I am supportive of the general idea of a broad-based global security force with teeth. But I would much prefer that China and Russia were in the mix as well. Otherwise I am afraid this dramatic expansion will have the appearance of choosing up sides for a new Cold War, and may provoke the formation of a counter-alliance and the start of a hostile bipolar rivalry, whether that is the origninal intention of not.

If China and Russia are prepared to contribute troops and assume a reasonable share of responsibility for putting out global fires and pacifying violent conflicts, then why not bring them on board? This will be an excellent means of fostering a better cooperative working relationship among large powers with a mutual interest in global stability and order.

I'm having trouble envisioning this new super-NATO becoming an "adjunct to the UN". I suspect the NATO command would soon come to see itself as the only major player in global security, and view the Security Council as an increasingly irrelevant appendage. And divisions on the Council between NATO and non-NATO countries would be likely to deepen to the point where no effective working relationship is possible.

But if the goal is to make NATO an adjunct of the UN, then why not make use of the structures that already exist, and bring it more formally under Security Council direction?

I'm also not sure about your argument that with this expansion NATO actions would enjoy "greater legitimacy." Even though the membership would be more broad-based, I fear the opposite might be the case. With the possession of such a powerful military tool in the hands of a large global league, and the consequent liberation of those newly allied states from existing constarints and checks on their power, the new NATO might soon come to take on the appearance of a very confident global protection racket. There would be a powerful temptation for these allied countries to collectively pursue plain economic interests that are not in any significant sense security related. What if the NATO countries decide through various treaties and side agreements to institute security zones or protectorates in various parts of the world, trading beneficial trade terms for protection? What if they use such deals to freeze out non-NATO competitors. Maybe this is a bit far-fetched, but I worry about the exclusionary nature of the expanded NATO you envision, and its potential to become the main military organ for a kind of multilateral imperialism. I think history has shown that while democracies generally do not attack each other, they sometimes do attack other countries.

I would like to hear a bit more detail about the precise mission envisaged for this organization. I am generally not in favor of seeing either NATO, or the military forces of individual countries, conducting humanitarian relief missions such as was needed in Indonesia after the Tsunami. I accept that at the current time we have no better options. So by all means, let us build ships, planes, helicopters and logistical capabilities to outfit a well-funded rapid response humanitarian agency. But this should not be the job of a military alliance.

My own preference is to use regional forces as much as possible, which has met with some success in West Africa. The action in Sierra Leone followed broadly some of Thomas Barnett's ideas, with the "Leviathan" first-world combat force, a British Royal Marine amphibious group that took down Foday Sankoh's militia. Sankoh, who had the courtesy to die in jail of what all agree were natural causes, ran the meanest and toughest militia.

As the West African ECOMOG peace enforcers arrived, as what Barnett calls the "system administrator" force, the British returned to their ships, and, when ECOMOG was operational, went home.

It may be that NATO becomes the Leviathan, with task-oriented groups from any nation. Realistically, while there is sense for China, Russia, India, and other nations with strong militaries to participate, they have to train together, such that language and doctrine problems don't occur in action.

I accept that at the current time we have no better options. So by all means, let us build ships, planes, helicopters and logistical capabilities to outfit a well-funded rapid response humanitarian agency. But this should not be the job of a military alliance.

How much can be spent on such an agency? A large part of Indonesian relief from the US was based on a carrier task force, with just the carrier and air wing costing billions. Smaller helicopter and SVTOL aircraft carriers still are extremely expensive. Also, for the first time in a humanitarian operation, IIRC, they deployed some of the logistic prepositioning ships that carry the combat and noncombat equipment for a brigade, and have the capability to unload themselves without a full port.

Remember that for each unit you have deployed, you typically need at least two others, returning for maintenance or working up a new crew for deployment.

There are similar issue for other costly resources. There is a finite number of very large cargo aircraft, such as the US C-5 or the Russian An-22, in the world. The military tends to be strained for transport operations calling for very large loads, or rough-field landing capability.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Usually, military electronics are more expensive than the armaments. While I grant that fleet carriers aren't optimal, I would be hard pressed to see practical differences in the ships of an amphibious group and a humanitarian group. There are many common requirements, such as helicopter support, providing launching for air-cushion vehicles and medium boats/barges, and, when close to shore, providing electricity and water.

Military vessels have extra watertight doors and such for survivability, but that still would be advisable in areas with unpredictable weather, volcanic, or tectonic areas. Ships, in such cases, often become the headquarters for relief operations ashore, since they have extensive communications and office space.

Again, I'm not comparing to a Nimitz-lass CVN, but to a Wasp-class LHD.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*