NATO struggles as global cop

[CShine]

If this week's NATO summit in Istanbul offers only help in training Iraqi troops, rather than sending actual soldiers, it will be less of a rebuff to Washington than a sign of how hard the Western alliance is finding its new role as global policeman. Two years after deciding to extend its reach beyond Europe and the North Atlantic, NATO is unable to match its ambitions with effective firepower, alliance leaders acknowledge, calling its credibility into doubt.

"NATO's political clout is directly related to its military competence," NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said recently, complaining that member states are not coming up with the men and machines the alliance needs to do its job.

Nowhere is that clearer than in Afghanistan, the other country topping the summit agenda, where NATO has been struggling for months to assemble a few thousand soldiers to meet its promise to help provide security for September's elections.

"If the elections don't take place because of insecurity, or if they ... are not free and fair, the blame will rest squarely on the heads of the US and its NATO allies," said Sam Zarifi, an official with Human Rights Watch. "The Istanbul summit is NATO's last real chance to show that it takes its responsibilities toward the people of Afghanistan seriously."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0628/p06s01-woeu.html

[TreasonousBastard]

1. When did NATO become a global cop?

It's a defense treaty, not the UN.

Methinks there are powerful forces that just don't want NATO to disappear as it should, and are coming up with new, and stupid, missions for it.

Similar forces have no interest in the UN doing this global cop business either, although that is part of its job, compounding the problem.