Thursday, February 18, 2010

A Bit More On NATO

So, I noticed that Dr. Albright is Chair of the Group of Experts on the new NATO Strategic Concept, something I glossed over the first time.

Well, this new strategic concept is supposed to be the "most open and inclusive process in the history of the alliance," and in proper democratic, technocratic, feel-good modern political bullshit theater it has its own website.

It seems that everybody is moving forward under the assumption that NATO must continue to exist because NATO won the Cold War and therefore it must be GOOD. Unfortunate.

Most disheartening is the public forum.

There are people talking nonsense, like only the UN possessing legitimacy when right-thinking people recognize that it has none whatsoever:
I’ve got a question about NATO’s role in the modern international security system.
Is there any coincidence and/or intersection of authority in NATO’s sphere of actions if to remember about UN, the only global organization with 192 members which has the right to fight with today’s challenges using quite different legal methods?

People worried about perceptions, such as frightening Russia and pissing off Muslim countries:
Does NATO take enough account of the perception by others, on its policies and actions?

For instance, NATO’s expansion Eastwards may be perceived by Russia as (potentially) aggressive,
and its ever close partnership with Israel may be seen by Moslem-countries and -groups, as offensive.

It's the most powerful military alliance in history. I think it should be demolished because it serves no useful purpose, but who gives a shit if it is perceived as scary? It is the most powerful military alliance in history, not the fucking Boy Scouts. Quite frankly, what are Russia or Muslim countries going to do about it?

This comment especially annoyed me because of the unnecessary use of jargon:
It would seem that the current NATO/OTAN operations environment would present the need to not just insert forces along a spectrum of future conflict, but posture military capability to respond to the high and low ends of the legacy spectrum, a complex hybrid situation, or an irregular conflict.

This would require NATO/OTAN declared military forces postured to produce desired effects with precision and a degree of flexibility that would tax the present military and political planning framework. It would also require planning capabilities that can work with member nations to integrate forces not on call as needed to produce the needed effects. Some environments may require a degree of civic and private integration, beyond the present capability to coordinate with governments and NGOs.

Would NATO/OTAN strategic concept require a more enduring full-time bureaucracy and operations capability?

How should this function be postured and based to present a NATO/OTAN solution to the policy and military operations elements?

It would seem that decision makers would need not just member options, but options which are NATO/OTAN options. (This would also include developing and sustaining the required alliance infrastructure.) What can be done to create and sustain a more alliance-centric vantage point?

For those of you who don't read security/military jargon, this says:
NATO might have to fight big wars and small wars with tanks and shit against national armies while other times use commandos to fight insurgents.

Doing all this is hard. Plus, you might have to coordinate with the private sector and do-gooder NGOs.

Does NATO need to have a bigger bureaucracy and their own troops to do this?

How should you sell a bigger NATO bureaucracy with its own troops politically?

NATO should be able to fight on its own in some capacity. How would we do this?

After translating it, I realize he probably used jargon to hide the stupidity of his idea. Despite the utter uselessness of NATO since the 1989-1991 era, he wants to expand it in a way that undermines the national sovereignty of the member countries by creating a supernational military.

Then there are EU-philes who are under the delusion that NATO and a strong EU foreign policy are compatible:
We need a strong Europe to have a strong NATO. This is not impossible, but will not occur automatic. More EU visibility at NATO and more NATO visibility at EU instituions can be one of the ways how to do it.

This video depresses me deeply because it has become clear, as if it wasn't already clear to me, that NATO has a whole level of diplomatic puke types, both military and non-military, who seem to sit around and circle jerk each other ad nauseam about various micro-technical details of the alliance's operations, when if they'd get their heads out of their asses would realize that there is absolutely no reason for the alliance to exist.

Lastly, what is this shit?
Istanbul Youth Forum calls for greater NATO focus on education and public diplomacy

It's a military alliance, not Schoolteachers Without Borders.

No comments:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.