Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 169–178 | Cite as

Nato’s Litmus Test: Prioritizing Afghanistan

  • Joshua W. Walker


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Europe is admittedly a large place and made up of many different countries and national interests; where appropriate I have attempted to represent the various European actors and their divergent national interests, however for the sake of simplicity when I am refer-ring to the liberal democracies of the European continent in NATO I use the shorthand of ‘Europe.’Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sloan, Stanley. NATO, The European Union, and the Atlantic Community (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Metreveli, Mamuka. “Legal Aspects of NATO’s Involvement in the Out-of-Area Peace Support Operations” NATO-EAPC Research Project Final Report 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For the full-text of NATO’s self-declared mission in Afghanistan please see:
  5. 5.
    For a recent article on specific strategies and particulars see Seth Jones. “Averting Failure in Afghanistan” in Survival 48/1 Spring 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For a perspective on the types of military missions that Afghanistan has seen prior to the NATO mission see Stephen Tanner’s Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For further background and a review of the new Strategic Concept see NATO Assistant Secretary General Anthony Cragg’s report in the NATO Review Vol. 47.2 Summer 1999, 19–22.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For more on this see the NATO Secretary General’s full speech talking about “out of area” operations with a particular focus on lessons that can be applied from Bosnia at:
  9. 9.
    For more on these debates see David Yost’s book NATO Transformed Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 1999 and Jolyon Howorth’s edited book Defending Europe New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    For more on this please see NATO Review July 1996 July 1996 Accessed: December 1, 2006.
  11. 11.
    The final Strategic Concept adopted by NATO can be found at
  12. 12.
    For more on this debate see Jonathan Monten’s “Primacy and Grand Strategic Belief in US Unilateralism” Global Governance 13 (2007), 119–138.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For a comprehensive report on the trends and current situation in Afghanistan please see the Liechtenstein Institute’s website project report on its Afghanistan conference and seminar series atGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    In particular Waziristan and North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan appear in the press as evident in Richard Holbrooke’s recent Op-Ed, “Afghanistan: The Long Road Ahead” Washington Post: 2 April 2006: B07.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, Seth. “Averting Failure in Afghanistan” Survival 48/1 Spring 2006, 119.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cited from Paul Korning, “NATO Mission in Afghanistan Exposes Chink in Block’s Armor.” in Rupp, 292.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    “NATO Outlining Priorities for November Summit in Latvia” U.S. State Department Official Memo 30 March 2006.
  18. 18.
    “NATO Treads Cautiously Into Afghan Quagmire” Turkish Daily News 29 January 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    “Mission Plausible” The Economist Nov 30th, 2006 edition, world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=El_RPGPDNG Accessed: Dec. 4, 2006.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Economist Nov. 30, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Howorth, Jolyon. “ESDP and NATO: Wedlock or Deadlock?” Cooperation & Conflict, 38/3, Sept. 2003, 252Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    For a similar argument see Richard Rupp’s Chapter 5 “Afghanistan Today: NATO’s Last Hurrah” in NATO After 9/11: An Alliance in Decline New York, Palgrave, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of the Journal of Transatlantic Studies 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua W. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Princeton UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations