Gates Blasts NATO for the Wrong Reasons

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 10, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

            Scheduled to retire June 30, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for failing to pull its weight.  Calling NATO’s future “dim, if not dismal,” the 67-year-old former CIA director blasted NATO for deviating from its 1949 charter, maintaining adequate military resources to fight the Cold War against the now defunct Soviet Union.  In case Gates has checked, the U.S. and NATO aren’t battling Russian expansionism, no longer fighting to contain an ever-expanding Soviet Union.  Gates cut his teeth in the Cold War, believing that NATO should rubber stamp any U.S. battle since WW II.  “Future U.S. political leaders—those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was more me—may not consider the return an American investment in NATO worth the cost,” blaming NATO for not fully supporting Iraq and Afghanistan.

            U.S. officials, like Gates, don’t quite get that NATO can’t keep pace with all the undeclared wars since the end of WW II.  NATO had problems in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Expecting NATO to support all U.S. military operations is both unrealistic and counterproductive.  Gates is especially frustrated with NATO’s lack of interest in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Europeans see Afghanistan differently than the U.S., NATO shows reluctance to embroil Europe in unnecessary— especially unwinnable—wars   Following Sept. 11, NATO supported U.S. intervention to topple the Taliban government in Afghanistan.  While NATO saw no connection between the Taliban and Sept. 11, they understood that the Taliban harbored Osama bin Laden.  When Bin Laden escaped Tora Bora to Pakistan in Dec. 2001, NATO rightly questioned a protracted Afghan War.

            Ten years After Sept. 11, Gates blames NATO for their lack of involvement in Afghanistan.  Former President George W. Bush had little success convincing NATO that the Iraq War was in the security interest of the Western Alliance.  Pressuring NATO to support Iraq backfired, creating a low-point in U.S.-NATO relations.  Gates sees nothing wrong with blaming NATO for spending too little on European defense budgets, forcing the U.S. to shoulder the burden.  Gates can’t understand why NATO, that has more than 2 million troops in Europe, hasn’t contributed more than 25,000 - 45,000 troops to Afghanistan.  Gates can’t possibly expect European countries to expand their defense budgets for the sole purpose of contributing more troops for U.S. wars.  Offering more stinging criticism, Gates blasted NATO for its lack of involvement in the recent Libyan military operation.

            While praising Belgium and Canada, Gates criticized other European countries for their lack of interest in Libya.  When the Libyan conflict began March 17, the U.S. and NATO operated under a limited U.N. mandate, designed to protect Libyan civilians.  For over two months, Col. Moammar Kadafi fought U.S. and NATO forces to a standoff.  “These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to the training, buy the equipment and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution,” said Gates, referring to NATO’s reluctance to play a decisive role in Libya.  Gates believes that the European nations failing to contribute in Libya do so because of a lack of preparedness.  “Frankly, many o the allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t.  The military capabilities simply aren’t there,” said Gates.

            Gates’s criticism stems from NATO’s lack of enthusiasm for supporting U.S. military operations.  Europe hasn’t had territorial wars since the Soviets stopped their military advance in Europe, rolling tanks into Budapest in 1956.  Since then, the Cold War contained Soviet expansion, confining most hot spots to battlefields outside Europe, mainly in territories of the former Soviet Union in Southern Russia and the Middle East.  “I suspect many allies assumed that the mission would be primarily peacemaking, reconstruction and development assistance—more akin to the Balkans,” said Gates, accounting for NATO’s reluctance to fight in Afghanistan.  NATO’s lack of interest in Afghanistan stems from the Soviet’s failure, where over 15,000 troops and countless Rubles were lost in a losing war.  NATO sees the current U.S. mission impossible as eventually ending in failure.

            Before Gates blasts NATO, he should look squarely at past U.S. wars and ask whether or not the U.S. should shoulder NATO’s military mistakes.  U.S. officials would have a hard time supporting what they felt were unnecessary military interventions.  When U.N. Chief Weapons’ Inspector Dr. Hans Bliz begged Bush to avoid intervening in Iraq. It fell on deaf ears.  Now that the shoe’s on the other foot, Gates has nothing but disdain for NATO for failing to jump on the U.S. military bandwagon.  “Far too much has been accomplished, at far too great of cost, to let the momentum slip away just as the enemy is on his back foot,” said Gates regarding the Afghanistan War.  U.S. officials shouldn’t criticize NATO for showing more global military restraint.  Years of runaway military intervention hasn’t won the U.S. blanket support for much of its questionable military intervention   

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.