Debating NATO

    Back from beautiful and safe Czech Republic.  It's amazing how peaceful and priceless their way of life is when they are next door to a hurricane in Germany.  The Czechs have resisted Merkel and the EU's plan to "enlighten" them to the multicultural mayhem of Western Europe. I worry though about their Social Democrat PM Sobotka.  Is he strong enough to to withstand the economic pressure that Merkel will eventually try to break him with?  The Czech economy is deeply tied to Germany and right now their economy is humming.  But Merkel too has to be careful.  The German economy thrives off trade and it is in their interest to keep the EU as stable as possible.  With the Med States melting down, Germany simply cannot afford to lose any of the emerging markets in the V4.  Plus, Merkel has her hands full now with the blowback to the migrant crisis hitting Germany hard.  My guess is that she will not seek re-election in 2017; she looks tired and defeated as more and more Germans seem to be rejecting her vision.  She may end up in exile at the UN, which is irrelevant as ever.

      But the leaders of the Czech republic and V4 seem very dependent on NATO, which viewing their history, I understand.  Yet, the rhetoric of the Russian threat is vastly overblown.  I see why the various "US neocon think tanks" popping up all over the East and NATO would try to play up this threat; after all, creating monsters to slay justifies their positions, titles, and funding.  It is natural for an institution 64 years old to grow into another Leviathan and to have "scholars and fellows" seeking to profit from it.  I get it.

        Time for a reality check.  Why should a pledge to defend another nation made in 1952 not be reviewed?  One only has to look at Recep Erdogan.  Turkey is morphing into a fascist state with the
thugs of the Muslim Brotherhood carrying out their own street justice to any perceived opponent of the regime. This degrades the credibility of NATO.  Their reputation is on the line and it is in their best interests to review not only this committment but the efficiency of the treaty.  

     This does not mean I am calling for the end of NATO but some questions need to be asked.  If NATO is about defending a member state if attacked by a non-member, what was Madeline Albright doing using NATO as an offensive weapon to bomb Serbia?  Did they attack another NATO state?  They were bombed in their own country in a civil war with the Islamic KLA, which consisted of jihadist and terrorists who just so happened to be selling human organs.  What was defensive about this?

      NATO's new adventure is to disrupt the human smugglers from Libya.  Since when is it their mission to defend the borders of Italy?  Is this not the responsibility of Italy and the EU?  Their operations seem less concerned with apprehending the smugglers than with providing easy transportation for the illegal migrants violating Europe's borders.  If NATO is viewed as some magical boat assisting the illegal migrants their credibility will take a blow.

   The US is funding 70% of the NATO budget. Only four countries (Britain, Poland, Greece, Estonia) seem to be satisfying their end to the financial bargain.  The treaty requires that all member states contribute adequately.  It seems to be in NATO's interest not to burden one country.  Eventually, the US Congress may decide that Europe walked away from them.

                 Why should NATO fear a review.  A robust defense of its future mission would be a healthy exercise.  We don't need outlandish claims that Russia is about to invade Poland or that somehow NATO  would have prevented both WW1 and WW2.  Think about that statement.  NATO would have prevented those wars?  What side would NATO have fought on in WW2?  Wait Well, this is quite confusing considering many of the nations that were fighting each other are NATO members today and the Soviet Union is why NATO was formed.  And Italy switched sides.

           The same could be said of WW1 but that gets even more complicated.  WW1 escalated by what I call "mobilization without thought".  There were treaties among various nations committing them to come to the defense of others, regardless of the circumstances.  Sound familiar?  This is what NATO does.  The US could find themselves obligated to defend Turkey in a battle with Russia because of this treaty even if it was not in our interests.

      All hypotheticals above, but my point is two-fold.  Automatic triggers to defend other nations may not be in the best interests of all depending on the circumstances.  These triggers may even escalate a conflict into something bigger.  Nations change and committments not reviewed could put a country in a position where they are forced to defend a rogue state like Turkey.

      President Eisenhower was the master at foreign policy.  He delivered peace and prosperity for America during the height of the Cold War.  He envisioned a lifespan of only ten years for NATO or the mission would have failed.  NATO was never intended to span the globe for decades.  It has created a situation where one country shoulders the burden, an organization that expands its duties far beyond its original intention, and allowed certain individuals to abuse it by using the treaty as an offensive weapon.

       NATO is not in danger of disbanding but it needs reviewed for its own health to maintain its credibility.  If NATO is worth what they say it is, they should welcome a debate on its effectiveness and be open to changes that will improve it. But let's put to rest the idea that NATO is some Messiah that would have prevented past wars and is infallible to errors.  Resisting change leads to mediocrity at best.  NATO needs an honest assessment today, especially with a member in flames.