I completely agree with the new Secretary General's recent statement on the primacy of the struggle against the extremist forces in Afghanistan. Relegating Russia strategy to second place also seems to make sense as the potential for conventional conflict between Greater Europe and Russia appears unlikely. I would suggest that NATO amplify efforts at public engagement by defining the strategic limitations inherent in operations in Central Asia and trumpeting success whenever possible.

Extremist forces in Central Asia rely on information warfare. Repeating with a simple message of NATO's invincibility and inevitability will help to highlight the inherent weakness of the extremist ideology. The entire Cold War was often marked by direct response-by-example to Soviet propaganda. "Living well is the best revenge" applies as much to highlighing the superiority of liberal political systems over communism and Stalinism as it does to modernity versus extreme conservative interpretations of Islam or medievalism. Blue jeans and Coca-Cola are not the right carrot to dangle infront of the Taliban but only because they are not sufficient. Directly conveying the superiority of the modern world is essential to the struggle against extremist violence.

This approach is not getting enough energy directed towards it. It is easy to sense a relativism in European thought and in that of NATO's Asian allies. Relativism played a part in the Cold War but it was subverted by enough of a collective will on NATO's part to resist the encroach of Soviet communism. There is simply not a determination on the part of NATO's major members that Modernity should trump Medievalism in Central Asia. Beating terrorists and the Taliban in Afghanistan is irrelevant because terrorism cannot be destroyed and if it is not gestating in Central Asia it will pop up somewhere else. The current conflict between NATO and islamic extremism in Afghanistan is so far being won by the Taliban because NATO is not claiming any sort of reason for victory beyond a vague vision of the future where Afghanistan reduces government corruption and embraces equality for women while no longer acting as a staging ground for global terrorists. That mish-mash of agenda points is meaningless. It is complicated, specific, and lacking in the essential characteristic of clarity.

Put a clear image of victory of the modern over the savage on the struggle and an outcome is possible. Keep jumping from one specific abstract goal to another in a greater scheme of peace through prosperity and equality and there will be no victory over extremist medievalists.

This current conflict is less complicated than the division between economic ideologies that was at the heart of the Cold War. Savage death cults versus sophisticated modern enlightened civilization is timeless. It is the same battle the Roman legions fought against the Germanic tribes. Rome lost. Rome's ideals where powerful and sophisticated but eventually they were destroyed and replaced. NATO needs to embrace its position as a great unifier of forces in the civilized world. NATO represents the might of the best nations on Earth but it never makes that claim in a meaningful way and it never rivals or even comes close to challenging the visceral appeal of the Taliban and its associates.

That was a bit of a ramble and not too clear but I think I can summarize by saying that NATO is what it is and being obtuse about it by using technocratic language only works in a civilized world. The enemy only understands its own older language. The Soviets got the message when they were able to count our planes, thanks, and missiles. The Taliban will get the message when NATO engages them on their chosen battlefield of the information space. An honest embrace of the grand dimension of this conflict is essenial and it needs to be repeated and amplified until it becomes reality.

Thank you for your time whoever reads this and thank you for allowing a forum for me to express my opinion.

Good day to all of good will,
I would like to just point out one of my ideas about NATO. NATO was meant as a pact to protect its members, I don.t feel adequatly educated (student of logics) to be able to give strategic advices, but the main goal should stay the protection of NATO members.

The rhetorics of the last few years presented NATO more as a democracy exporter. But as it seems, not every country is fit for the same democracy. It is enough to look at the NATO members. Almost every country has it.s specific system of democracy and therefore also specific systems should be allowed in the countries that were unstable. The main idea should be to stabilize the country and so eliminate the possible treat it presented. I am probably stating the obvious, but we should learn from for example the Russian experience in Afghanistan, the American experience in Vietnam and so on. We are in a new situation to some extent, but the basic rules of society stay the same.

I wish good luck to the new Secretary General! We will need it in the following years.
Thank you for reading.

Great site theme

Greetings Mr Rasmussen

I wish to congratulate you on your new profile as NATO Secretary General. I was part of the Oberoi team who were assigned to your delegation during your esteemed visit to INDIA in 2008. Please convey my regards to Mrs. Anne.

Nikhil Mitra

Nato should first of all recognize what it is and what it is not. Nato is a community of liberal democracies based on the rule of law. It is a military organization based on political ideals.

Nato is not a development agency. Nato does not have the universal legitimacy of say the United Nations. Nato is the West. Nato therefore has specific disadvantages in antiwestern countries.

Nato will fail in Afghanistan because it was not created and does not exist to “succeed” in non-western leaning countries. Afghanistan is to Nato what Iraq has been to the US. One can only wonder when politicians will decide that enough face has been saved for an honorable and long due exit to be performed.

Hopefully we will begin to see this after the elections. Then more pressing issues like Iran can receive the attention they deserve.

Iraq and Afghanistan have in the end become clear catalysts for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If it weren’t for those poorly planned occupations one would think Iran could have been persuaded to go the way of Libya, in turn contributing to security in the whole Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine).

Nato’s role against terrorism should be limited to active prevention against attacks, not nation-building or cultural modification. This requires neither tens of thousands of troops nor nation-building civilian personnel.

It will still require spending billions, but in more effective ways. One can only imagine what could have been done for the development of Afghanistan with all the money wasted for the unnecessary presence of so many troops for almost a decade.

There are better organizations to perform what the United States, through Nato, has tried to do. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), United Nations (UN), Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Red Crescent, even the European Union (EU) are better suited for the soft power which Nato would need to succeed in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc.

The US/Nato campaign in Afghanistan also has the perverse potential to inflame anti-western sentiment in Central Asia, as it already has in Pakistan. I think one can honestly state that the Nato/US intervention in Afghanistan has caused unnecessary damage to Pakistani security.

Meanwhile, Russia has profited from NATO/US entanglement in the Muslim world to try to stop the westernizing of Eastern Europe, Nato’s veritable foremost mission. Russian threats can no longer be dismissed. Not that this requires confrontation, but clearly Europe’s security can no longer be taken for granted. What is required to enhance European security is clearly known.

Western European business interests cannot be allowed to continue impeding the proper development of the EU’s military assets and common energy policy or to continue dictating foreign policy in places such as Russia and Iran. Engaging these regimes in a cowardly manner is not the way forward, as the Cold War clearly shows.

The lessons from Iraq should also be more clearly derived and applied (as they should have been from the start if the lessons from Vietnam and from Afghanistan I and II had been learned). There will be no progress as long as foreign troops/powers can be blamed for most of what is wrong in an occupied country. Nationalism is the most potent modern ideology and mixed with religious fanaticism it is nothing short of invincible.

In synthesis, Nato’s tasks are Article 5, contributing to the westernizing of Eastern Europe, and counterterrorism. Forget about nation-building. Nation-building requires a legitimacy which Nato/US have clearly squandered in most of the Muslim world.

The West has to find new ways of engaging the Muslim world and China, but they do not involve Nato. Nato is seen as a proxy of the US, so it does not have any added value, especially when the European powers engage only half-heartedly.

Even the EU has come to been seen increasingly as illegitimate, so new alliances have to be formed and/or better ways of fighting terrorists and of defending and spreading western values have to be practiced.

The West needs to remember all the instruments used to win the Cold War. China is certainly using them. While Nato wastes precious resources (and time) through inefficient strategies China is aggressively and effectively courting the world.

Regarding Africa, the solutions needed are also clearly related to political/development issues, so, apart from the occasional need to stop genocides, Nato is not the right organization to take the lead.

You would think that Nato (and by implication the EU) would have enough with Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia, Cyprus, the Baltics, the Kurds…

Good day,
Allied Command Transformation, under the able leadership of General Jim Mattis, has produced an excellent study - Multiple Futures (MF). The MF work was created for the specific purpose of informing the strategic concept development. Thus, as the Group of Experts commences its work, it is vital that they be briefed on the MF project and use the findings and recommendations as a key element of their advice to the Secretary General.

My contribution is more operational than strategic, I am afraid.

NATO should refrain from the rhetoric that "it cannot - must not - fail in Afghanistan" because it manifests a crisis of legitimacy and credibility which is purely artificial. It is difficult to define failure in Afghanistan just as much as it is to define victory and success.

I believe that the Alliance should start toning down the rhetoric, and shift its focus on the support of the elected government there. This support should be conditional and have a deadline. It should be conditioned by a) an intra-Afghan dialogue with the Taliban. b) Better operational control of the border areas by the Afghans themselves. What is independence if you cannot control your territory? c) Making the warlords part of the mainstream (this may involve the Afghans redefining their own internal borders) politics.

If NATO keeps saying that "failure" will be a disaster for the Alliance, then it will be when we come to grips with the notion that it cannot "win" conventionally.

Second, the dialogue with Russia must take precedence. Afghanistan is above and beyond NATO's area of operation, and it was created to contain the Soviet Union. If we want Russia to be a valid partner, we must dialogue with it, and most of all, the Alliance must not be swayed by the rhetoric of the new members, most of whom have historical issues with that country. Simultaneously, the new members (the Baltic States especially) must be reassured as to the commitment of the Alliance to their defence not so much to deter Russia, but to lead THEM towards a more constructive stance with their neighbour. If we want the Alliance to be safe, it is ARTICLE 2 of the Charter that must be respected above all.

The dialogue with Russia should be the occasion to discuss a defensive transition of the nuclear arsenals of the Alliance and of Russia so as to render missile defence valid and non-threatening. Only massive reductions in nuclear armaments will make this possible.

The CFE Treaty must be renewed. In a word, the relationship between Russia and the Alliance members must be based on norms, not on force. Russia must be led into a situation where political concessions by one side must be echoed by the other in a quid pro quo, and this quid pro quo MUST COME FROM THE ALLIANCE, lest it be hostage to national politics of the Alliance members.

AK/fl

I have been active as CIOR Reserve Officer for 14 years.
It is true that NATO should not attempt to be world police, but I would like to see a strong and open cooperation with Russia, ac country, which has, as we never truly understand, an European, Middle East and Asian dimension.
NATO should focus on fight against international terrorism and cyberterrorism against its member countries, and also start thinking about a long-term strategy with Islamic countries, possibly through the Mediterranean dialogue, starting with North African Arab countries.

Bonjour,

La France ayant retrouvé sa place au sein de l'OTAN ,Un Général Français prenant un des principaux Commandements,il est normal de se pencher sur les réalisations passées,en cours et à venir...
La Force de projection de l'Armée Française est reconnue.
Ses composantes sont parmi les plus efficientes. Elles servent une Diplomatie propre à Nos Démocraties.
Dans les publications ,Il serait également souhaitable d'y voir figurer ce qu'apportent aux ressortissants des armées et aux Populations les Services de Santé des Armées.
Celui de l'Armée Française a innové dès ses débuts et poursuit une Oeuvre Humanitaire de trés haute tenue,reconnue par tous les gouvernements et les Populations qui en ont bénéficié.

NATO and the Euro-Atlantic security environment:
1. Responsibilities for civil protection do not constitute a unified block within the EU, but involve the participation of different players, according to diverse and complex procedures. Civil protection remains primarily a national responsibility.
First pillar: common policies Disaster preparedness and response Union's civil protection mechanisms as well as some common policies relating to the fight against terrorism (e.g. terrorism financing)
Second pillar: deals with all security and defence-related aspects, including interventions in third countries.
Third pillar:Justice and Home Affairs - includes some counter-terrorism instruments and policies for which the Union plays a coordinating role.

I agree, break through the circle of conflict , retaliation , refugee's. Nato should go for preventive action : e.g. like the UNHCR emergency response team. In 1994 after the killing, 2 million displaced Hutu’s were on the run. International community failed to help the neighbouring government who asked for help to separate refugee’s from armed groups to prevent more killing and to help make the condions fulfilled to have the displaced under international law. Ultimately Int. community donated milliards - after massacres - . Secondly, since Yugoslavian war, humanitarian workers have become frontline people lacking military or police backing.

Eloquence and Detail

Dear Group of Experts,

I fully support the expectation that the strategic concept will be a succinct document written in elegant prose to make a clear and convincing public case for NATO’s future viability. This requires maintaing focus on the headline issues. However, to achieve greater (perhaps strategic) benefits from this project, implementation guidance written in precise detail should also be published as ‘fine print’ (an annex, addendum or some other integral form) alongside the strategic concept document. Counterintuitively, reforming routine practices would make the geopolitical questions easier to answer. One such reform currently underway illustrates how internal details produce strategic benefits:

Non-NATO countries are now welcomed into NATO standardisation committees and field experiments where unclassified standards are developed. Promoting interoperability among armies, navies and air forces is arguably NATO’s most operationally relevant function. If procedures and expectations to expand interoperability beyond Alliance membership are ingrained into NATO’s institutional practice, political options will expand and military effectiveness will improve in a wide variety of future operations.

Extending access of non-NATO countries into NATO’s standardisation process strengthens the Alliance to a strategically significant degree, yet the drafters of a succinct and eloquent strategic concept may struggle with the detail NATO institutions require to change in other significant ways. Two other areas that warrant consideration for the ‘fine print’ are planning at senior levels and decision making at junior levels:

Continue evolution of the defence planning process with a view toward a more prominent role for military influence in the politico-military decisions having more immediate impact on the conduct of operations. Areas to review include authority to initiate planning for alternative courses of action in campaigns, other ongoing operations and crisis management situations; the development of the combined joint task force concept; planning targets and force goals for the NATO response force.

Remove all requirements for consensus decisions in NATO committees and working groups unless a flag or general officer (or equally senior civilian) personally attends the meeting and objects to a majority position. The longstanding principle of common consent and support is appropriate in the North Atlantic Council and the more senior NATO bodies. Too many cases of indecision in the array of NATO committees and working groups, however, demonstrate that decisions by consensus are no longer appropriate at all levels. The shock to NATO culture from this change may be mitigated by allowing the North Atlantic Council or Military Committee to authorise and periodically review specific committees to retain consensus decision making.

Similar issues gleaned from NATO summit communiques and observations from current operations, NATO response force preparation and air defence exercises will struggle to be included in the main body of the strategic concept on the grounds they would appear tedious to the general public. While the Group of Experts engages the public and national defence officials on the headline issues, the Secretary General should convene another group of experts (small case letters) to focus on internal reforms for the North Atlantic Council to consider and adopt with the new strategic concept. These reforms are required for NATO to more effectively deter and engage in modern warfare.

Some may reply that mixing NATO’s headline issues with efficiency improvements would detract from the strategic concept’s raisons d'être; however, in addition to the self-evident benefits, organisational effectiveness is a factor in the strategic attribute of Alliance cohesion. The result of including institutional reforms within the scope of this project would result in a greater contribution to NATO’s future viability.

For your information, I posted a similar version of these comments on a leading university’s blog, also inviting its readers to participate in your forum.

Sincerely,
Phil Ehr
Retired NATO Staff Officer

Thanx phil....just what i was about to say (damn i hate when the bras steal my punchlines) but i couldent agree more (never underestimate an officer with his thinking cap on e.i small soldiers just relearned a lesson lol that makes us happy here at sharp end of the stick when we learn something)

But the real trick to come to terms with here is the idea of "perception"
My bras always tought me within the law...what ever gets the job done.

That in itself is a nonstatement statement

Take the current IRAN "crisis" over nukes (i like to think of it as an opertunity)

Would you if you were the operational planner of the iranian forces be sleeping badly if you knew how many Nato/US forces you got in the nieghborhood?
His answer do nukes or be seen as doing nukes no?

In turn that makes the Israeli CINC go on heartmedication no?

my answer would be Nukes (not the wold finest invention but in small numbers they can actualy do something)

First you define that hes sleeping badly.... how do you solve the knot between Iran having and Israel not whanting Iran to have nukes.

well we can't do it...but a small number of russian or chinise mobil batt. just might do the trick like the old response force NATO use to have kinda way...like saying to the israelies (and to the western powers) we secure iranian soverainty in tern of them going intirely civil on there projekt and also cumming onboard as not a problem but as part of solutions in the middleeast...we just turned a problem that could turn into a shooting match into a tool. we just turned Iran into a defence only nuke country
I guees we also came up with some options for the US state department in the middleeast process..

My take the stategic endgame here: make the other guy feel safe

Just my five cents worth, hope you can use it

Dear Moderating Team,

Few days ago the Albanian TRADOC organized a Conference with three panels of dicussions on the NATO New Strategic Concept. Senior Experts of the Defence Academy and the Center for Defence Analyses of TRADOC provided the panelists with free discussions on key issues of the Strategic Concept, which is supposed to guide the development in paralel of Albanian National Security Strategy and the Military Strategy documents.

Through lectures, discussions and conclusions of the working groups and the findings of the three main panels, an expert group from the conference drafted the following recommendations to NATO’s Experts Group It is to be emphasized that the following positions are only individual opinions of the experts and do not constitute the official positions of the Albanian government or the defence institution.

1. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should clearly define NATO’s role and responsibilities for the 21st Century, by including a realistic Level of Ambition in full accordance with the expected financial support to defence by the member countries, and midterm trends of the current financial crisis.
2. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should promote a New Communication Strategy for NATO and its members divulging it publicly by following “Madonna’s Strategy” to simply clarify its position related to their security interests of the 21st Century.
3. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should cover in Washington’s Treaty Article 5 a broader definition of the “…armed attack…” term by including within that definition the entire range of threats which may jeopardize its members’ security regardless of their means of delivery, such as terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s), cyber attacks, hybrid threats, etc.
4. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should continue to further endorse and promote its two Trans-Atlantic pillars of EU and US, as an essential element of Alliance’s security in the 21st Century.
5. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should support NATO’s role and engagement vis-à-vis the reality of facing new threats and challenges that may endanger the Alliance, even outside its area of responsibility.
6. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should continue to consider the basic principle of Consensus as the central pillar for the decision making and cohesion of the Alliance.
7. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should continue to promote the open door policy and further rounds of enlargement of the Alliance with a priority in the Balkans countries, based upon the criteria of admission of the “The Study of NATO Enlargement” of 1995.
8. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should clearly formulate relations with the Russian Federation by means of rational use of NATO-Russia Council, in order to further consolidate the European security by involving Russia in a broader scale on issues of common interests and challenges of Global Security, as well as in promotion of western democracy values in this country.
9. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should take into consideration the strengthening of the relations with regional security and defence organizations, such as EU/ OSCE/ UN/ Shanghai’s Cooperation Organization, as well as other countries such as China, India and Pakistan which have an influence on regional and global developments.
10. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should create opportunities for eventual advanced/favorable strategic partnership with countries beyond Alliance’s territories, countries which we share common values and which provide significant contribution to NATO-led operations, such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, etc.
11. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should express the fundamental role and priority of NATO education and training institutions and its individual countries, and encourage constant update of their programs and curricula with most recent issues in the agenda and Alliance’s collective security and defence.
12. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should consider the Transformation of the Alliance as one of the most important tasks for its future in the 21st Century. In this context, the concept should encourage research and development as a promoter of the Alliance’s transformation processes in order to successfully face the challenges of the century.
13. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should take into consideration the new map of the Alliance after the last rounds of enlargement as well as the future ones, with regard to a potential review of peace establishment infrastructure and facilities of command and force structure, with a tendency toward new members.
14. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should reflect the complex character of future operations of the Alliance which will be more than military; as such they will require other civilian capabilities in order to practically support the “comprehensive approach” concept.
15. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should clearly describe the role of the military component throughout the spectrum of NATO-led operations, against new challenges, threats and dangers. The description should be that clear in order to provide basic information for the processes of the 13 defence planning disciplines of the Alliance.
16. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should encourage member countries to progressively increase the quantity of deployable forces in strategic distance from the national territories, so that by the end of 2015 each member should have 50% of their land forces with deployable capabilities and 10% engaged simultaneously in operations. This concept should start to be applied also to Air Forces and Navy, as well as specialized capabilities.
17. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should promote small countries to organize specialized capabilities “niche”, as well as encourage, where and when possible, development with priority of common regional capabilities.
18. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should promote an evaluation of the efficiency of civilian and military structure of the International Staff and the International Military Staff, as well as the myriad of Committees, Agencies, NATO’s Working Groups, with the intention of the establishment of rational integrated structures.
19. The New Strategic Concept of the Alliance should express political will to maintain 2% of GDP for the defence for all member countries, 20% of which should be spent to support future capabilities modernization and transformation.

Thank You

Dear Moderating Team,

Thanks for the answer.

On behalf of all my colleagues who contributed to the findings of our modest conference on NATO New Strategic Concept, we will continue to carefully follow this fruitful debate, which will result in the best ever NATO concept of the new century.

One thing I want to mention; after this strategic concept is in power, or in parallel with its drafting, all NATO countries, Albania included, should review or reflect in their National Security Strategies and Defence Strategies the key issues of this Concept with an impact of individual allied nations.

As a new NATO country, I know that Albania and Albanian Armed Forces are following this approach.

Regards

We should think about re-evaluating in which way a member-state of the alliance can contribute. This can be in military aide, but also in
other ways. As long it does not harm the friendship between the
members. I understand that sending an army on to war is not
easy for any country, but there must be an agreement on
how much persons everyone puts in line.

Thanks for Reading.