WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 (UPI) -- The Bush administration's view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization might reduce the once-formidable military alliance to the role of a discussion venue for trans-Atlantic political affairs and threatens the coalition's future, analysts at an influential Washington think tank said Tuesday.
"It is crucially important to understand how big the changes are that occurred over the past two years," said Ivo H. Daalder, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.
The briefing, sponsored by Brookings, addressed the challenges facing the United States at the upcoming NATO summit in Prague.
Daalder said that in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration abandoned the post-World War II policy of conducting war only in cooperation with allies or through international coalitions such as NATO.
"It is a sea change, a fundamental change in the way in which we have conducted foreign policy, and military policy in particular, for the last 50 years," he said.
Daalder said this challenge sets the context for the meeting of the leaders of NATO members and prospective new members that U.S. President George W. Bush will attend from Nov. 21-22.
According to Strobe Talbott, president of Brookings, decisions taken at the meeting will exert critical influence over the role the alliance will play over the next decade. Such decisions might even determine whether it survives as an important international organization.
Also on the conference agenda are discussions of NATO's role in fighting terrorist threats and the alliance's relationship with other international bodies and countries such as Russia.
NATO-watchers expect Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to be admitted. But they also anticipate that Albania, Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be turned down.
New NATO defense plans to deal with terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and cyber attacks will be unveiled at the summit.
The conference will also address the Bush administration's calls for the development of a standing rapid response force within NATO and plans to modernize allied military capabilities.
Framed by the change in U.S. foreign policy, the meeting comes as allies such as France and Germany are expressing strong opposition to U.S. military action to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein -- and the unilateralist tendencies of the Bush administration.
Daalder and Talbott, along with James B. Steinberg, Brookings' vice president and director of foreign policy studies, and Philip H. Gordon, director of the think tank's Center on the United States and France, said that these stresses were representative of the overall drift between Europe and the United States on policy matters.
They said the Bush administration has come to think of NATO less as a partner for military operations than as a military toolbox from which to cull forces useful for American needs.
"The new purpose is to conduct joint military operations but to pick and chose, to cherry pick really, allied forces in order to conduct missions how the United States wants to," said Daalder.
He added that the administration now sees no value in embracing constricting military structures like NATO.
The analysts also agreed that the Bush administration has been turning away from the military aspect of the alliance and now views NATO's impact as mostly political in nature and limited in scope.
This, they said, places the future of the alliance in question, because the United States has long been the leader of NATO actions.
According to Gordon, the difference between the views of the United States and Europe regarding allied military cooperation is reflected in the administration's attitude toward attacking Iraq.
"I think the view of the administration, and in particular the military, is that if they (NATO allies) want to come along they can come along," said Gordon.
He noted, however, that most of America's allies in Europe will likely join any Iraqi operation for their own interests, but they will be allowed to function only in a manner approved by the United States, mostly in post-conflict roles.
