Was Robert Gates right to bash NATO?
In many ways, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was right when he blasted many NATO members today in Brussels for their low military spending and inadequate committment to the alliance’s ongoing effort in Afghanistan. There’s no doubt that Europe’s fading military capabilities and sometimes weak resolve are emerging as major strategic problems for the ...
In many ways, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was right when he blasted many NATO members today in Brussels for their low military spending and inadequate committment to the alliance's ongoing effort in Afghanistan. There's no doubt that Europe's fading military capabilities and sometimes weak resolve are emerging as major strategic problems for the alliance. The phenomenon of "national caveats" on troops in Afghanistan is a major headache for NATO commanders.
In many ways, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was right when he blasted many NATO members today in Brussels for their low military spending and inadequate committment to the alliance’s ongoing effort in Afghanistan. There’s no doubt that Europe’s fading military capabilities and sometimes weak resolve are emerging as major strategic problems for the alliance. The phenomenon of "national caveats" on troops in Afghanistan is a major headache for NATO commanders.
But if I were a German or Turkish politician, I might take some umbrage at the criticism, at least when extended to Libya. In his speech, Gates noted acidly that "while every alliance member voted for Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission." It’s true, of course, that every member voted for the operation. NATO is, after all, a consensus-based organization. But that description glosses over the real political dynamic that existed when NATO took on the mission.
The reality is that the U.S. and the U.K. twisted arms to get reluctant members to put the operation under the alliance umbrella. Alliance giants Germany and Turkey, in particular, wanted no part of it. Washington and London knew there was deep division about the wisdom of the intervention but desperately wanted the alliance’s imprimatur. From the outside, it appears that there was a tacit deal: Libya becomes a NATO operation but those members uncomfortable with the mission can choose not to participate.
If that’s an accurate understanding of the dynamic, isn’t it a bit unfair for Gates now to light into those same NATO members for not participating?
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
