As the NATO summit goes on, I came across this article by a retired general who advocates for the continuation of NATO with the US taking a leading role.
Why NATO is worth preserving for US, Europe — and even Russia
Certainly, at the time NATO was created, it appeared to make sense. World War II had ended, and our relations with our former allies were degenerating into a Cold War which would last another 40 years. Europe had been devastated, and as a result, the US took the upper hand and would soon be regarded as the "leader of the free world."
But by the same token, there has been a certain level of resentment and resistance at what is perceived a hegemonic relationship. France pushed back against NATO rather early, in the 1950s, since they didn't see their interests as totally aligned with that of the United States. By the 1980s, there were large, activist disarmament movements in Europe, particularly in Germany, which was considered "ground zero" in the event of an all-out war between East and West. They were inclined to believe "better red than dead."
But since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the ending of the Cold War, the original reasons for establishing NATO in the first place no longer seemed relevant. Similar allied treaty organizations (namely, CENTO and SEATO) didn't really last.
The retired general who wrote this article is a firm believer in the NATO alliance:
While this sounds good on its face, the one underlying problem is that this viewpoint presumes the existence of some dangerous "other" in the world. Some "boogieman," some "axis of evil," some villain somewhere is always out to get us and destroy our way of life. And if there isn't one, we will work our darndest to create one.
But the general goes on to repeat an often-expressed viewpoint regarding America's role in the world which I find I take issue with:
"Isolationism." This has always been a misnomer. America was never "isolationist." "Isolationist" might be something like North Korea is today. Or perhaps Albania during the Cold War. In contrast, America's relationship with the world was mostly open in terms of commerce, diplomacy, and the free exchange of ideas. We were neutral and avoided what we saw as "foreign entanglements," but we were never "isolationist."
Granted, WW2 was a horrific event, but it was a continuation of WW1, and how did WW1 start? By countries forming complex systems of alliances so that a minor border scrap can suddenly escalate into a world war.
And yes, it was a mistake to be as unprepared as we were by the time of Pearl Harbor. Japan and Germany had been working tirelessly for years to build up their military forces and armaments, while the U.S. and other Allies lagged behind. But that's not really due to "isolationism" as much as it was a lack of foresight.
On the other hand, if the U.S. really was "isolationist," then Japan wouldn't have had any real reason to attack us in the first place. In that sense, the far bigger "mistake" the U.S. made was back in 1898, when we took possession of the Philippines. We were far from a disinterested bystander on the world scene by that point.
But in today's world, what are we actually dealing with? We're no longer in any kind of colonialist era where a few countries planted their flags and claimed most of the world. Most of the former colonial territories have since become independent, and now we have some 200+ independent, sovereign nations in the world today. We still have the superpowers, the major powers, the G7/G8, along with the G20, NATO - and whole bunch of small fry which appear to occupy most of our attentions these days.
Russia is often mentioned as kind of resurging "villain," although my observation is that most people in the West don't really understand Russia and often misread their intentions. Some might justify NATO's current role as necessary to counter a perceived threat coming from an increasingly hostile Russia. But on the other hand, could Russia's resurging hostility be a response to the continued existence and expansion of NATO even after the Cold War had ended? Is it reasonable for them to feel threatened by this?
Apart from Russia, there's also China. There's also a complication in Korea, divided into two countries by the same Cold War shenanigans brought about by our diplomatic geniuses. That was another great mistake in a whole series of mistakes.
It's hard to say what direction China might take or how NATO or the US should respond to whatever they might do. Japan is not actually a member of NATO, but for all intents and purposes, they're a full partner in the Western alliance system.
Obviously, if any major power (i.e. Russia or China) commits an act of aggression, then the Western powers and other allies by default would have to get together and perhaps form a coalition on a temporary basis to respond to it...if and when such a thing actually happens.
However, much of the time, NATO's attentions seem more focused on the "small fry" - nations which really aren't that powerful and wouldn't stand a chance against any individual member of NATO, let alone the entire alliance. Sure, it was nice to have the "coalition of the willing," but did it really require the combined forces of so many nations to defeat Iraq?
Do we really need a permanent alliance like NATO in this day and age? Do we have such little faith in the rest of the world that we think they'll instantly turn into a bunch of wild savages without the iron fist of NATO to hold over them and make them behave? Could others in the world see the existence of NATO as a threat to them and their interests? Could the very existence of NATO lead to a new "Axis" to contend with?
Why NATO is worth preserving for US, Europe — and even Russia
Certainly, at the time NATO was created, it appeared to make sense. World War II had ended, and our relations with our former allies were degenerating into a Cold War which would last another 40 years. Europe had been devastated, and as a result, the US took the upper hand and would soon be regarded as the "leader of the free world."
But by the same token, there has been a certain level of resentment and resistance at what is perceived a hegemonic relationship. France pushed back against NATO rather early, in the 1950s, since they didn't see their interests as totally aligned with that of the United States. By the 1980s, there were large, activist disarmament movements in Europe, particularly in Germany, which was considered "ground zero" in the event of an all-out war between East and West. They were inclined to believe "better red than dead."
But since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the ending of the Cold War, the original reasons for establishing NATO in the first place no longer seemed relevant. Similar allied treaty organizations (namely, CENTO and SEATO) didn't really last.
The retired general who wrote this article is a firm believer in the NATO alliance:
While this sounds good on its face, the one underlying problem is that this viewpoint presumes the existence of some dangerous "other" in the world. Some "boogieman," some "axis of evil," some villain somewhere is always out to get us and destroy our way of life. And if there isn't one, we will work our darndest to create one.
But the general goes on to repeat an often-expressed viewpoint regarding America's role in the world which I find I take issue with:
"Isolationism." This has always been a misnomer. America was never "isolationist." "Isolationist" might be something like North Korea is today. Or perhaps Albania during the Cold War. In contrast, America's relationship with the world was mostly open in terms of commerce, diplomacy, and the free exchange of ideas. We were neutral and avoided what we saw as "foreign entanglements," but we were never "isolationist."
Granted, WW2 was a horrific event, but it was a continuation of WW1, and how did WW1 start? By countries forming complex systems of alliances so that a minor border scrap can suddenly escalate into a world war.
And yes, it was a mistake to be as unprepared as we were by the time of Pearl Harbor. Japan and Germany had been working tirelessly for years to build up their military forces and armaments, while the U.S. and other Allies lagged behind. But that's not really due to "isolationism" as much as it was a lack of foresight.
On the other hand, if the U.S. really was "isolationist," then Japan wouldn't have had any real reason to attack us in the first place. In that sense, the far bigger "mistake" the U.S. made was back in 1898, when we took possession of the Philippines. We were far from a disinterested bystander on the world scene by that point.
But in today's world, what are we actually dealing with? We're no longer in any kind of colonialist era where a few countries planted their flags and claimed most of the world. Most of the former colonial territories have since become independent, and now we have some 200+ independent, sovereign nations in the world today. We still have the superpowers, the major powers, the G7/G8, along with the G20, NATO - and whole bunch of small fry which appear to occupy most of our attentions these days.
Russia is often mentioned as kind of resurging "villain," although my observation is that most people in the West don't really understand Russia and often misread their intentions. Some might justify NATO's current role as necessary to counter a perceived threat coming from an increasingly hostile Russia. But on the other hand, could Russia's resurging hostility be a response to the continued existence and expansion of NATO even after the Cold War had ended? Is it reasonable for them to feel threatened by this?
Apart from Russia, there's also China. There's also a complication in Korea, divided into two countries by the same Cold War shenanigans brought about by our diplomatic geniuses. That was another great mistake in a whole series of mistakes.
It's hard to say what direction China might take or how NATO or the US should respond to whatever they might do. Japan is not actually a member of NATO, but for all intents and purposes, they're a full partner in the Western alliance system.
Obviously, if any major power (i.e. Russia or China) commits an act of aggression, then the Western powers and other allies by default would have to get together and perhaps form a coalition on a temporary basis to respond to it...if and when such a thing actually happens.
However, much of the time, NATO's attentions seem more focused on the "small fry" - nations which really aren't that powerful and wouldn't stand a chance against any individual member of NATO, let alone the entire alliance. Sure, it was nice to have the "coalition of the willing," but did it really require the combined forces of so many nations to defeat Iraq?
Do we really need a permanent alliance like NATO in this day and age? Do we have such little faith in the rest of the world that we think they'll instantly turn into a bunch of wild savages without the iron fist of NATO to hold over them and make them behave? Could others in the world see the existence of NATO as a threat to them and their interests? Could the very existence of NATO lead to a new "Axis" to contend with?
