YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsNato


June 10, 2011 | By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times
In one of his last major addresses before his retirement this month, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Friday that NATO's sometimes shaky air campaign in Libya had "laid bare" the shortcomings of the alliance, which he said was facing "collective military irrelevance" after years of inadequate defense spending by most of its members. In March, the alliance unanimously backed the decision to go to war in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Moammar Kadafi, but Gates noted that fewer than half of NATO's 28 members were participating in the military operation and fewer than a third are conducting airstrikes against ground targets.
April 9, 2010 | By Laura King
The crash of a NATO aircraft in volatile southern Afghanistan killed three U.S. service members and a civilian contractor, the Western military said Friday. A number of others onboard were injured in the overnight crash in Zabol province, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement, without giving details. It identified the craft as an Air Force CV-22 Osprey, which uses tilt-rotor technology to take off and land like a helicopter but fly like a plane. The Taliban said it had shot down the aircraft, but insurgents routinely issue such claims whenever a Western plane or helicopter goes down.
February 2, 2012 | By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times
A U.S. proposal to step back from leading combat operations in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013 divided NATO on Thursday as some allies objected to being caught by surprise, and France suggested that the alliance completely end its involvement in fighting over the next two years. Germany, Britain and other NATO members complained in closed talks at alliance headquarters here that they had been blindsided by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, who described the U.S. plan to reporters on his way to Brussels on Wednesday, according to a senior NATO diplomat.
December 2, 2009
Though generally welcoming the promised buildup of American troops to Afghanistan, Europe is likely to present President Obama with a mixed bag of responses to his request that allies step up their own deployments. Some European leaders say that their countries are already stretched to the limit militarily and that growing public opposition to the war severely restricts their options. In France, headlines trumpeted President Nicolas Sarkozy's "flat refusal" to meet a reported request for 1,500 more soldiers.
December 5, 2009 | By Paul Richter
Under strong pressure from the Obama administration, NATO said Friday that its members would add 7,000 soldiers to the 40,000 non-American allied troops already in Afghanistan. The new troop commitment, announced at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels, includes about 2,500 soldiers who are already in the Central Asian nation, many of whom were sent for the recent elections and will stay on. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's secretary-general, told reporters at the alliance's headquarters that at least 25 nations would provide the additional troops next year, "with more to come."
May 28, 1989 | ROBERT C. TOTH and WILLIAM TUOHY, Times Staff Writers
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which will celebrate its 40th anniversary here Monday and Tuesday with a meeting of the heads of government of its 16 member nations, is struggling with a major crisis--how to survive its own success. NATO's reason for being--its deep-seated fear of the Soviet Union--is receding in the face of Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev's bold, rapid moves to reduce arms levels. All of a sudden, the Soviet Union is accepting in principle NATO's demand to reduce the massive armies that have confronted each other across Europe's East-West divide since the end of World War II. So intense are the pressures these apparent concessions have generated inside NATO that President Bush has seemingly been forced to modify his go-slow, wait-and-see posture on arms control.
April 1, 2004
After seeing the picture of President Bush welcoming seven new nations into NATO on the front page of Tuesday's paper, I can't help wondering: Will we ignore their vote and counsel like we did the United Nations at our first disagreement with them? Our actions in Iraq have hurt us diplomatically and domestically. The current "scandal" about what was known before 9/11 will only reinforce our feelings of fear and keep the military firmly in control. Holly C. Violins Needles In his White House remarks welcoming the three Baltic states, among others, to the NATO alliance, Bush sought to align them in the cause against terrorists, saying they bring "a moral clarity to the purpose of the alliance" and that "tyranny for them is still a fresh memory."
September 29, 2010 | By Laura King, Los Angeles Times
President Hamid Karzai broke into tears Tuesday while delivering a speech in which he questioned the efficacy of the NATO military mission in Afghanistan and condemning an epidemic of violence gripping his country. In the same speech, the Afghan leader called on Taliban "compatriots" to lay down their arms. The government Tuesday named a nearly 70-member council to make peace overtures to the insurgency, whose leaders have rebuffed Karzai's appeals to come to the bargaining table.
May 5, 1989 | GREGORY F. TREVERTON, Gregory F. Treverton, senior fellow and director of the Europe-America Project at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of "Covert Action: The Limits of Intervention in the Postwar World" (Basic Books, 1987).
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is in its umpteenth postwar "crisis." This time, familiarly, it's Washington and London against Bonn and the rest, more or less. We want to replace NATO's short-range Lance nuclear missiles based in West Germany, while Bonn wants to throw the Lance into arms control with Moscow soon. So, what's new? We've seen this all before. As usual, there is less than meets the eye to this crisis. But for the first time there is also more. There is less because the row is, for the United States, partly self-inflicted.
Los Angeles Times Articles