Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 26–44 | Cite as

NATO from Kabul to Earth orbit: can the alliance cope?

  • Damon ColettaEmail author
  • Sten Rynning
Article

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that NATO has multiple rationales. What is more contestable is the view that the burgeoning complexity of the security environment feeds these rationales and that NATO may not be able to cope. If each rationale is like a personality, then NATO’s multiple personalities have a corrosive effect on the Alliance since they prevent it from setting consistent goals and pursuing them. The prescribed cure is a clarified personality that emphasises one rationale at the expense of others. This paper questions the metaphor behind this debate. NATO’s multiple rationales are built into the Alliance, we argue, and a better metaphor may be NATO as a congress whose members are independent yet tied to an overarching political project. Such a congress will never be unitary, but it can at times make decisions. Sometimes decision-making will require grand and thus elusive bargains; sometimes it can be moved from formal committees to backroom caucuses that eschew big questions of rationale and instead focus on problem-solving. In any case, congresses can cope with persistent, competing preference orderings and divergent resource bases among constituent states. Where the split personality analogy leads to the collapse of NATO as a coherent actor, the congress metaphor affords better notional explanations for what we actually observe, a messy, raucous alliance that muddles through from Kabul to Earth orbit.

Keywords

NATO alliance crisis management identity institutionalism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Richard Betts, ‘The Three Faces of NATO’, The National Interest, April 10, 2009, http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-three-faces-nato-3031.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Douglas Bernstein and Peggy Nash, Essentials of Psychology, 4th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin, 2008), Ch. 11, 472, 485.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wallace Thies, Friendly Rivals: Bargaining and Burden-Shifting in NATO (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 3a.
    Sten Rynning, NATO Renewed: The Power and Purpose of Transatlantic Cooperation (NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3b.
    John Deni, Alliance Management and Maintenance: Restructuring NATO for the 21stCentury (Hampshire, UK: Ashgate, 2007).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Betts, ‘The Three Faces of NATO’, webpage 1, line 3.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Ibid., webpage 1.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Ibid., webpage 4, 5, lines 18–20.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Ibid., webpage 5, lines 35, 40.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Helga Haftendorn, Robert Keohane, and Celeste Wallander, eds., Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999); Betts, ‘The Three Faces of NATO’, webpage 2, lines 45, 53–6, 61–4; webpage 3, lines 20, 52–3; webpage 4, lines 14–15.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    John Ruggie, ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’, International Organization 52, no. 4 (Autumn 1998): 855–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 9a.
    Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), presented famous arguments on cooperative socialization.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 9b.
    Zoltan Barany, ‘NATO’s Peaceful Advance’, Journal of Democracy 15, no. 1 (January 2004): 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 9c.
    Alexandra Gheciu, NATO in the ‘New Europe’: The Politics of International Socialization after the Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005); andGoogle Scholar
  15. 9d.
    Rebecca Moore, NATO’s New Mission: Projecting Stability in a Post-Cold War World (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007), applied it to NATO, albeit with varying levels of caution on the implications of benevolent socialization for Alliance enlargement.Google Scholar
  16. 10.
    John Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security 15, no. 1 (Summer 1990): 5–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 10a.
    Kenneth Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security 25, no. 1 (Summer 2000): 5–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 10b.
    Richard Rupp, NATO after 9/11: An Alliance in Continuing Decline (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 10c.
    Christopher Layne, ‘It’s Over Over There: The Coming Crack-Up in Transatlantic Relations’, International Politics 45, no. 3 (May 2008): 325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 11.
    David Yost, NATO Transformed: The Alliance’s New Roles in International Security (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1998)Google Scholar
  21. 11a.
    Sean Kay, NATO and the Future of European Security (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998)Google Scholar
  22. 11b.
    Nora Bensahel, ‘Separable but not Separate Forces: NATO’s Development of the Combined Joint Task Force’, European Security 8, no. 2 (1999): 52–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 11c.
    Zoltan Barany, The Future of NATO Expansion: Four Case Studies (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Rynning, NATO Renewed; Deni, Alliance Management and Maintenance;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 11d.
    Jolyon Howorth, A New Institutional Architecture for the Transatlantic Relationship? — Europe Visions 5 (Brussels, Belgium: IFRI-BRUXELLES, June 2009). There has been no shortage of problems in implementing NATO crisis management, but for more than a decade, the institution has somehow muddled through.Google Scholar
  25. 12.
    Other scholars—before and after Betts—tackled the challenges multiple post-9/11 roles create for matching NATO resources and objectives [Renée De Nevers, ‘NATO’s International Security Role in the Terrorist Era’, International Security 31, no. 4 (Spring 2007): 34–66, especially the conclusion, andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 12a.
    Andrew Wolff, ‘The Structural and Political Crisis of NATO Transformation’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 7, no. 4 (December 2009): 476–92]. Betts’ diagnosis, however, was unusual. Rather than suggest a way in which NATO could succeed at several different tasks, Betts warned that continued mixing or success by one of the wrong roles would endanger NATO in the long run.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 13.
    Group of Experts, NATO 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement, May 17, 2010, pp. 7–8, http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/3/NATO2020-Experts-Report.pdf.Google Scholar
  28. 14.
    NATO, Strategic Concept. NATO published its first Strategic Concept in 1991 and chose not to write a new Concept for its 50th anniversary in 1999 but instead revise the old one. Strategic Concepts can be accessed along with a host of related information on the NATO website dedicated to the Strategic Concept, http://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/index.html. For background and assessment, see Jens Ringsmose and Sten Rynning, Come Home, NATO? The Atlantic Alliance’s New Strategic Concept (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), 2009).Google Scholar
  29. 15.
    For a critical review of the United States Congress navigating challenges at the national level, see James Fallows, ‘How America Can Rise Again’, Atlantic (January/February 2010), http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/how-america-can-rise-again/7839/.Google Scholar
  30. 16.
    NATO, Declaration on Alliance Security, April 4, 2009, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-D7361554-D1667800/natolive/news_52838.htm; Group of Experts-NATO 2020 (2010).Google Scholar
  31. 17.
    http://www.nato.int url /cps/en/SID-D7361554-D1667800/natolive/news_52838.htm; Group of Experts-NATO 2020 (2010) Ibid., paragraphs 16–17, 19, 26.Google Scholar
  32. 18.
    Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘An Agenda for NATO’, Foreign Affairs 88, no. 5 (September–October 2009): 2–20.Google Scholar
  33. 19.
    Karl-Heinz Kamp, ‘Towards a New Strategy for NATO’, Survival 51, no. 4 (August–September 2009): 21–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 20.
    See the range of assessments in Jens Ringsmose and Sten Rynning, NATO’s New Strategic Concept: A Comprehensive Assessment (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), 2011).Google Scholar
  35. 21.
    NATO, Strategic Concept, paragraphs 4b-c, 11, 13, 19–21, 23–5.Google Scholar
  36. 22.
    White Paper, http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/afghanistan_pakistan_white_paper_final.pdf.
  37. 23.
    Remarks by President Obama, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/.
  38. 24.
    President Obama and NATO Secretary General Rasmussen stressed this point at their meeting in October 2009, http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/president-afghanistan-is-na-tos-most-important-mission.html. David Yost, ‘NATO’s Evolving Purposes and the Next Strategic Concept’, International Affairs 86, no. 2 (2010): 489–522, underscores this dual liberal-realist nature of the Afghan engagement with his discussion of the formal mission (which is non-Article 5 and mostly liberally inspired) versus the real motive for the mission (which is the prevention of Article 5 threats and thus realist).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 25.
    For an overview see Daniel Korski, Transatlantic AfPak’ Policy: One Year Later, FRIDE Policy Brief No. 40, February 2010, http://ecfr.3cdn.net/1366da9786cdc1950a_vum6bviq6.pdfGoogle Scholar
  40. 26.
    Thom Shanker, ‘NATO Ministers Endorse Wider Afghan Effort’, New York Times, October 24, 2009, A1; Washington Post ‘Defense Ministers Back McChrystal’s Strategy’, October 24, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102304239.html. NATO’s endorsement came at a Defence Ministers’ meeting and thus did not involve the heads of state and government, which was an important detail that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted following the meeting. Gates refrained from endorsing the McChrystal assessment given the ongoing strategic review back home and instead emphasized that the allies now needed to deliver in terms of force contributions (Google Scholar
  41. 26a.
    Thom Shanker, ‘Gates to Press NATO on Afghan Commitment’, New York Times, October 23, 2009, A12). NATO at this initiated work on a NATO COIN doctrine (Allied Joint Publication), which was finalized in early 2011.Google Scholar
  42. 27.
    James Goldgeier, ‘Afghanistan Seen as Crucial Test: Mixed Performance Clouds Vision of a 21st Century Role’, Washington Times, March 22, 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/22/afghanistan-seen-as-crucial-test/. The opposite view is that NATO is not so much a two-tier alliance as a multi-tier alliance that may be disruptive in strategic terms but, somewhat paradoxically, viable in political terms [Google Scholar
  43. 27a.
    Benjamin Schreer and Timo Noetzel, ‘Does a Multi-Tier NATO Matter? The Atlantic Alliance and the Process of Strategic Change’, International Affairs 85, no. 2 (March 2009), 211–26].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 27b.
    John Feffer, ‘Afghanistan: NATO’s Graveyard?’, Tomdispatch.com, September 29, 2009, http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175120, believes like Goldgeier that NATO is failing the test of Afghanistan but that the Alliance still may have a future, depending on how the negotiations among different identities play out.Google Scholar
  45. 28.
    The best access to this outlook is the European Security Strategy, an EU document that was originally produced in 2003 as an EU counter to the W. Bush national security strategy but also a bridge to transatlantic compromise, which was then revised in 2008. Both versions are accessible at the EU Council of Ministers website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id = 266&lang = en.
  46. 29.
    Theo Farrell and Sten Rynning, ‘NATO’s Transformation Gaps: Transatlantic Differences and the War in Afghanistan’, Journal of Strategic Studies 33, no. 5 (October 2010): 673–99, 675–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 30.
    Thomas Single, Maj, USAF, JAPCC NATO Operations Space Assessment (revised January 2009) (Kalkar, Germany: Joint Air Power Competence Centre [JAPCC], 2009), 23Google Scholar
  48. 30a.
    Douglas Barrie, ‘Empty Space’, Aviation Week & Space Technology (September 22, 2008): 36.Google Scholar
  49. 31.
    C4ISTAR stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance.Google Scholar
  50. 32.
    The JAPCC website is located at http://japcc.de/. See also Jim Bates, (LtCol, Canadian Air Force), ‘JAPCC—Joint Air Power Competence Centre: NATO’s Centre of Excellence’, Canadian Air Force Journal (Summer 2008): 48–60.Google Scholar
  51. 33.
    Stars and Stripes, ‘USAFE Leader to Retire’, November 3, 2009, www.stripes.com/article.asp?section = 104&article =65822 (accessed December 11, 2009).
  52. 34.
    Bates, ‘JAPCC—Joint Air Power Competence Centre’; ‘Peace Support, Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations’, Conference Agenda, Brussels, Belgium, April 20–21, 2009, International Quality and Productivity Centre (Berlin, Germany), www.iqpc.com/ShowEvent.aspx?id = 164104&details = 168186&langtype = 1033 (accessed December 17, 2009).
  53. 35.
    See also Single, JAPCC NATO, 26, on NATO use of US telecommunications satellites. At the 2008 JAPCC Conference, German Army General Karl-Heinz Lather expressed general satisfaction with NATO’s current service purchase as opposed to an ownership model for satellite communications (SATCOM). The JAPCC Conference keynote address is linked at http://japcc.de/103.html.
  54. 36.
    Defense Industry Daily, AGS: NATO’s Battlefield Eye in the Sky’, September 27, www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ags-natos-battlefild-eye-in-the-sky-02727/ (accessed December 17, 2009); Laurence Mixon, (Lieutenant Colonel, US Army), ‘Requirements and Challenges Facing the NATO Intelligence Fusion Center’ (Thesis, Air War College, Air University, Montgomery, AL, 2007), https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_9a47b0f3-9dcb-41d3-b677-79544cdd6921/displayaspx?rs =enginespage (accessed December 17, 2009), 4–19.Google Scholar
  55. 37.
    Mixon, ‘Requirements and Challenges’, 9–12.Google Scholar
  56. 38.
    Jack Kelly, ‘How the Bold Run to Baghdad Paid Off’, Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, PA), April 13, 2003, www.post-gazette.com/world/20030413warspeedup4.asp.Google Scholar
  57. 39.
    James Mattis, (General, US Marine Corps), ‘USJFCOM Commander’s Guidance for Effects-based Operations’, Joint Forces Quarterly No. 51 (Fourth Quarter) (2008): 105–8.Google Scholar
  58. 40.
    Single, JAPCC NATO, 36–7.Google Scholar
  59. 41.
    John Tirpak, ‘The New Counterinsurgency: Airpower to the Rear; That Satellite is Toast...’, Militaryphotos.net blog, March 4, 2007 www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showth-read.php?p = 2347006 (accessed December 17, 2009)Google Scholar
  60. 41a.
    Charles Dunlap, Jr (Maj Gen, US Air Force), ‘We Have a Serious COIN Shortage’, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 133, no. 5 (May 2007): 162.Google Scholar
  61. 42.
    Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer, ‘Insurgent Leader Al-Zarqawi Killed in Iraq’, Washington Post, June 8, 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800114.html.Google Scholar
  62. 43.
    Air Force Space Command, Air Force Space Command Delivers Capability for Direct Zarqawi Hit’, June 8, 2006, www.afspc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id = 123021524 (accessed December 17, 2009).
  63. 44.
    Stephey, M.J, ‘Stan McChrystal: The New U.S. Commander in Afghanistan’, TIME Online, May 12, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1897542,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
  64. 44a.
    Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, ‘More Satellites Will Act as Eyes for Troops’, New York Times, February 24, 2010, A6.Google Scholar
  65. 45.
    Petraeus, of course, replaced McChrystal in Afghanistan after the latter’s firing. Interestingly, after we entered the publication process with this report, JAPCC published NATO Air and Space Power in Counter-IED Operations: A Primer, dated September 2010 (http://japcc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Reports/CIED/101026_Counter_IED_Ops_2010.pdf), making it much more likely that the conceptual link between space power and NATO counter-insurgency operations would survive McChrystal’s abrupt departure from the scene in June 2010. We think the personality metaphor applied to the case of NATO space would mislead the analysis, highlighting the absence of a NATO Space Command or any space counterpart to NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group and generating quite pessimistic projections about whether space capability that exists at the national level today could ever be shared in a way that would help NATO’s vision, its strategy, or the Alliance’s capacity to right itself in Afghanistan. Thinking in terms of the congress metaphor and looking for action outside the formal committee rooms, we instead find grounds for guarded optimism—on all three counts.
  66. 46.
    Steven Erlanger, ‘NATO Urged to Look beyond Borders’, New York Times, May 19, 2010, A9; NATO, Strategic Concept, paragraphs 1–4.Google Scholar
  67. 47.
    Jan A.H. Van Hoof, (Air Commodore, Royal Netherlands Air Force), ‘Coalition Space Operations—A NATO Perspective’, High Frontier 6, no. 2 (February 2010): 7–12.Google Scholar
  68. 47a.
    Gisela Mu¨ller-Brandeck-Bocquet, ‘France’s New NATO Policy: Leveraging a Realignment of the Alliance?’ Strategic Studies Quarterly 3, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 95–109, argued that French re-integration with NATO military structures would make NATO cooperation with ESDP on issues like space capability easier than it was, say, during NATO’s internal dispute over the Iraq invasion of 2003.Google Scholar
  69. 47b.
    For upbeat views of European space capability nurtured in the European Union, see Xavier Pasco, ‘Toward a European Military Space Architecture’, in Space and Defense Policy, ed. Damon Coletta and Frances Pilch (London, UK: Routledge, 2009), 290–311 andGoogle Scholar
  70. 47c.
    Michael Gleason, (LtCol, USAF), ‘Shaping the Future with a New Space Power: Now Is the Time’, High Frontier 6, no. 2 (February 2010): 43–5.Google Scholar
  71. 47d.
    On the status of missile defence in NATO and its relation to collective defence, see Sean Kay, ‘Missile Defenses and the European Security Dilemma’, in NATO in Search of a Vision, ed. Gülnur Aybet and Rebecca Moore (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2010), 131–52, Yost, ‘NATO’s Evolving Purposes’, 508–9; Atlantic Council of the United States (Washington, DC), ‘Missile Defense in Europe: Next Steps’, Panel 2—Implications for NATO and Europe, October 7, 2009 transcript, www.acus.org/event/missile-defense-europe-next-steps (accessed December 17, 2009)Google Scholar
  72. 47e.
    Peter Baker, ‘White House Scraps Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield’, New York Times, September 18, 2009, A1, andGoogle Scholar
  73. 47f.
    Nicholas Kulish and Judy Dempsey, ‘In Face of U.S. Shift, Europeans Recalibrate’, New York Times, September 17, 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18europe.html?_r = 1&fta =y.Google Scholar
  74. 48.
    For a prescient, late-cold war study of NATO’s response to growing ‘out-of-area’ threats in Southwest Asia and the Middle East, see Charles Kupchan, ‘NATO and the Persian Gulf: Examining Intra-alliance Behavior’, International Organization 42, no. 2 (Spring 1988): 317–46. Kupchan noted how mechanisms of effective cooperation depended on the ‘scope and locus of decision making’ (p. 346) for a specific policy. This recalls James Madison’s theory of limited government for a large republic in Federalist 10 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm): An overarching congress might endure, despite proliferating arenas of decision-making, if it could successfully trade some strategic agility and dispatch for a long-run guarantee that no faction among those represented would find itself exiled to permanent minority status.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 49.
    Wallace Thies, Why NATO Endures (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 50.
    Ibid., 288, 294–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 51.
    John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (NY: Harper & Brothers, 1956)Google Scholar
  78. 51a.
    John Keegan, The Mask of Command (London: Penguin, 1988).Google Scholar
  79. 52.
    James March and Johan Olsen, ‘The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life’, American Political Science Review 100, no. 4 (November 2006): 675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 53.
    Sebastian Mayer, ‘Path Dependence and Commission Activism in the Evolution of the European Union’s External Energy Policy’, Journal of International Relations and Development 11, no. 3 (September 2008): 251–78, did not explicitly use Congress, but some of his concepts that distinguished supranational from intergovernmental behaviour in the European Union already play a role in understanding Congress: informal agenda setting, fragmented responsibilities, and cross-sectional policy concerns.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 53a.
    Ivan Ivanov, ‘The Relevance of Heterogeneous Clubs in Explaining Contemporary NATO Politics’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 8, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 337–61, took a step toward congress in applying the ‘heterogeneous club’ concept to describe NATO dynamics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUnited States Air Force AcademyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations