RE: [A-List] The end of NATO?

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

Chris Burford asks:

Since the advent of the era of imperialism no single power has so
dominated 
all others in military power as the US does now. At the same time it has

lost the communist enemy that was so useful for whipping its allies and 
subordinates into line. And the nature of a struggle against global 
terrorism is far more elusive. Already its closest allies doubt that it
can 
be done by might alone.

How far do you see the split going, Michael?

=====

Looking into the tea-leaves I anticipate an indefinite continuation of
reluctant EU-kowtowing to US diktats until some unexpected window of
opportunity emerges that allows the EU to assert itself more
independently. I'm not predicting that this will happen, and certainly
not when. But it looks like one key area of discord between the US and
the EU is going to be Afghanistan, and for some time to come. Having
already declared victory once and thereby slayed the Vietnam demon, the
US leadership suddenly found itself in a tougher-than-expected battle at
Gardez. That, I think, is only the beginning. Our instant and disposable
culture cannot so easily digest the long term blowback that is being
accumulated in the present rush to impose discipline upon the globe, but
the costs of this blowback are going to emphasise further the widening
chasm that is the North Atlantic. It's being put about in many quarters
that the US is no good at "peacekeeping" (fair point), therefore the
Europeans should go in afterwards and tidy up what the US leaves them
(questionable from a variety of perspectives). Most obviously, it is
doubtful that the EU and other actors (Turkey, Russia, Pakistan) will
enjoy picking up the pieces, trying to put them back together again and
then holding them in place. Blair is going to regret his promise not to
forget Afghanistan. If not him, then his successor will undoubtedly
wish, with a sincere heart, that he could forget Afghanistan, as the old
rivalries interplay with the meddlings of the imperialist powers and the
fragile peace shatters. From the US's point of view, this is ok for as
long as it remains a dirty policing operation administered by the
Europeans, rather than a full-scale war involving US personnel on a
scale like Gardez. The latter would derail plans to impose "order" on
others like Iraq and North Korea, and eventually Iran (and, indirectly
of course, Europe itself).

But if something seriously does go wrong with US triumphalism, such as a
spate of terrorist attacks within the US, or, more feasibly, a prolonged
conflict in which US armed forces personnel were, on a regular basis,
being brought home in body bags (whether in battles like Gardez or in
suicide attacks against the proliferating US military bases and
presences such as the USS Cole in Yemen), thereby sapping home front
morale and leading more to question the wisdom, if not the entire
rationale, of the "war on terrorism", then the EU would be in a stronger
position to assert itself. However, given the rivalries within the EU
and the bilateral relationships between each EU country and the US, even
this possibility looks remote in the short to medium term.

NATO complicates matters because that is a separate apparatus desperate
to find relevance, although it is clear that its main constituent parts
have decreasing patience for it. At the moment it looks like Blair is
its strongest advocate -- not surprising given "Lord" Robertson and the
British strategy for furthering British interests (via multilateral
institutions like the EU and NATO). But if and when it looks like the EU
defence forces start taking shape, then, barring a whole lot else that
could happen, NATO will collapse.

Michael