If the UN Security Council fails to act, the NATO often moves in. It was active in the Bosnian crisis and has been the driving force in Afghanistan and Libya. But this surviving alliance is facing a crisis. Outgoing US Defence Secretary Robert M Gates criticised NATO nations for what he called shortages in military spending and political will. He has warned of a dim and dismal future for the alliance which is at risk of becoming irrelevant in an uncertain world. He slammed NATO for its failure to meet commitments in Afghanistan or for putting sweeping restrictions on the forces that it sends. This has crippled the US mission in Afghanistan.
NATO has taken command of the air war in Libya but is running out of bombs only 11 weeks later. The operation will fall apart without a continued large influx of American support. Other NATO nations have not invested in weapons needed for long combat operations. Gates said that the US was exhausted by war and heading for mounting budget deficits. It may not support the NATO indefinitely. European countries have cut their defence budgets including the UK with a new conservative government. They have not considered the impact on NATO funding.
Gates is on the point of retiring and it is not clear what the US policy would be after his departure. But the drawbacks in the NATO would persist and the US attitude may not change. On the other hand, the US takes the initiative in military engagement in countries like Afghanistan and Libya. The NATO puts its rubber stamp to it. The US cannot do without the NATO as it cannot without the UN. It controls both bodies. The US had long been a defaulting member of the UN. If it takes the same policy about the NATO, there may not be much difference to global military operations.
