Clearly, it is the ideology of Islam, not merely islamo-fascism, that is the problem.  I've been waiting for the intellectual elites of Turkey and Bosnia and Albania and Kosovo to admit as much and lead the fight to prevent Islam from encroaching on Enlightenment values in the West, but I have yet to hear a peep out of those folks (except when they are insisting that the Europeans should admit their nations as members of the EU, bringing their anti-Englightenment values with them).  This is a time for bravery and intellectual honesty, but all we get is the opposite.

Should NATO be afraid as to what will happen as Pakistan(and over 100 nuclear weapons) fall under sharia law?

Would such a fear by NATO constitute islamophobia?

Will the current Pakistani government last long enough to bring charges of islamophobia aganst NATO to the UN? Will Pakistan defend itself against those who wish to force all to submit to sharia law? (does such action constitute islamophoba as well?) Will the current Pakistani government last long enough to bring charges of islamophobia against itself?

if india is drawn into a war with Pakistan, how will this all pan out?  What should NATO do?

In the history of NATO we had military regimes (Turkey), dictatorial regimes (Portugal), ego-presidential regimes (France, USA), occupied countries (West Germany) - all under the umbrella of 'defending democracy', so no reason why Israel should not joint this military organization. I would continue the search and incorporate Djibouti, Cape Verde, Honduras, Singapore and Lesotho in order to guarantee a war.

@ aengus

1-A) You opposed Israeli entry into NATO on the grounds that it would lead to open "war" with Islam.  That is a defensable position, at least in a short term sense.  My response was that Islam is already at war (mainly covertly) with the West, and that a refusal to help defend 'democracy' in Israel (and elsewhere in the world) would only weaken democratic forces in the world.  In that sense, such a refusal would only POSTPONE open war with Islam and would threaten a succesful outcome.  So, the difference between us is mainly one of time perspective.

1-B)  I agree with you that a NATO or Western strategy of helping Muslims against other Muslims in the Muslim world, is NOT going to improve our image there on the whole.  But that has nothing to do with the matter of any potential Israeli membership in NATO.  I advocate the latter on the ground (sorry for the repetition) that the West ultimately benefits from defending democray anywhere in the world where it already ACTUALLY exists (which presupposes certain cultural conditions in place). As it does in Israel.  If NATO had a clear purpose (of defending democracy), then deterrence might have a chance of working.  In that sense Israeli membership might help prevent open warfare with Islam, now AND in the future.

2-A) We agree that the forces of jihad are already "inside our own house".  And the blame for that lies entirely within the West itself, and it can be attributed essentially to the victory (in the internal culture wars between right and left) of cultural-leftism in our own educational system and major media, coupled with cultural naivete in certain rightist business circles in the West.  

2-B)  While we agree on the futility of Western nationbuilding efforts in the Muslim world, I do NOT agree that this would preclude "all extra-territorial Nato missions".  Precisely because the jihad is already "inside our house" we must be willing to punish - and to be seen to punish - the sources and helpers of our internal jihadis.  Afghanistan is an easy example.  The Taliban harbored Al Qaeda; after 9/11 the Taliban had to be punished; this punishment did not require (democratic) nationbuilding in Afghanistan, but it did require removal of the Taliban by handing the country over to its enemies (mainly Northern Alliance).  

2-C)  The context of my second paragraph made it clear that I was referring to "historical analogies" of acting against an existing enemy before he gets stronger.  The issue was TIMING (and thus also place) of action.  If you are willing to help defend "democracy" in Israel, then perhaps the enemies of democracy can believe that you are willing to fight for democracy at home.  The issue was DETERRENCE, not an analogy of 'people-in-the-process-of-being-'colonised' fighting foreign wars'. 

3) Again, we already agree on the futility of an invade-the-world strategy.  The issue was not whether one wants a war.  No sensible (nonfundamentalist) Westerner wants that.  The issue is whether one wants to act in ways that only postpone the war, or in ways that can act as a DETERRENT to the other side.  Moreover, fighting jihadis inside Europe has little to do with the traditional concept of 'war'.  It is essentially an internal cultural and political battle, not a military one.  But, if you want to forestall a nuclear bomb on (say) Barcelona, you are going to have to be 'credible', and that involves openly supporting existing democracy wherever it is threathened in the world.     

@ aengus

1) The first question is what is the purpose of NATO today?  If it has no clearly defined purpose anymore, then it cannot have credibility and a deterrence effect.  In that case, Israeli membership would be a moot point.  It would not help Israel, nor any other democracies.  But neither would NONmembership of Israel help anybody, and its membership could still be a clarifying gesture to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' so to speak. 

2)  If NATO were to become a defense instrument for a league of democracies, i.e. if its function were to defend democracy and Western values or freedoms, then the next question becomes where (or at what point) are you willing to actively defend those freedoms?  Are you willing to fight for them where they exist and ARE ACTUALLY threathened, or are you going to wait until they are threathened on your own doorstep?  In the latter case, I would say that you are only postponing the inevitable and that you are ensuring that the inevitable will become much worse and the outcome (victory or survival as free people) less certain.   Historical analogies should not be difficult to find or imagine.

3) You may not want a "war" with Islam, but that would be unhelpful if Islam is at war with you.  It certainly is with 'Western values and freedoms' in the world.   So, yes, Israeli membership in NATO could help prevent "all-out war", if its deterrence effect would be real.  And for that to be real, NATO would need to have a clearly defined purpose, and one that is supported by domestic budgetary/military preparations in all its major members.   In the absence of all of this, you might be able to postpone the all-out war, but you will also weaken Western values in the world, and you will ensure that the inevitable future open conflict (and not solely with Islam) will be worse and its outcome less certain.

"If sixty years after its foundation NATO wants to continue serving its
purpose it needs to transform itself into an organization which can
ensure that we will never be at war with Islam."

Mr. Landen,

Admitting Israel into NATO would have the opposite effect of preventing war. Arab Muslim terrorists attack Israel routinely. They will not cease their attacks out of fear that Israel will invoke Article 5 of the Treaty. They will call that bluff. The two possible results of this scenario would be: 1) the total collapse of NATO and Western credibility, or 2) a new age of Crusades in an all-out war between Islam and the West.

Thanks for the link to that very interesting IHT article.

When I read those six words, "The Taliban's latest tactic: Class Warfare", I immediately thought of two other words, Tariq Ali, and the rest, as they say, is history.

http://pakhtunkhwatimes.bogspot.com/2009/01/tariq-ali-pashtun-nationalism-and.html

By American "retaliatory capabilities" I was referring to the certainty that if Iran or Syria launched a nuclear strike against Israel, they could be assured of nuclear retaliation not merely by Israel, but also the United States. Israel's size is irrelevant. Its nuclear doctrine subscribes to both the MCD and MAD strategies.

There is no unified Islamic policy on Israel. In the Arab countries, governments and their electorates disagree over whether to pursue cooperation or confrontation, with hardline Islamic movements favoring the latter. Levantine Muslims hurl the most vitriol at Israel, yet the Lebanese state is made impotent by religious clefts and the Syrian state is routinely threatened by tribal and sectarian politics, reducing the only credible threat to Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran is the only state-level threat to Israel. However, the Iranians are engaging with Hamas and Hezbollah only in order to expand their sphere of influence beyond their borders and the Iraqi Shia enclaves, and only because the Arab states left a vacuum of influence in the Levant. War with either Israel, the United States or both would cripple Tehran's ambitions to dominate the Gulf region. Moreover, Iran must compete with Saudi Arabia, which is Arab, Sunni and whose interests are aligned with the smaller Gulf Arab states. Lastly, Egypt is unlikely to revise its policy towards Israel given that it is a major recipient of American aid and is tied down with internal matters. Turkiye, of course, cooperates with Israel, especially on the issue of Israeli-Syrian relations.

That the Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims have gained recognition of their grievances in the media and diplomatic arena, while other groups with similar ones are mainly unknown and unmentioned, is nothing new. The Israelis have met their public relations match, to be sure.

Again, NATO's deterrence is based on nuclear power, either through tactical "limited" use on the battlefield or strategic retaliation. Were Russian forces to storm across the Estonian frontier, NATO could only respond by retaliating against those forces or by striking into Russia itself. Invariably, this scernario would go nuclear. The real "test" is whether or not the United States is prepared to risk a MAD scenario over a conflict between Russia and Georgia or the Ukraine, assuming they are admitted into NATO. If Russo-American rivalry over Central Asia escalates, these small NATO members actually become useful bases for American forces, a fact of which the Kremlin is keenly aware.

The world is not more dangerous than ever before. It is more that foreign policy remains as much folly as ever.

See my "memo to morons". (I'm sure you already have).

@ Atlanticist

Apparently some people have such great difficulty facing up to hate speech in the 21st century that they seek solace in references from the early 17th century. After all,what's a mere 400 years in human history?   Many Muslims have a very long (and selective) memory, and many Westerners have an acquired and deep self-hatred transmitted by school 'teachers' and media.  Neither one of these phenomena is particularly helpful to preserve freedom and prosperity in the future. 

1095, 1195, 1295, 1395, 1495, 1595, 1695, 1795, 1895, 1995 ... (You are currently here) 2009.

Thomas Landen's article warns about contemporary 'Urban Warfare' of a completely different kind, and is set in a world in which  the Crusade has been consigned to history while the Jihad has not. But, of course, most of us are smart enough to recognise the bl**ding obvious, while others ... 

As there are references to Crusades, Prague 1618, etc., here's a voice to be heard in time:
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans (?), shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide." Urban II, 1095

"Hate speeches are easier to write than arguments".

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/130954.jpg

Yup. Ain't that the truth?

@marcfrans
Oh, I agree that Israel is not likely to be welcomed by Old Europe for the reasons enumerated by KA as well as structural barriers to integration into a thoroughly feckless organization and rampant anti-Semitism.  But in support of our contributor, the matter at least is on the table.

You use the word, "unrealistic", (my word was "unlikely"); from either perspective the reason would be a failure of US leadership.  If Europe were forced to recognize that the sole responsibility for protecting itself belonged to Europe, I think the the alliance would be transformationally improved.  Passiveness is easy when one is shielded by a third party.   The costs of mobilizing for self-defense (presently of little significance) would likely conflict with the socialist model and perhaps introduce efficiencies and energy into the economy.  The burdens of the EU might be seen as more onerous. Europe might also gain a clearer view of what it has that's worth saving.  
Now, out of respect for Thomas Landen's contribution I'll withdraw from this thread.  Unless he should want to respond directly to my point, I prefer not to use this space to advance an argument that is ancillary to his case. 
I'll only add that there are many good essays on the net that can be found with a quick search. In my opinion a pretty good place to start is: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3094 Nato W/drwl
Best regards.

@ Wynne

As you can see from the preceding commenter's comments, Israel is not likely to find a friendly hearing in a rump-NATO (without the US), so your proposal is unrealistic.  Furthermore, those comments provide one further indication that there is little support in NATO for transforming its mission into defense of liberal democracy or of "Western values".  Leftist Europeans (and Americans) like to talk about human rights.  They don't want to fight for them, and prefer to think naively - and against the historical evidence - that they could be gradually obtained through diplomacy and 'example'. 

@ KA

Israel is geographically and demographically too small for "retaliatory capabilities of the United States"  to be able to provide any meaningful "support" in case of WMD attack.   The Arab/Muslim strategy vis-a-vis Israel is no longer one of frontal assault or of "full scale invasion".  Rather, it is one of 'hollowing out' the state of Israel by weakening its economy and poisoning its internal quality of life, through fostering international 'condemnation', occcasional terrorism from the inside, rockets from the outside, etc... Considering the treatment Israel receives in Europe and, especially, at the United Nations, that Arab strategy has met with some considerable 'succes'.

So, the value to Israel of NATO membership would not lie so much in immediate military support, but more in the factor of added 'deterrence' effect. Just like it does, since recent times, for the Baltic countries. However, this has not really been tested. And, the world's enemies of freedom are not blind to political realities (and cultural changes) in Europe and America. So, they may well correctly judge that the old NATO deterrence is no longer real. Which means that the remaining deterrence resides almost solely in Washington today. And how real that is today, is anybody's guess. Hence, the world is more dangerous today than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis.

Irrespective of Turkiye's future in the alliance, I am uncertain as to what Israel's inclusion in the alliance would accomplish practically. Israel is very capable of defending itself against its military threats - generally perceived to be Iran and Syria - and even of launching pre-emptive strikes if necessary. It maintains a credible nuclear deterrent that includes ICBMs and SLBMs, and is supported by the retaliatory capabilities of the United States in the event of a full scale invasion or WMD strike.

Admitting Israel would potentially enable it to call on greater manpower, however, it is doubtful whether the defensive bloc would consider the IDF's current operations as defending against foreign aggression, let alone Hamas or Hizbullah as military forces. Note that NATO has not participated in the Turkish operations against PKK insurgents in East Turkiye or those based in Northern Iraq. No doubt Israel will take on the next Intifada alone.

The second Defenestration of Prague (and the subsequent Bohemian Revolt) was considered an assault on all of Catholic Christendom and sparked three decades of bloodshed. I am not to advocate delaying the inevitable, but since when do Qassam rockets and rocks require NATO's attention?

Finally, NATO was not for liberal democracy, it was against Soviet expansion; Operation Gladio had precious little to do with preserving Western values.

Hate speeches are easier to write than arguments. This article prooves it again. It seems to call for a gathering of Dr. Strangeloves.

@ Nat'

To rework a famous Philip Larkin quote, "You have to distinguish between things that seemed odd when they were new but now quite familiar, such as Zionism and the modern state of Israel, and things that seemed crazy when they were new and (still) seem crazy now, like the EU, the modern state of Egypt... and "ideological Islam". 

how an in its essence territorial conflict, that became infested with religious incompatibilities and religious hate-mongering by the extremist elements (from both sides), now so bluntly gets "religiousized" by using a discourse referring to EU and NATO.

I wonder if the current Israeli administration is so keen on having a European/American lobby group pushing their unstable and strenuous road to a peaceful political solution to the conflict more and more into an outright globalized war of religions.

Will this really provide any grounds for a stable peace? The settlements issue, the economic strangling, the political instability, the volatile region with (far from strictly muslim) Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt: lets lobby to reduce the whole range of issues into one single conclusion that "Israel is on the frontline of the battle against ideological islam"? Nuff said?

This article is a political advocacy to join the same discourse as Islamist hate groups, christian zionists with apocalyptical wet dreams, and Meah Shearim "Greater Israel" lobbyists.

You are a scary man, mr Landen.

I refuse.  

Very good article and I most certainly agree that Israel should be let into Nato. Israel bring much positive elements to Nato where Turkey is a liability, and one that will get even worse. With the foolishness of obama groveling to islam and muslims worldwide and Turkey sliding towards islam and away from secularism, Turkey is not worth the risk anymore.

The EU pretty much told the mullah in the White House to mind it's own affairs, which is a joke as obama and his ilk are showing themselves to be NOT up to the task of running the country nor managing and acting upon the numerous threats coming from the United States enemies. Islam is at war with the USA and all free countries of the world. War, islamic style has come to Europe, The USA and the west. It is a war that is being waged through jihad on many different levels,soft and hard jihad. Jihad is jihad and it CANNOT be removed from islam. Islamic history is rife with many, many examples. Dhimmitude
and islamosympathetic is forcing open the path to
a violent war with islam. It will be forced upon the free countries of the world as islam will settle for nothing less than a complete and total domination of the world, under islam. Letting Israel into Nato is the only sound and logical step to take. I fear that this and obama stupidity will be used to keep Israel out. We may all pay the consequences before this is all said and done.

Let's allow that idea to sink in for a while.

Islam, as a nation,does not exist. Islam, as an ideology, definitely exists. What then, are the sources of the fear of Islam itself? Might it be the matter of simple demography?

Alas, always the questions getting in the way of right minded thinking people.

We had better believe that Mister Obama is neither naive, nor the fool many take him to be. I give him credit for being intelligent, and for being devious when it comes to things closest to his heart. As an American, I feel mysef not close to his heart at all.

If not my heart, then whose heart beats loudly in his ears?

@ Wynne

I, also, agree with Mr landen's views. 

And I can understand your argument for advocating US withdrawal from NATO in order to help "concentrate" European minds.  But, I do not see how US withdrawal could help advance Israel's entry into a rump NATO.  Moreover, the Israelis are not fools.  They know that their survival ultimately depends on (1) first, themselves, and (2) second, on the US.  They could not possibly/credibly entrust their security to a purely 'European' defense pact.

Perhaps, NATO should transform itself into a defense league for genuine democracies.  But that is not going to happen for some time, until at least the current Obama 'disaster' will be history.  Next year's partial elections for Congress and Governorships in the US will be a crucial test and, of course, re-election of Obama in (less than) 4 years would be disastrous from a 'democratic' (with small d) perspective.     

In any case, Mr Kouchner's 'conversion' (as reported by Mr Landen) is a hopeful sign that sanity might strengthen in Europe, while it is taking a temporary 'vacation' in the US.   

Mr. Landen wrote:  "Since America is not a member of the EU, . . . EU affairs are none of Mr. Obama’s business."  If only that logic were applied consistently.  But the next time the EU countries feel threatened, they will of course insist it is Mr. Obama's business. 

1. NATO was never intended to check communism per se, but rather to deterr military aggression by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies against Western Europe. Although NATO augmented American conventional power in the event of a war and permitted American power projection via installations and deployments, NATO's primary purpose was to extend the American nuclear shield to its allies.

2. NATO's current mission is as yet undetermined. Is it to facilitate American power projection e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it to enforce human rights e.g. Kosova? Or is it to counter rising powers e.g. a resurgent Russia?

3. Islam is a minor threat militarily. It's real power is the capacity to create civil war and anarchy, not only in majorily Muslim countries, but also in ones with Muslim minorities, including Western Europe, Macedonia and Russia.

4. Both the Entente and the Central Powers openly prepared for an armed confrontation, within a multipolar power structure that should have preserved peace. A series of minor diplomatic (e.g. British guarantees to Belgium, Russia's declaration of war on Germany) and military (e.g. Austria-Hungary's annexation of Serbia rather than limited victory over it), knocked over the first domino. The result need not be dwelled upon.

5. The current geopolitical climate more resembles 17th Century Europe, than the postwar one neatly partitioned by the Iron Curtain. While the RMA has drastically changed state-to-state warfare, it has also been in a hindrance to modern militaries in the area of "low-level" conflicts by de-emphasizing massed infantry in favor of airpower, smart weapons, etc. The heightened professionalism has reduced the number of boots on the ground and increased the cost of deploying them, precisely as soldiers are needed to police occupied territories, garrison strongpoints and destroy paramilitary units. This conundrum is nothing new, and in the past states and non-state actors have simply hired mercenaries and fomented hatred in order to continue the fight.

6. Unless the United States/ISAF is prepared to ethnically cleanse millions of Pashtun, which will be a clear war crime, then they must bring the Taleban to terms via attrition, which entails the storming of the Afghan-Pakistani border areas, clearing of cave systems, etc. by infantry.

7. This sort of confrontation only ends when all sides are bankrupt and those preaching hatred and violence can call on no more followers.

8. Turkiye is a vital part of NATO inasmuch as it will align - albeit conveniently - with Moscow if ostracized by the EU and NATO. Only a Kemalist/secularist coup d'etat will prevent the Turkish military from coming down on the side of Islam, if full blown war breaks out.

I agree with Thomas Landen's views on the admission of Israel and Turkey to NATO. On the broader subject of membership, though, I think that position might be yet improved by advocating for the withdrawal of the US from NATO.  Such a move (unlikely as it is) would concentrate the minds and wills of the remaining member-states to return the organization to its original purpose while simultaneously testing the resolve of Europe to defend itself. 

but Islam is at war with America and Americans better wake up and start watching the scorecard.  Islam-inspired Moslems are attacking America at home and abroad.  Pres. Obama carries a leftist fantasy-America in his mind that loves Islam, and that has been enriched by Islam.  This American begs to differ.  American life has been impoverished by the presence of mosques, the kowtowing of politicians, and the rise of the sham security state.  Large numbers of Somalis can hardly be said to enrich anything, except organizations supported by the taxpayer to settle and support them, along with their future terrorist children.  Turkey should not be allowed in the EU, but it remains to be seen whether Europeans are able to outface their masters.

I will quibble on the point of ideological Islam being the main enemy of the West.  As many have said in these pages, Islam is only a danger because anti-Western egalitarianism in the guises of left-liberalism and multiculturalism (and economistic right-liberalism) has weakened the Western bodies politic and made them susceptible to foreign attacks they otherwise could have easily repelled.

End anti-Western egalitarianism, end the Islamic threat.