Harlan Ullman: With members under attack, where has NATO gone?

WASHINGTON, April 4 (UPI) -- Where has NATO gone? The world wonders.

On Sept. 12, 2001, literally hours after New York's Twin Towers and a part of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., had been destroyed, NATO's then Secretary-General Lord George Robertson convened the North Atlantic Council in response. For the first time in its decades-long existence, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that created the alliance in 1949 and which stated "an attack against one is an attack against all."

NATO's founding fathers would have been incredulous to learn that NATO was at war not against the defunct Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union but in Afghanistan, a distant region few people had ever visited let alone knew much about except in movies and against a diaphanous terrorist organization called al-Qaida.

Yet, what happened after the Islamic State launched attacks in Paris late last year and in Brussels last month? The answer is nothing. Two of NATO's 28 nations had been attacked. The likelihood is high that further attacks against NATO's members will repeat. Will NATO respond is a less important question than asking why it will not.

In an irony of ironies, the one person whose colossal absence of knowledge of many things, particularly foreign policy, may indeed force action by the alliance. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has determined that NATO has outlived its usefulness and that "poor" America can no longer be exploited by "richer" Europe in paying "hundreds of billions of dollars" for maintaining the alliance.

The argument is not new. Sen. Mike Mansfield challenged the alliance, asking why 200 million Americans had to defend 250 million Europeans against 150 million Russians? That was 50 years ago and the alliance survived the criticisms of a highly credible and respected senator. Will the alliance heed the warnings of a craven reality show host turned politician?

NATO members argue that lessons learned in Afghanistan are relevant. Who and what would NATO attack and how would it engage in a region where it may not be welcome? Is not the European Union a better way of dealing with IS? And what happens once IS is defeated and destroyed? Who will provide the forces to impose a measure of security so as not to repeat the catastrophe in Iraq and what is occurring in Afghanistan? And who will pay for all of this?

In the case of the Paris attacks, the Quay D'orsay did not request NATO help. So far neither has Belgium. And Robertson has long since retired. The result is that NATO will operate very much on the margins patrolling the Mediterranean in attempts to monitor the flow of refugees from Africa and the Middle East. A coalition of the willing will produce a handful of nations engaging IS from the air in Syria and Iraq. And NATO has a modest training mission in Iraq.

But compare and contrast NATO's actions with those of Russia in deploying forces to Syria. Sadly, Vladimir Putin is winning that public relations battle, too. So what could NATO do?

First, one of the huge gaps that IS is exploiting in Europe is the lack of shared intelligence. NATO does not have an alliance intelligence capability depending on individual members. However, NATO could easily become the means for coordinating and sharing information throughout Europe even though critics will assert that impinges on EU responsibilities.

Second, a NATO-like security structure is desperately needed in the Middle east region. Saudi Arabia's anti-terror coalition of some three dozen members could form the basis for such an arrangement. Here, NATO should aggressively take the lead in supporting this effort. As it has done through its Partnership for Peace and other linkages, NATO offers a huge amount of knowledge, experience and resources in building partnership capacity.

Third, with a biannual heads of government summit convening in Warsaw in July, NATO must alter its strategic concept to focus on the dangers and threats posed by radical and violent Islam far more centrally, outlining specific steps the alliance must take. Unfortunately, the Obama administration remains fixated on Asia and the Pacific, giving the impression that NATO and Europe are afterthoughts.

One conclusion is worrying. As a broken clock is right twice a day, Trump's diatribe against NATO may be a harbinger for the future. NATO succeeded in its mission to contain the USSR far better than anyone would have guessed in 1949. Its incursion into Afghanistan will not produce similar results. However, to ignore the danger of IS tragically may prove Mr. Trump correct.

Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and at Business Executives for National Security; and chairs two private companies. His next book, due out in 2017, is "Anatomy of Failure: Why America Is Losing Every War It Starts."