On NATO

ON NATO

the defining example of the lack of fecundity that characterizes american foreign policy in the post-cold war era, to say nothing of the post-sept. 11 world, is the recent decision by nato to admit russia as a non-voting member.

the absurdity of this move is so apparent as to be demonstrated syllogitically:

(1) the soviet union is the great threat to western civilization.
(2) nato is an alliance of the western democracies to contain and deter the soviet union.

that was the syllogism before 1989. in that year however a new condition was added:

(3) the soviet union ceases to exist.

what should have followed as the conclusion to the syllogism, "#4 nato ceases to exist," never happened. instead, of course, just the opposite happened. not only was nato allowed to live but it was expanded to include the countries of the former soviet bloc in central and eastern europe and the baltics.

this is not just another amusing but harmless example of bureaucratic rigidity, like the continuation of a cavalry division in the us army until the 1950s. the continuation and expansion of nato in a non-bipolar world involves america in affairs in which it has little or no national interest.

the case for sanguinity is made by charles krauthammer in a may 24 essay in the washington post entitled "re-imagining nato." in that article, krauthammer stated that "nato is dead" as a military alliance and that russia was to be welcomed into the new nato "political club."

krauthammer may re-imagine nato as something other than it is but it remains a military alliance, it's charter obligating all member states to consider an attack on one as an attack on all. so now the united states, in an era when the threat of the soviet union is long gone, is to consider an attack on, say, warsaw--and perhaps someday moscow-- as an attack on washington, d.c.

integration may have made europe less susceptible to war, certainly to world war, than at any time in the past two centuries, but it has not eliminated it. indeed, as the balkan conflict demonstrated, european integration sometimes equals european paralysis, with the effect that the united states considers itself obliged to act in the face of european inaction, even in the latter's back yard. this is a consequence of america's lack of development of a doctrine, like the cold war policy of containment, to deal with new realities.

the expansion of nato therefore is a recipe for disaster, of involving the u.s. in matters not of it's national interest. the immediate post-cold war era was best captured by francis fukyama's "the end of history" but fukyama's era lasted only until sept. 11, 2001. on that date a new era was initiated, the era of samuel huntington's "clash of civilizations." it it to that era that a new military alliance must be fashioned.

-benjamin harris