From the Forge of Libya, a Stronger NATO

The Libyan government is collapsing. The combined efforts of the Libyan rebels and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have made the regime of Muammar Gaddafi increasingly untenable. Even as NATO’s presence in Afghanistan wanes, the ever-changing dynamics of the crisis in Libya could elevate the alliance’s role to new importance. Despite criticism from United States officials, NATO has a chance to emerge from Libya a stronger organization by demonstrating its desire to commit to international crisis management and the ideals of freedom and human rights.From Bosnia to Afghanistan, NATO’s primary mission has been crisis management, and, despite a dependence on U.S. military support, NATO continues to try to be a leading contributor on the world stage. In the near future, however, the alliance’s ability to act as an international force is likely to face numerous difficulties.NATO’s takeover of the Afghan mission in 2003 provided a return on U.S. investment in the organization. As the war dragged on, however, popular support for the mission began to falter in many NATO countries. For example, German lawmakers called for a complete withdrawal of German troops by 2015 and, as recently as January 2010, began withdrawing a number of combat units. While Germany joined other European NATO members by marginally increasing troop presence as part of the U.S.-led troop surge in 2007, it still maintained primarily a training role, rather than an active combat role, much to the disdain of then then-U.S.-General Stanley McChrystal.Today, the difficulties of the global financial crisis have placed constraints on member-nations’ military budgets, and a lack of political will continues to plague the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Recently, militant infiltration of the Afghan Security Forces damaged the effectiveness of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), so much so that the U.S. will monitor the NATO Training Progress program and improve the screening process of new recruits. A sense of uncertainty regarding commitment from NATO nations weighs heavily on the U.S. as it begins the withdrawal of its troops. The withdrawal will facilitate NATO’s hopes of exiting the conflict, but will likely diminish its military effectiveness due to a decrease in possible assistance from U.S. ground forces.As the mission in Afghanistan winds down, the pressure builds in northern Africa. The crisis in Libya is testing the alliance’s cohesiveness. Allegations of human rights violations by the Gaddafi regime have pushed NATO to confront a humanitarian emergency. NATO member Italy bears the burden of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean to escape the harsh realities of military conflict, human rights violations, and the side effects of a reeling regime. And, of course, in addition to supporting Libyans displaced by the conflict, NATO provides limited air support and material assistance to the rebels seeking to push back government troops to relieve civilians.Yet the alliance’s lackluster military performance thus far spurred former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to question the current mission . Like McChrystal in Afghanistan, Gates believes a lack of political will within NATO threatens its ability to develop a viable military strategy.Regardless of its draw-downs in other theaters, the U.S. remains significantly deployed globally and is likely to refrain from overt military support for Libyan rebels in the near future. (Financial support is a possibility.) The lack of U.S. military involvement will almost certainly distress democracy-seeking Libyans who expect greater military support. Non-engagement should, however, please anti-military and liberal organizations who view the U.S. as a detrimental global police force.These groups’ critical attitude toward the United States erodes the rebel’s confidence in NATO and hurts the mission at large. Civilian casualties from NATO airstrikes are an added blow to the organization’s image in the region. Regardless of the negative effects, NATO Chief Anders Rasmussen says NATO will continue aiding the rebels with bombing support. In the short term, this will likely improve NATO’s reputation to some extent.To help achieve their goals, NATO and the U.S. need to improve utilization of their resources in the region. Libyan rebels are currently the sole revolutionary group in Libya, supported militarily by NATO. It is highly likely, however, that future democratic revolutionaries in the region will reach out to the alliance as Gaddafi’s hold on power weakens. In leveraging these groups, NATO would strengthen its own viability and establish itself as an agent for positive change.NATO is hardly a perfect institution, and myriad challenges have damaged its identity as a dependable global force. The mission in Libya is an opportunity for the alliance to demonstrate its relevance. Despite skepticism, it should be allowed to do so.

Photo courtesy of European Parliament via Flickr