visited the Pentagon with a proposal from his government. France would send 18,000 troops (about what they contributed in 1991) to join the Iraq invasion force. However, France wanted a specific area of occupation after the war, with full authority in that area for as long as Iraq needed to be occupied.” . . . “. . . the French wanted to be in Iraq, after Saddam fell, to make sure no embarrassing documents, or witnesses, showed up.” . . . “Although France participated in the Balkans peacekeeping of the 1990s, France was known to be pro-Serb, and French officers were later caught helping out the Serbs in illegal ways. Very embarrassing, but not unexpected. The Pentagon was well aware of how the French pulled their pro-Serb stunts in the 1990s, and apparently wanted no more of that nonsense in Iraq.”
Comment by mutiny — 4/7/2006 @ 10:31 pm
chickenhawklittle - I think they tried that already, and look what happened.
Comment by TallDave — 4/7/2006 @ 10:44 pm
Agree with chickenhawklittle. We should prepare to face the most likely possibility even while we hope for a better outcome. Europe is gone. Best to write it off, then rejoice if the outcome is less dire. Examples below. You can argue that these are overly partisan, inflammatory cites, but choose your own. There are plenty to go around. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/932 http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21955
Comment by Jim,MtnView,CA,USA — 4/7/2006 @ 11:02 pm
Europe is not gone. We can not afford to lose Europe, just as the Eastern Roman Empire Could not afford to lose Lebanon/Phoniecia. The Eastern Roman Empire lost one of many bases, but the Arabs gained a major ship building power, and that led to the later “Muslim Naval Power” that was dominant in the eastern Med. The West has military superiority, largely because of aviation. If the Arabs gain access to that technology, a major
Comment by Don Meaker — 4/8/2006 @ 11:26 am
“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they want to go with the strong horse.” — Osama Bin Laden “There is a definite feeling across the European Union and in European capitals that for all its complexity, the trans-Atlantic relationship has improved markedly in both style and substance over the past year,†said a knowledgeable E.U. official who was not authorized to speak on the record. “When Bush came to Brussels last year and visited European Union headquarters for the first time, we understood that it was a big gesture and that we needed to seize America’s outstretched hand.†“We needed to cling to America’s outstretched hand” would be a more apt choice of verb.
Comment by David Davenport — 4/8/2006 @ 1:05 pm
Interesting take, but what good is Europe in a conflict. They have bupkis. What? Four divisions of poorly trained and equipped troops, a paper thin French Air Force, and no ability at all to transport troops anywhere even if they chose to. They are a paper tiger and every illiterate Muslim knows it. And yes, the KGB thug now running Russia is no friend of the West.
Comment by Howard Veit — 4/8/2006 @ 6:36 pm