Reply #24: Your argument is with the author of the article and not me.

[1932]

The article very clearly states that the issue with NATO participation is US influence over the operation (and, by extention, has geopolitical ramifications in terms of what China is able to do in Africa).

By the way, why do you think the AU is more willing to accept NATO rather than straight EU or UN aid? And why would Clark's contacts with NATO have anything to do with this? I'm not sure how that's relevant.

As for the EU acting within NATO versus acting outside of it, I think if you've read Waging Modern Wars, Clark paints a vivid portrait of the role of US political concerns in NATO actions. The US has a big say over NATO. They don't have a big say over the EU.

Furthermore, one thing that is very clear about Clark is the argument he sets out in the conclusion of Winning Modern Wars: he believes US ("virtual") empire is a force for good -- it can provide humanitarian help, and market liberalization can help peope -- and he believes that international cooperation (through vehicles like NATO) help America project the values of American virtual empire, and he's concerned with long-term geopolitical considerations in the War on Terror and with China.

Why is it outrageous that this story is about more than just humanitarian aid? If Clark feels that American virtual empire and market liberalization is going to prevent humanitarian crisis, why not point out that his argument that NATO should be involved is part of a strategy which protects the US' influence in the region?