Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Five generals who get it: NATO must preserve nuclear first-strike option

A new manifesto for NATO written by five senior military commanders from different countries urges NATO to put itself into a position to exercise a nuclear first strike option to protect "the west's values and way of life." (Hat Tip: Killian Bundy via Little Green Footballs)
The authors - General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK - paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato's future is on the line in Helmand province.
Although Iran is not mentioned (and for that matter, neither is Israel), it is clear that the authors have Iran in mind.

I look at the US Presidential election as a deadline for reforming NATO in the manner suggested by the authors. I'm not sure a Democratic President will go along with the suggested reforms. The reforms also make me anxious to see Israel come under NATO's protective umbrella (if they go through), a prospect to which I have largely been indifferent until now.

Read the whole thing.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google