6/27/2004 02:14:01 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

Perhaps the atmosphere at the NATO summit will be more conducive to constructive commitments than that in Ireland.

Some of the same obstreperous characters are present at both, but the focus and purpose of each organization are decidedly different. Which I think is one of the odder things about the EU -that it has been established and has expanded in ways and directions inconsistent with a coherent defense policy. Or perhaps its members are simply "free riders" (to use economic parlance) of the American military, though national pride precludes any from saying so outright.

NATO can actually do some good if the purpose of the organization is well-evolved and adapted to the threats the world now faces. The statements of the current NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, are promising

We have terrorism everywhere. There's fights everywhere, be it here in this city, be it in New York, Uzbekistan, Mombasa, Yemen, you name it. This alliance has to participate in fighting it first, and winning it.

Of course, the situs of preeminent importance vis a vis NATO is now Iraq. Germany is balking

Germany's Schroeder renewed his opposition to sending troops to Iraq, even for training. "We are already working to train police officers in the United Arab Emirates, and we do that happily," Schroeder said. U.S. officials indicated they would be content with that.

Of course, we want to make sure Germany does things that make it happy. The last thing we need is a nation of irate Germans training Iraqi security forces in Iraq. Fortunately, though, further complications in modernizing the mission of NATO are simplified by the absence of France as even a pretend player, thanks to de Gaulle's withdrawal of France from the military arm of the alliance four decades ago. With only one member of Old Europe nipping at the heels of freedom's advance, more will likely get accomplished faster.

|||108836444110671245|||EU v. NATO