PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

Is NATO Dead?

  • October 20, 2009
  • Jim Arkedis

Anne Applebaum theorizes in the Washington Post that NATO is essentially useless:

There is almost no sense anywhere that the war in Afghanistan is an international operation, or that the stakes and goals are international, or that the soldiers on the ground represent anything other than their own national flags and national armed forces. …

The fact is that the idea of “the West” has been fading for a long time on both sides of the Atlantic, as countless “whither-the-Alliance” seminars have been ritually observing for the past decade. But the consequences are now with us: NATO, though fighting its first war since its foundation, inspires nobody. The members of NATO feel no allegiance to the alliance, or to one another.

Questions surrounding NATO’s relevance have swirled as the war effort in Afghanistan has stalled. The alliance’s inability to keep members focused and actively engaged in the hard- and soft-power components of the mission is due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is the Bush administration’s neglectful resourcing of the conflict in favor of Operation Iraqi Freedom (a non-NATO mission, it should be noted). And this is something of a tragedy, given NATO’s invocation of Article V — stating an attack on one member is an attack on all members — in the wake of 9/11.

However, it is also true that NATO was not conceived to conduct an Afghan-type mission, particularly one lasting nine years. NATO was born, of course, as a security pact to face down the Soviet Union — a known quantity of traditional military capabilities. The potential threat coming from Afghanistan’s hinterland is a far cry from the Cuban missile crisis.

While Applebaum bemoans the “countless ‘whither-the-Alliance’ seminars,” I’d suggest that such discussions are necessary, if ill-timed. Instead, NATO’s Secretary General, ex-Norwegian Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, should squeeze out every possible commitment NATO countries are willing to devote to the Afghan mission in the short term, reminding them that attacks in the United Kingdom and Spain are compelling reasons to take the Obama administration’s refocused efforts there seriously.

When the Afghanistan mission is wrapped up in several years, NATO must sit down and decide when it is appropriate to fight, and what sort of resources its members are willing to commit.

Related Work

Op-Ed  |  July 13, 2025

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Trump’s Shift on Ukraine is Welcome, but Now What?

  • Tamar Jacoby
Op-Ed  |  July 10, 2025

Ainsley and Mattinson for The Observer: Do our leaders really care about us? To keep us on side they must prove they do

  • Claire Ainsley Deborah Mattinson
Feature  |  July 7, 2025

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Ukraine Infantry Adapts to More Menacing Drones

  • Tamar Jacoby
In the News  |  July 6, 2025

Jacoby on Background Briefing with Ian Masters: China Admits It Wants the Ukraine War to Drag on to Keep the US and NATO Out of Asia

  • Tamar Jacoby
Feature  |  June 25, 2025

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: At NATO Summit, Allies Avoid Tensions with Trump

  • Tamar Jacoby
Blog  |  June 24, 2025

Strikes Without Competent Diplomacy Risk Open-Ended Conflict in the Middle East

  • Peter Juul
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2025 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings