DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding the U.S.-NATO Relationship in the Post-Cold War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding the U.S.-NATO Relationship in the Post-Cold War UNDERSTANDING THE U.S. – NATO RELATIONSHIP IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA A dissertation presented by Julie Marie Garey to The Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Political Science Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts April 2015 1 UNDERSTANDING THE U.S.-NATO RELATIONSHIP IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA by Julie Marie Garey ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University 2 April 2015 ABSTRACT This project traces the evolution of the relationship between the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) through the events of the two decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It addresses four engagements: the 1999 Kosovo intervention, the 2001 U.S. war in Afghanistan, the 2003 Iraq War, and the 2011 intervention in Libya. The purpose of this research is to understand the causes for NATO’s persistence in the post-Cold War era. I posit the most overlooked explanation for the alliance’s evolution and persistence is the continued de facto leadership of the United States. Examination of each of the aforementioned cases, as well as the intra-conflict periods, reveals the reasons for continued U.S.-NATO relations. The U.S. pursues NATO in conflict for both military utility and political value – namely, the effect of NATO on perceptions of legitimacy. Finally, this research demonstrates from both a theoretical and policy perspective the implications of this relationship for future conflict engagement. 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to many people for their support in completing this dissertation, some (but not all) of whom are mentioned here. Firstly, my outstanding committee members, Professor David Schmitt (chair), Professor Mai’a Davis-Cross, and Professor Stephen Flynn ensured the successful completion of this dissertation. Professor Schmitt provided critical feedback and insight for this project and was always willing to debate ideas. His kind words of encouragement were critical to my success. Professor Mai’a Davis-Cross was incredibly supportive and her expertise was invaluable to my research. Professor Stephen Flynn brought his extensive experience and professional insights to help design my research in such a way that it had both a theoretical and practical application. In addition to my committee, I am grateful to many of the faculty at Northeastern University, especially Professor John Portz, PhD Chair, who is one of the most patient and thoughtful advocates for both graduate students and the department as a whole. Many thanks also to Barbara Chin. I am also indebted to Logan Wangsgard. It is still unclear to me whether Logan truly knew what a handful the graduate students could be when he took the position as the academic coordinator, but he has been a constant source of information and moral support. Unfortunately for him, he also had to endure being my Meserve Hall neighbor. Logan, I am grateful for your professional support, but also sincerely appreciative of your friendship. I am also tremendously appreciative of those who provided their insights for my dissertation, including Lawrence Chalmer and the officers who agreed to be interviewed as a part of my research – former commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis (United States Navy – Ret.); former commander of the NATO training mission in Iraq, Lieutenant General Michael Barbero (United States Army – 4 Ret.); and former commander of U.S. Africa Command and Commander, Operation Odyssey Dawn, General Carter Ham (United States Army – Ret.). My pursuit of a PhD would not have occurred were it not for the support of my first academic relationships at Ohio University and I am grateful for the continued mentorship of Dr. Barry Tadlock and Dr. Michelle Frasher, as well as the many former MA classmates who have remained a part of my professional family. Sincerest thanks also to my extended Ohio family, and a special thank you to Molly Colopy for her friendship and guidance on all matters professional and personal. When I moved to Boston, I knew only a few people – even the women I lived with were complete strangers. The friendships I have made during my time in Boston are an embarrassment of riches. My greatest thanks to my first Boston friends, Tolstoy Reader – Diane Bulpett, Christopher Cunningham, Adam Mosher, and Alison Uzdella. You all saved me more times than you know, I am so appreciative you welcomed me into your family. Lacey Bradley-Storey, I miss you everyday. Kristen Hudak Rosero was also tremendously supportive and gave me excellent career guidance. I am also lucky to count Veronica Czastkiewicz, Jennapher Lunde- Seefeldt, Ben Larsen, James Sutherland, and Mladen Mrdalj among my wonderful group of political science friends. And I cannot forget my partner in crime, Claudia Larson, who endured long commutes, fits of giggles and anger, the joys and pains of academia, passing friendships, relationships, and everything in between. I lack the proper words to express my gratitude for my wonderful roommates Courtney Grimm, who read countless chapter drafts and spent an untold number weekends working out of my tiny office, and Amy Mullen, whose hidden notes in my lunchbox, early morning runs, patio drinks, and long chats kept me sane. And I would most definitely not have survived the last few 5 months without the love, patience, and support of my partner Brandon. You are one of the most kind-hearted, supportive, brilliant people I have ever met and my life is infinitely better because of you. None of my academic and professional endeavors would have been possible without my family – my mother Sharon, father Jerry, and grandparents Charlie and Shirley Evans. And to my sister Katie, you are the perfect balance of mellow to my uptightness, and though we are miles apart – literally and figuratively – I am very proud of you and the wonderful life you have built. And to Martin – go Red Sox! I am also grateful to my sister and her husband for providing me with three of the most beautiful, wonderful, hilarious, sweetest little creatures I have ever known. Ella Grace, Garrett, and baby Liam, you are the lights of my life. Finally, I want to acknowledge my first mentor, Dr. Patricia Weitsman, who made a profound impact on me as a scholar, a student, and a person. Were it not for Dr. Weitsman, I am absolutely certain none of this would have been possible. She guided me down this path and made me realize the impacts I am capable of making. My research was inspired by her scholarship, and my professional career endeavors by her support. She inspired me to be a better scholar, but also to make the greatest impact I am capable of making as a human being. Patty, I cannot believe you have been gone for a year now, but I continue to find comfort in your words and am eternally grateful to have known you. Thank you. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 2 Acknowledgments 4 Table of Contents 7 PART I – ALLIANCE BEHAVIOR AND THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Chapter 1: Introduction 8 Chapter 2: Alliances, NATO, and the Post-Cold War Era 32 PART II – CASE STUDIES Chapter 3: The 1999 Kosovo Intervention 69 Chapter 4: September 11, 2001 and the War in Afghanistan 121 Chapter 5: The 2003 Iraq War 162 Chapter 6: The 2011 Libya Intervention 203 PART III – U.S.-NATO RELATIONS Chapter 7: The Evolution and Persistence of NATO 239 Chapter 8: The United States and Multilateralism 258 References 274 7 Chapter 1: Introduction Military alliances are one of the most perplexing, least understood phenomena in international relations. Scholars have tirelessly sought explanations for the formation, cohesion, and continued development of these arrangements, as well as the role alliances play in conflict. Much is understood about the conditions under which states ally, and better explanations for alliance cohesion have emerged in recent decades. To date, there is no complete explanation for the persistence of military alliances in peacetime. Both realist and liberal theories have long asserted the improbable possibility of these arrangements lasting outside of war. Only recently have theorists developed better explanations for the reasons and conditions under which alliances persist. Still, theoretical explanations for alliances in peacetime are lacking. The post-Cold War period is one of the first to have a military alliance persist in the absence of an imminent threat. In many ways, the persistence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is inconsistent with the frameworks for understanding military alliances. NATO is one of the longest-standing alliances of the contemporary period, with a “high degree of institutionalization unprecedented in military pacts.” 1 Authorized under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and established by the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty (also known as the Washington Treaty), the alliance embodied the fundamental principles of collective defense: NATO membership required a commitment to support and defend other member states in the event of an attack. 2 At best, previous explanations of NATO persistence are pieces to the larger puzzle – none of the existing theories of alliances are wholly satisfactory in explaining the 1 Kristen Rafferty, “An Institutionalist Reinterpretation of Cold War Alliance Systems: Insights for Alliance Theory," Canadian Journal of Political Science 36, no. 2 (June 2003). 2 “Washington Treaty,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, last modified April 18, 2011, accessed October 20, 2014, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67656.htm. 8 alliance’s continuation. Thus, the case of NATO in the post-war period merits further investigation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NATO Expansion: Benefits and Consequences
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences Jeffrey William Christiansen The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Christiansen, Jeffrey William, "NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8802. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8802 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ■rr - Maween and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of M ontana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission X No, I do not grant permission ________ Author's Signature; Date:__ ^ ^ 0 / Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. MSThe»i9\M«r«f»eld Library Permission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NATO EXPANSION: BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES by Jeffrey William Christiansen B.A. University of Montana, 2000 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 2001 Approved by: hairpers Dean, Graduate School 7 - 24- 0 ^ Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dilemma of NATO Strategy, 1949-1968 a Dissertation Presented
    The Dilemma of NATO Strategy, 1949-1968 A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Robert Thomas Davis II August 2008 © 2008 Robert Thomas Davis II All Rights Reserved ii This dissertation titled The Dilemma of NATO Strategy, 1949-1968 by ROBERT THOMAS DAVIS II has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by ______________________________ Peter John Brobst Associate Professor of History ______________________________ Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences iii Abstract DAVIS, ROBERT THOMAS II, Ph.D., August 2008, History The Dilemma of NATO Strategy, 1949-1968 (422 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Peter John Brobst This study is a reappraisal of the strategic dilemma of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the Cold War. This dilemma revolves around the problem of articulating a strategic concept for a military alliance in the nuclear era. NATO was born of a perceived need to defend Western Europe from a Soviet onslaught. It was an imperative of the early alliance to develop a military strategy and force posture to defend Western Europe should such a war break out. It was not long after the first iteration of strategy took shape than the imperative for a military defense of Europe receded under the looming threat of thermonuclear war. The advent of thermonuclear arsenals in both the United States and Soviet Union brought with it the potential destruction of civilization should war break out. This realization made statesmen on both sides of the Iron Curtain undergo what has been referred to as an ongoing process of nuclear learning.
    [Show full text]
  • The Southern Flank of NATO, 1951-1959: Military Stategy Or Poltical Stabilisation? Chourchoulis, Dionysios
    The southern flank of NATO, 1951-1959: military stategy or poltical stabilisation? Chourchoulis, Dionysios The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author For additional information about this publication click this link. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/702 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] 1 THE SOUTHERN FLANK OF NATO, 1951-1959. MILITARY STRATEGY OR POLITICAL STABILISATION? Dionysios Chourchoulis Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen Mary University of London Department of History September 2010 2 ABSTRACT In 1951-52, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation established the Southern Flank, a strategy for the defence of the eastern Mediterranean in the Cold War involving Greece, Italy and Turkey. Among its many aims, the Southern Flank sought to mobilize Greece and Turkey as allies and integrate them into the Western defence system. Throughout 1950s, the alliance developed the Southern Flank and in 1959, it was finally stabilized as fractious Greek-Turkish relations were improved by the temporary settlement over Cyprus. These events are the focus of this thesis. It examines, among other things, the initial negotiations of 1951-52, the Southern Flank‟s structure and function and relative value in NATO‟s overall policy, and its response to the challenges of the eastern Mediterranean in the early Cold War.
    [Show full text]
  • Nato's Military Structure: Change And
    NEW WORLD ARCHITECTURE OF ECONOMY AND SECURITY 91 NATO’S MILITARY STRUCTURE: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY Ali Bilgin VARLIK Assistant Professor (Phd.), İstanbul Arel University, İİBF, IR, [email protected], ORCİD:0000-0002-5265-2321. Abstract NATO’s ability to accord and shape security environment can be consid- ered in four folds of which all are mutually integrated: Alliance’s solidarity, coherent common vision, consolidated security architecture and the capacity for rational prioritisation, and effective operational conduct. The security archi- tecture of the Alliance covers both core and peripheral organizations. The core organization conducts basic functions of the Alliance with the participation of the member states. Core or internal organization of the Alliance is composed of political, military and other complementary structures. The military struc- ture of NATO is of two components;command and the force structure. Com- mand structure comprises military headquarters responsible for the command and control of the military forces. Force structure of the Alliance is made up of forces allocated to NATO by member states. The Alliance has experienced four major transformative steps in command structure since its establishment. The initial force structure of the Alliance which covers all allocated forces to NATO has transformed to deployable force structure by three subsequent changes after the Cold War. The new structure is set based upon considerations on a gradual readiness level. This paper deals with the historical changes and continuity of NATO’s both command and force structures’ transformation and their justifica- tions -which have been rarely studies academically. Based up on this knowledge adequacy, effectiveness and rationality of both structures are scrutinised.The argument of the paper is that throughout NATO’s past the military structures has 92 YENİ DÜNYA EKONOMİ VE GÜVENLİK MİMARİSİ not only been a result of organizational change but also one of the main causes and determinants for the evolution and transformation of the Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Documents Chapter 2
    THE ORGANISATION OF COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENCE 226 27. Reform of NATO’s Integrated Military Command Structure 25 APRIL 1999 The role of the integrated military structure of NATO is to provide the organisational framework for fulfilling the military responsibilities and undertaking the military tasks given to the Alliance by its member governments. Some of those tasks have to do with the basic obligation of the Alliance to defend its member countries against threats to their security, in accordance with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Others relate to the implementation of the Alliance’s new missions, that is, discretionary operations beyond those required by the commitment to collective defence of Article 5. NATO has very few permanent military forces and only relatively small integrated, multinational staffs at the various military headquarters and agencies which make up the integrated military command structure. The majority of so-called “NATO Forces” are forces that remain under national control and only become available to the Alliance in specific circumstances. They are then placed under the responsibility of NATO military commanders. The integrated military command structure is the agreed basis for organising, training and controlling these forces. The new security environment has allowed NATO countries to reorganise their forces. In most cases, this has meant introducing major reductions in nuclear weapons, cutting back conventional ground, air and naval forces by 30% to 40%, and reducing levels of readiness. NATO countries have also endorsed a blueprint for developing a new NATO military command structure designed to enable the Alliance to carry out the whole range of its missions more effectively, including crisis management, peace-keeping or other peace support operations.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is NATO?
    W h a t i s NAT O ? NATO What is NATO? PRAŽSKÝ STUDENTSKÝ SUMMIT/XX I / NATO / I V 1 W h a t i s NAT O ? Autor: Iva Gejdošová Imprimatur: Martin Mezenský, Jan Kotara Jazyková úprava: Adéla Jiřičková Grafická úprava: Jan Hlaváček Model NATO Vydala Asociace pro mezinárodní otázky (AMO) pro potřeby XXI. roč níku Pražského studentského summitu. © AMO 2015 Asociace pro mezinárodní otázky (AMO) Žitná 27, 110 00 Praha 1 Tel.: +420 224 813 460, e-mail: [email protected] IČ : 65 99 95 33 www.amo.cz www.studentsummit.cz PRAŽSKÝ STUDENTSKÝ SUMMIT/XX I / NATO / I V 2 W h a t i s NAT O ? This document might be considered as a first chapter in a book. It is very important to read the first chapter in every book, because if you leave it out, you will not be able to fully comprehend the story and thoughts the book is hiding. This is the very same case - in order to understand the Alliance as such, it is essential to know how it all started, who is the head of the Organization as well as knowing the background of activities connected to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Firstly, this document gives you an overview about the founding document and the history of the organization. In addition to that, it also focuses on current NATO missions and summarizes the recent and important Wales Summit. The following pages are a key, grab it and use the given information to the best of your knowledge. The aim of NATO, as is described in the Treaty, is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means.
    [Show full text]
  • The Czech Republic and NATO
    University of the Azores The Czech Republic and NATO Irena Hůlová Dissertation presented at the University of the Azores, to obtain the degree of Master of International Relations Mentor Professor Doutor Luís Manuel Vieira de Andrade October 2014 University of the Azores The Czech Republic and NATO Irena Hůlová Dissertation presented at the University of the Azores, to obtain the degree of Master of International Relations Mentor Professor Doutor Luís Manuel Vieira de Andrade October 2014 Acknowledgement Firstly, I would like to thank to my mentor Professor Luís Manuel Vieira Andrade for his activity, tirelessness, precision, willingness to cooperate, time flexibility and very valuable advice and comments to my thesis. Secondly, I would like to thank to the NATO representation office and the library in the Czech Republic, which provided many important resources for my thesis. My thanks belong also to my colleagues from the course called Master of International Relations, who always provided me with the best information and current news about our course and so facilitated my 2 years at the University of Azores. The last thanks are for my family, which gave me unlimited support during my studies despite the distance between the Czech Republic and the Azores. Thank you, the University of Azores, for providing me with the best study experience that I will keep and remember until the rest of my life. Abbreviations CSCE Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization EU European Union OSCE Organization
    [Show full text]
  • Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Part II: 1946-1953 Europe and NATO
    A Guide to Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Part II: 1946-1953 Europe and NATO Edited by Paul Kesaris Guide Compiled by Randolph Boehm UPA A Microfilm Project of UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF AMERICA, INC. 44 North Market Street Frederick, Maryland 21701 Copyright © 1980 by University Publications of America, Inc. All rights reserved. ISBN 0-89093-291-3 Abbreviations AF HQ Allied Forces Headquarters C Ad. C Combined Administrative Committee CAD WD Civil Affairs Department, War Division CINGLANT Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic CINCNELM Commander-in-Chief, Naval Forces, North Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean C/MB Chairman, Munitions Board CNO Chief of Naval Operations C.S. USA Chief of Staff, U.S. Army C.S. USAF Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force C/US RPG Canadian-U.S. Regional Planning Group DELWU U.S. Delegation to the Military Committee of Western Union DOD Department of Defense FACC Foreign Assistance Correlation Program IPT NAMC International Planning Team, North Atlantic Military Committee JAMAG Joint American Military Advisory Group JCAC Joint Civil Affairs Committee jCEC Joint Communications and Electronics Committee JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff JIC Joint Intelligence Committee JLC Joint Logistics Committee jLPC Joint Logistics Plans Committee jMAC Joint Munitions Allocation Committee JMC Joint Meteorological Committee JMTC -,oint Military Transportation Committee JSP Joint Staff Planners JSPC Joint Strategic Plans Committee JSSC Joint Strategic Survey Committee MAPAG Military Assistance Program Advisory Group MB Munitions Board M DAP Mutual Defense Assistance Program NAORDP North Atlantic Ocean Regional Defense Plan NAORPG North Atlantic Ocean Regional Planning Group NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization OMA Office of Military Assistance OMGG Office of Military Government for Germany POL Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander, Europe SACLANT Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic SACMED Supreme Allied Commander, Mediterranean Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Part Iii Nato's Civilian and Military Structures
    PART III NATO’S CIVILIAN AND MILITARY STRUCTURES CHAPTER 7 Civilian organisation and structures CHAPTER 8 The International Staff’s key functions CHAPTER 9 Military organisation and structures CHAPTER 10 The International Military Staff’s key functions CHAPTER 11 Specialised organisations and agencies CHAPTER 12 Key to the principal NATO committees and policy bodies CHAPTER 7 CIVILIAN ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURES1 NATO Headquarters, in Brussels, Belgium, is the political headquarters of the Alliance. It is home to national delegations of member countries and to liaison offices or diplomatic missions of Partner countries. The work of these delegations and missions is supported by the International Staff and the International Military Staff, which are also located within NATO Headquarters. When the decisions taken by member countries have military implica- tions, NATO has the military infrastructure and know-how in place to respond to demands. The Military Committee recommends measures considered necessary for the common defence of the Euro-Atlantic area and provides guidance to NATO’s two strategic commanders (the Supreme Allied Commander Operations based in Mons, Belgium, and the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia, United States). The Military Committee, located at NATO Headquarters, is supported by the International Military Staff, which plays a similar role to that of the International Staff for the North Atlantic Council. There are approximately 4200 people working at NATO Headquarters on a full-time basis. Of these, some 2100 are members of the national delega- tions of member countries and staffs of national military representatives to NATO. There are approximately 1200 civilian members of the International Staff (including agencies and other NATO bodies) and just over 500 members of the International Military Staff of which approximately 90 are civilian.
    [Show full text]
  • The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Transition
    AUSA BACKGROUND BRIEF No. 81 April1999 F N.JtTO Commemorative 1949 - 1999 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Transition Introduction At the end of the Second World War, major European powers-Germany, France and Great Britain­ were in varying states of devastation and exhaustion from a long, bitter war. A power vacuum existed in Europe. With Germany defeated and under allied occupation, and Britain and France preoccupied with reconstruction, only the United States and the Soviet Union were in a posture to assert themselves. The United States, from across the Atlantic, and the Soviet Union, from the eastern periphery of Europe, would soon be engaged in a struggle for the fate of Europe. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 1 would become a major factor in detern1ining the outcome of this struggle referred to as the Cold War. This paper reviews the evolution of NATO and the adjustments underway and foreseen to keep NATO a relevant and viable defense alliance. Fundamental U.S. interests in a stable and secure Europe underlie continued U.S. military involvement in NATO military structures. Cold War Origins NATO was formed at the height of the post-World War II tensions between the West, led by the United States, and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, pursuing a policy of expansion which had begun long before the end of the Second World War, had, by 1945, annexed almost 180,000 square miles of 2 territory with a population of more than 23 million people. This territory included the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which were annexed in 1940, together with parts of Finland, Romania, easternPoland, northeastern Germanyand eastern Czechoslovakia.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO's Military Structure: Change and Continuity
    NATO’s Military Structure: Change and Continuity NATO’nun Askeri Yapısı: Değişim ve Süreklilik Ali Bilgin VARLIK* Öz NATO’nun askeri yapısı komuta ve kuvvet yapısı olmak üzere iki bileşenden oluşur. Komuta yapısı, askeri kuvvetlerin komuta ve kontrolünden sorumlu karargahları içerir. İttifakın kuvvet yapısı ise üye devletlerin NATO’ya tahsis ettiği askeri birliklerden oluşur. İttifak kuruluşundan itibaren komuta ya- pısında dört büyük dönüşümsel safhayı tecrübe etmiştir. İttifakın, sabit birlikler de dâhil olmak üzere üye devletlerin tahsis ettiği bütün kuvvetlerden oluşan başlangıçtaki kuvvet yapısı, Soğuk Savaş son- rasında birbirini takip eden üç değişiklikle, giderek konuşlandırılabilir (hareketli/taşınabilir) bir yapıya dönüşmüştür. Yeni kuvvet yapısı, kademeli hazırlık seviyesi esasına göre oluşturulmuştur. Bu makale, akademik çalışmalarda nadiren incelenen, NATO’nun komuta ve kuvvet yapısının tarihsel değişim ve dönüşümünü ve bunların gerekçelerini ele almaktadır. Bu bilgi yetkinliliğinden hareketle, her iki yapı- nın etkinlik ve rasyonalitesi irdelenmektedir. Bu makalenin savı, NATO’nun geçmişi boyunca ittifakın askeri yapılarının sadece değişimin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkmadığı, aynı zamanda ittifakın evrim ve dönüşümün ana nedenleri ve temel belirleyenlerinden biri olduğudur. Anahtar Kelimeler: NATO, NATO’nun dönüşümü, NATO’nun Askeri yapısı, dönüşüm, değişim Abstract The military structure of NATO is of two components; command and the force structure. Command structure comprises military headquarters responsible for the command and control of the military forces. Force structure of the Alliance is made up of forces allocated to NATO by member states. The Alliance has experienced four major transformative steps in command structure since its establishment. The initial force structure of the Alliance which covers all allocated forces including the fixed ones to NATO has gradually transformed to deployable (movable) force structure by three subsequent changes after the Cold War.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO: Senate Floor Consideration of the Accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland
    98-669 F CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web NATO: Senate Floor Consideration of the Accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland August 10, 1998 (name redacted) Research Assistant Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division (name redacted) Senior Specialist in International Security Policy Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Abstract This report summarizes the key issues in the 1998 Senate floor debate on NATO enlargement. It includes as appendices the Resolution of Ratification approved by the Senate on April 30, 1998, a record of the final vote on the Resolution, texts of key amendments considered in the debate, and a summary of executive reporting requirements included in the Resolution. Other CRS reports relating to this topic include IB 95076, NATO: Congress Addresses Expansion of the Alliance and CRS Reports 98-214, NATO Policy: Selected Legislation in the 103d, 104th, and 105th Congresses; 97-708, NATO’s Evolving Role and Missions; and 97-1041, Senate Consideration of the North Atlantic Treaty and Subsequent Accessions: Historical Overview. This report will not be updated. NATO: Senate Floor Consideration of the Accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland Summary The 1998 Senate debate on the accession to the North Atlantic Treaty by the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland was spread across eight days from March 17 to April 30. Enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was favored by the leadership of both parties, and during the debate the Resolution of Ratification was widely expected to pass. Opponents of NATO enlargement structured most of their arguments and amendments as expressions of concern about the future of the Alliance as it moves into the 21st century.
    [Show full text]