16 January SWJ Roundup

Searching for something else on the topic of contemporary NATO, I came across the following transcript:

OLLIVANT10:21:34
I think he's exactly right. The original purpose, you know, which the wags used to say was to keep the Americans and the Russians out and the Germans down, clearly no longer exists. But NATO is this one multilateral institution through which the United States can work and, quite frankly, doesn't have to worry about a Russian and Chinese veto. So it's the second-tier organization you can go to, not quite as much legitimacy as the U.N., but clearly a broad, multilateral institution through which the United States can work.

(Diane Rehm Show)

http://tinyurl.com/azzflqv

I want to "vet" ideas, I have no interest in personalizing any arguments based on any of the people mentioned in my comments.

Regarding the pivot to Asia, some pundits and scholars caution that the US and its allies may be creating an unnecessarily provocative posture toward China. However, is that sort of thing embedded institutionally within the NATOist "mindset" already?

By using the NATO alliance as a way to "get around Russia and China" are we creating problems for ourselves and are we blinded to what may be the reason for some friction?

Forgive my sarcasm, but poring over maps of MittelEuropa and obsessing over relations with the MidEast may not be the only intellectual background a person needs in this, the early twenty-first century....

An addition to my other comment:

Abstract:

As NATO turns 60 in April 2009, celebrations will be tempered by the continuing difficulties it faces in Afghanistan. The Alliance's first operation outside the Euro-Atlantic area has revealed a major gap between grand ambitions and actual capability. Central to this problem is the political disunity among NATO's member-states. The Strasbourg–Kehl summit may provide an opportunity to rethink what can most realistically be expected from NATO in terms of its contribution to international peace and security. Here, much can be learnt from the manner in which it has thus far responded to changing strategic circumstances since the Cold War, and the constraints, internal and external, that have impinged on its activities and are likely to continue to do so. The evidence points to a need for NATO to bring its exalted political purposes into closer alignment with its actual military missions and capabilities. The Alliance still has a potentially important role to play, but greater realism is needed both as to its strengths and its weaknesses.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396330902860793

"Chuck Hagel Tries to Alleviate Democrats' Fears" - Politico

What a strange conversation has developed around this topic. I don't understand the tenor of some of the questions?

At any rate, given my areas of interest, I am curious about the intellectual environment at the Atlantic Council, the concept of a "globalized" NATO, and the place of the American military within such a construct. I have a generalized interest in institutional thinking and how it affects decision-making, whatever administration. I have no interest in the partisan aspect.

Historically, did such a construct play a part in the making of strategy toward Afghanistan from 2002 onward within various foreign policy institutions? How would this affect decision-making going forward?

Brent Scowcroft, Chairman of the Atlantic Council’s International Advisory Board and head of the search committee that recommended Hagel, commended the Board’s choice: “Chuck Hagel's demonstrated leadership and well deserved reputation for supporting and advancing U.S. foreign policy interests without regard to partisan considerations will be tremendous assets to the Atlantic Council.”
.
Senator Hagel himself welcomed the opportunity, saying, “At no other time has the Atlantic Community faced such critical and complex global challenges. Whether the matter is Afghanistan and Pakistan, energy security and climate, or dealing with a rising China and resurgent Russia, transatlantic cooperation has never been more essential. The Atlantic Council has built up considerable momentum, and I want to build upon that important work.”

http://www.acus.org/press/chuck-hagel-new-atlantic-council-chairman

Small Wars Journal is published by and ©2005-2013, Small Wars Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation.
Original content is published under a Creative Commons License per our Terms of Use.

by Dave Dilegge

About the Author

Comments