"A new NATO for a new world" by Jeanne Shaheen | May 13, 2009
Kind of in-your-face, laughing-at-ya, isn't it?
It's essential that we begin the dialogue on NATO's future now because our opportunity to make sure NATO continues to represent a force for good in the world is quickly approaching.
Yeah, tell that to the Afghans they drop the bombs on -- those that survived.
Over the past 10 years, the world has changed dramatically, but the Strategic Concept has not been updated substantively since 1999. In that time we have endured some of the most deadly acts of global terror ever on NATO soil, including the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the bombings in the United Kingdom and Spain.
Yeah, those false-flag attacks sure do come in handy, no?
We have made remarkable technological advances that created an interconnected world but bring new security challenges. And we face the potentially devastating dangers associated with the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology around the globe. Our world has changed, and NATO must change with it.
Why is NATO even in existence anymore? The Soviets are gone.
NATO's military commitment in Afghanistan remains the most pressing issue for the Alliance in the short term.
Why?
Can anyplace on earth be any further away from the ATLANTIC than AFGHANISTAN?
But a number of other nontraditional threats face NATO members, including nuclear proliferation, cyber warfare, energy security, piracy, even pandemic health problems. This begs the question: How does NATO find consensus on the scope of its responsibilities, missions, and relationships?
Translation: NATO is the military arm of the NWO.
Since the end of the Cold War, the debate over NATO's future focused primarily on enlargement and NATO's "open door" policy. The effort has been a great success with the addition of 12 new members since 1999. But despite this important strengthening of the Alliance, we have failed to clearly define what exactly NATO should be doing to address emerging threats.
As we confront these new challenges, we must remember that there are limits to NATO's resources and capabilities. For example, is NATO adequately equipped to meet cyber threats? Or piracy? Or swine flu?
WTF? Why is a military alliance involved in any of these things?
NATO will simply not be able to meet every challenge that threatens its members. On some issues, NATO will take the lead. But on others, NATO will have to partner with other international institutions, like the United Nations or the European Union.
Can't say it any plainer than that.
As we rewrite the Strategic Concept to guide the next decade of NATO operations, we must clearly define when NATO should lead, when it should collaborate with other international organizations, and when it should take a back seat.
NATO's member nations have some difficult questions to answer. It will not be easy to find consensus on these issues, which is why we need to start this dialogue now. The United States must play a role in shaping this debate so that NATO is as successful for our children as it was for us.
Well, unless you are an Afghan child (or Serbian).
Yup, the 'liberal female" senator from New Hampshire is an imperialistic globalist.
Great.
--more--"
