Comments on: ‘Nato solidarity more important than winning in Afghanistan’ (er…) http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/04/09/nato-solidarity-afghanistan/ Global risks and how to respond to them, edited by Alex Evans and David Steven Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:49:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard Gowan http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/04/09/nato-solidarity-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-9294 Richard Gowan Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:45:50 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9028#comment-9294 Ah, but what do we mean by "lose"? If we can have an orderly exit, with systems (i.e. U.S. forces) in place to bonk terrorists on the head as necessary, it might stop the NATO rot. Europeans wouldn't see Alliance membership as negative, etc. I'm not advocating that, actually, because if the U.S. feels it has to retreat from Afghanistan primarily to calm Euro-nerves, than NATO solidarity is dead anyway. That's the conundrum... Ah, but what do we mean by “lose”? If we can have an orderly exit, with systems (i.e. U.S. forces) in place to bonk terrorists on the head as necessary, it might stop the NATO rot. Europeans wouldn’t see Alliance membership as negative, etc.

I’m not advocating that, actually, because if the U.S. feels it has to retreat from Afghanistan primarily to calm Euro-nerves, than NATO solidarity is dead anyway. That’s the conundrum…

]]> By: Alex Evans http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/04/09/nato-solidarity-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-9273 Alex Evans Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:32:48 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9028#comment-9273 I can see why Article V would appeal to the Georgias or Ukraines of this world. Can also see why even some Western European countries would judge it worth expending some blood and treasure in order to remain members of NATO. Still think it's bizarre to suggest that losing the war in Afghanistan would be less 'dangerous' than diminished NATO solidarity. I can see why Article V would appeal to the Georgias or Ukraines of this world. Can also see why even some Western European countries would judge it worth expending some blood and treasure in order to remain members of NATO. Still think it’s bizarre to suggest that losing the war in Afghanistan would be less ‘dangerous’ than diminished NATO solidarity.

]]> By: Richard Gowan http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/04/09/nato-solidarity-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-9219 Richard Gowan Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:49:04 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9028#comment-9219 On the contrary, NATO solidarity is arguably of greater strategic importance than Afghan victory - IF you assume that what holds the Alliance together is still Article V (i.e. common defense). While talking about Article V has a "the Russians are coming" feel, the fact is that the majority of NATO members value the Alliance because, in the final calculus,it offers them existential defense. I'd argue that most countries in Afghanistan are motivated by this concern, rather than the Afghan threat per se. Even the UK, which does see a link between Afghanistan and its own security, is affected by the Article V logic, although it disguises it in talk of the transatlantic relationship: hence the Blair government's insistence on backing Bush over Iraq. On the contrary, NATO solidarity is arguably of greater strategic importance than Afghan victory – IF you assume that what holds the Alliance together is still Article V (i.e. common defense). While talking about Article V has a “the Russians are coming” feel, the fact is that the majority of NATO members value the Alliance because, in the final calculus,it offers them existential defense.

I’d argue that most countries in Afghanistan are motivated by this concern, rather than the Afghan threat per se. Even the UK, which does see a link between Afghanistan and its own security, is affected by the Article V logic, although it disguises it in talk of the transatlantic relationship: hence the Blair government’s insistence on backing Bush over Iraq.

]]>