NATO: The United States, Transformation and the War in Afghanistan

Abstract

During the Bush years, NATO exhibited in stark form two trends which have long characterised its development: periodic exposure to crisis and division, and a subordination to American leadership. Despite signs of American indifference towards the alliance, talk of the Bush administration levering a break with NATO was always overstated, particularly so during its second term of office. Views of NATO after 2004 were shaped by Afghanistan giving rise, in fact, to a return to the alliance on America's part. NATO remains important to Bush's successor but on terms which are as demanding as those of his predecessors. NATO, in other words, is valued in so far as it accords with current US foreign policy priorities. The safest assumption in this regard is that Obama will continue to favour the trend towards a global NATO pursued by the Bush administration. However, retreat (or defeat) in Afghanistan could hasten a contrary trend towards a consolidating NATO with a renewed concentration on the wider Europe.

NATO: From Regional Military Force to International ‘’ Peace Keeping’’

“…For example, in Balkans, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, and southeastern European countries in which they were the main aim for creating NATO in this region. The turning point in this organization was Korean War (Webber, M. 2009). It seems to be, from that time the reform for NATO, to be as international organization was starting by interest of the superpower, as t will be researching for proves in this paper.…”

“…"No one would deny the reality and significance of American dominance within NATO" (Webber, M. 2009), while the problem is this dominance would affect the NATO's future; it will have an effect of international relation between states, especially, Russia and BRIC countries. "The global agenda which US policy favours could well be NATO's undoing" (Webber, M. 2009). Hence it could be seen that USA's dominance and upshots on the alliance as a military force.…”

Kosovo traumas: How NATO got out of its depth in crisis management operations

“…NATO's political investment in the stabilization force in Afghanistan, ISAF, fit the bill. It brought the United States back into NATO, as one analyst noted, and once again gave collective meaning to NATO crisis response operations (Webber, 2009). However, it also meant that NATO was now the most visible driver of the stabilization mission in the country.…”

Post-Hegemonic Climate Politics?

“…In particular, US geopolitical projects to control oil supply and production are unlikely to be relinquished (despite Obama's professed opposition to the Iraq War), reflecting the continued ‘carboniferous’ character of US capitalism, as well as, more crudely, US military capacity to engage in such interventions. Europeans are likely to continue to be wary of such adventurism (see Webber 2009, this issue), in part because they are not in a position to participate in it, in part because their own interests are directly threatened (including in effect being appropriated by US interests—as the switch in oil concessions in Iraq shows), but also in part because their growth strategy and dominant business interests are focused on a post-petroleum future to a much greater extent.…”