NATO Expansion

Hubris Boy · 11-23-2002, 08:53 AM

In Prague on Thursday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization issued invitations to seven countries to begin accession talks to join the Alliance: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The countries are expected to join NATO in 2004. This is the second time the Alliance has expanded eastward since the collapse of the late, unlamented Warsaw Pact; Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to join in 1999.

Is this a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>?

NATO used to be a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>". Originally developed as a foil to the land-grabbing tendencies of left-wing militant extremists in the Stalin administration, it worked admirably; for over 50 years NATO's existence prevented a flood of cheap, poorly-made Soviet tanks from pouring through the Fulda Gap and inundating Western Europe.

But now...

...hmmmm. The absence of Godless Communist Hordes In The East (no, we'll deal with China in a different thread) raises the question of whether NATO has outlived its usefulness. To what end, this eastward expansion? By what stretch of the imagination can Bulgaria be considered a "North Atlantic" nation? According to the terms of the Treaty, "...an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..." This was fine during the Cold War, and made an effective deterrent. No one doubted that America would respond with great vigor to any Soviet incursion across the intra-German border, and that the American public would enthusiastically support such a response. But what about now? Are we supposed to believe that Americans would be equally enthusiastic about sending their sons to defend Bratislava?

It seems to me that NATO today is becoming more Euro-centric, and is increasingly being asked to function as a pan-European defense agency, with Uncle Sucker paying the tab. The EU has been babbling about creating an "EU Defense Force" off and on for over a decade now but, with typical European efficiency, babble is about all that's been accomplished.

I don't have any particular axe to grind here, and I don't have any answers either. I'm the last one who will deny the need for military cooperation between the Good Guys (i.e. the liberal democracies of the West) to protect our way of life from the encroaching barbarism of the Bad Guys (i.e. everybody else). But I'm not sure that NATO is, any longer, the proper tool for the job.

Break into groups and discuss among yourselves.

View Poll Results: NATO expansion is...
... a logical evolution for the organization in the post-Soviet era.	2	33.33%
... a transparent ploy by the Europeans to get the U.S. to subsidize their defense spending.	2	33.33%
... huh?	0	0%
... CowboyNeal!	2	33.33%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

11-23-2002, 08:53 AM	#1
Hubris Boy Keymaster of Gozer Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Patapsco Drainage Basin Posts: 471	NATO Expansion In Prague on Thursday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization issued invitations to seven countries to begin accession talks to join the Alliance: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The countries are expected to join NATO in 2004. This is the second time the Alliance has expanded eastward since the collapse of the late, unlamented Warsaw Pact; Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to join in 1999. Is this a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>? NATO used to be a Good Thing<sup>®</sup>". Originally developed as a foil to the land-grabbing tendencies of left-wing militant extremists in the Stalin administration, it worked admirably; for over 50 years NATO's existence prevented a flood of cheap, poorly-made Soviet tanks from pouring through the Fulda Gap and inundating Western Europe. But now... ...hmmmm. The absence of Godless Communist Hordes In The East (no, we'll deal with China in a different thread) raises the question of whether NATO has outlived its usefulness. To what end, this eastward expansion? By what stretch of the imagination can Bulgaria be considered a "North Atlantic" nation? According to the terms of the Treaty, "...an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all..." This was fine during the Cold War, and made an effective deterrent. No one doubted that America would respond with great vigor to any Soviet incursion across the intra-German border, and that the American public would enthusiastically support such a response. But what about now? Are we supposed to believe that Americans would be equally enthusiastic about sending their sons to defend Bratislava? It seems to me that NATO today is becoming more Euro-centric, and is increasingly being asked to function as a pan-European defense agency, with Uncle Sucker paying the tab. The EU has been babbling about creating an "EU Defense Force" off and on for over a decade now but, with typical European efficiency, babble is about all that's been accomplished. I don't have any particular axe to grind here, and I don't have any answers either. I'm the last one who will deny the need for military cooperation between the Good Guys (i.e. the liberal democracies of the West) to protect our way of life from the encroaching barbarism of the Bad Guys (i.e. everybody else). But I'm not sure that NATO is, any longer, the proper tool for the job. Break into groups and discuss among yourselves.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)