JB<
Did you read Friedmans column this sunday. It is reprinted below just in case no one had posted it. Expanding on it, perhaps US does the fighting and NATO+Russia does the peacekeeping. It is an interesting concept if we are willing to play this role and make these sacrifices. Even Canada could play a role in the scenario. Nato/europe may be perceived as an honest broker of sorts. Once saddam and wmds out of the way why not? Mike
NATO's New Front
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
n this time of war, I find it helpful to step back a little. So I went last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, and, I must say, the view from there was illuminating. What I think I saw were some huge tectonic plates of history moving. Here's how I would describe it: 9/11 was the start of World War III, à la Pearl Harbor; the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the initial response, à la the North Africa campaign; the invasion of Iraq was akin to D-Day (I hope it ends as well); and now we are present at the creation of some kind of new global power structure.
At this new historical pivot point, we're still dealing with a bipolar world, only the divide this time is no longer East versus West, but the World of Order versus the World of Disorder. But here's the surprise: the key instrument through which the World of Order will try to deal with threats from the World of Disorder will still be NATO. Only in this new, expanded NATO, Russia will gradually replace France, and the region where the new NATO will direct its peacekeeping energies will shift from the East to the South. Yes, NATO will continue to be based in Europe, but its primary theaters of operation will be the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly the Arab-Israel frontier.
No, I haven't lost my marbles. Here's what's going on: Ever since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, individual countries — first Britain, then Turkey, then the Netherlands and Germany — have taken responsibility for providing the 5,700-man peacekeeping force in Kabul. It is a very expensive job for one country and it is very inefficient to be changing brigades every six months, but that was how the Bush team wanted it. It didn't want NATO getting in the way of its combat troops or nation-building.
But in February, President Bush quietly told NATO's chief, Lord Robertson, that beginning in August, when the current Dutch-German force is supposed to leave Afghanistan, the U.S. would like to see NATO permanently take over peacekeeping duties there and work alongside U.S. combat troops. If this is approved by NATO, for the first time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be operating outside Europe, in the heart of the Muslim world.
France is fighting this idea, because it wants to see NATO, the anchor of America's military presence in Europe, wither away. But many key NATO members favor the idea, and what's really interesting is that the Russians have said they would consider sending a platoon as well, under the NATO-Russia partnership. Even the Chinese have winked their approval. Both of these big powers feel threatened by the disorder coming from parts of Central Asia and the Middle East. If France stands in the way, NATO officials say they will just work around it.
What the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan is "internationalizing" the nation-building process there, because we found we simply could not pull it off alone. Eventually, we will have to do the same in Iraq. That is what Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain came over to tell President Bush this past week. The Bush team keeps arguing that this silly alliance it cobbled together to fight the war in Iraq is multilateral and therefore the moral equivalent of the U.N. Nonsense. Other than Britain, we bought this alliance. Almost every government in it is operating without the support of its people. Fighting this war without international legitimacy is hard enough, but trying to do nation-building without it could be even harder.
Yet, the Bush team is right about one thing. Nation-building in Iraq can't be done by the U.N. It can't be done by a committee. So what we will eventually need in Iraq is a credible peacekeeping force that is multilateral, legitimate and still led by the U.S. That will bring us back to NATO, possibly in partnership with some Arab and Muslim armies. This is not your grandfather's NATO anymore. That NATO patrolled the German-Soviet frontier. This one will be patrolling Kabul and Baghdad.
And while NATO is changing, it may just go all the way. NATO's chief, Lord Robertson, is retiring this year (a real loss). A favorite to succeed him is the Norwegian defense minister, Kristin Krohn Devold, a woman. So get ready for this CNN headline: "The NATO alliance, for the first time led by a woman and including a Russian platoon, took over peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan today, as a prelude to taking over peacekeeping in Iraq. France refused to participate."
Yes, we may be present at the creation of a very new world, and no, I have not lost my marbles. |
