NATO Article 5 after Sept 11

[Pens1566]

Please show me where anyone other than you said Iraq was a NATO operation. I said article 5 justified Iraq. I think the reason that you are debating here is because you are debating words that you are putting into my mouth.

Semantics. You said that it was covered via the 9-12 article 5 approval. Article 5 invocation implies NATO operation as an organization. It wasn't. The organization itself even says so. You're the only one (apparently) that doesn't get it.

 

[rommelrommel]

I edited it to add "by entering other countries". Of course any country can defend themselves. But not all countries in NATO can just invade other countries.

???

“But not all countries in NATO can just invade other countries.”

Which ones can and which can’t?

FYI, defensive wars do include invasions of the countries that started them to hinder their ability to do it again.

 

[biostud]

AFAIK US never used NATO based legislation to attack Iraq, it was all done in UN. And to this day I still find it difficult to believe that Iraq would ever have posed a threat to any NATO member.

If anything I find it kind of interesting that we all can agree no one should bow to Russia and their interests, while spend billions on wars in the Middle East, in countries that are all run by dictators and fanatics, where we share no common values whatsoever, and try to strengthen the position of "our" dictators, while the common people suffer, and then still are surprised why we might not are seen as the good guys.

 

[dullard]

Which ones can and which can’t?

That is defined in NATO article 5. "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force"

In more simple terms:
Parties in NATO are supposed to reach peaceful means to conflict resolutions.
But, if there is an:
(1) Armed attack
(2) Against a NATO member in Europe or North America
then they will assist the attacked parties with actions
(3) as deemed necessary
(4) including the use of armed force.

I think that which ones can and which ones can't is defined. See (1) and (2) above. Otherwise, the NATO members are supposed to find peaceful resolutions. Yes, NATO could clarify further exact details and give good examples. But, that is where things are now.

NATO made a very open ended (too open ended in my mind) decision that there was an armed attack against a NATO member. During negotiations on that first day, they did go back and insert an "if" into their statement. That "if" statement narrowed their decision down quite a bit. But it is still exceedingly broad.

NATO Review - Invoking Article 5

Edgar Buckley describes how NATO invoked Article 5 on 12 September 2001, 24 hours after the terrorist attacks against the United States.

www.nato.int

An hour later, we met again and went through the draft together. We inserted a conditional "if" clause to deal with the uncertainty over who had directed the attacks: "If it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty." We referred to the condemnation of terrorism by the heads of state and government at the Washington Summit and their statement that they were determined to combat terrorism in accordance with their commitments to one another.

 

[dullard]

AFAIK US never used NATO based legislation to attack Iraq, it was all done in UN. And to this day I still find it difficult to believe that Iraq would ever have posed a threat to any NATO member.

That is the "if" statement that NATO declared. There needed to be a determination "if" the parties were under attack. That determination took place at the UN. NATO was no longer needed nor directly involved. NATO had already declared it to be ok "if" parties were determined to be under attack. Everything was through the UN after that point.

NATO did have several activities in Iraq. Those activities were quite limited. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51978.htm

 

[rommelrommel]

That is defined in NATO article 5. "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force"

In more simple terms:
Parties in NATO are supposed to reach peaceful means to conflict resolutions.
But, if there is an:
(1) Armed attack
(2) Against a NATO member in Europe or North America
then they will assist the attacked parties with actions
(3) as deemed necessary
(4) including the use of armed force.

I think that which ones can and which ones can't is defined. See (1) and (2) above. Otherwise, the NATO members are supposed to find peaceful resolutions. Yes, NATO could clarify further exact details and give good examples. But, that is where things are now.

NATO made a very open ended (too open ended in my mind) decision that there was an armed attack against a NATO member. During negotiations on that first day, they did go back and insert an "if" into their statement. That "if" statement narrowed their decision down quite a bit. But it is still exceedingly broad.

NATO Review - Invoking Article 5

Edgar Buckley describes how NATO invoked Article 5 on 12 September 2001, 24 hours after the terrorist attacks against the United States.

www.nato.int

I feel like we’re not even speaking the same language. Instead of making up your own interpretations maybe do some reading about how things actually work.

 

[dullard]

I feel like we’re not even speaking the same language.

I agree with that. People here are attacking things that I have never said. All I'm saying is that the NATO statement justifies more than the Afghanistan war.

The Iraq war is separate from the Afghanistan war. I agree.
NATO is separate from the UN. I agree.
The UN does not control NATO. I agree.
NATO did not have any significant military role in Iraq. I agree. There were some very minor things done here and there, such as limited training, but NATO itself was not directly doing attacking in Iraq.

All of the above was attributed to me, and I said none of it. I just said that the actual text of the NATO statement justified further actions beyond Afghanistan.

 

[rommelrommel]

It could have. It did not apply to the Iraq war.

 

[Pens1566]

For reference what started all this was:

"Article 5 is how NATO justified the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a defense against the 911 attacks. "

 

[JTsyo]

I agree with that. People here are attacking things that I have never said. All I'm saying is that the NATO statement justifies more than the Afghanistan war.

The Iraq war is separate from the Afghanistan war. I agree.
NATO is separate from the UN. I agree.
The UN does not control NATO. I agree.
NATO did not have any significant military role in Iraq. I agree. There were some very minor things done here and there, such as limited training, but NATO itself was not directly doing attacking in Iraq.

All of the above was attributed to me, and I said none of it. I just said that the actual text of the NATO statement justified further actions beyond Afghanistan.

In the original Ukraine post, you called both wars NATO. Now in this thread you stated:

Psst: NATO's article 5 says that the power goes to the Security Council of the UN once Article 5 of NATO has been invoked. Two organizations, yes. But one defers to the other. Once Article 5 is invoked, all further decisions shift to the UN.