NATO, stung into action by the September 11 attacks on the United States, will declare war on terrorism this week and consider how best to gird itself for a new kind of battle.

"It's not just rhetoric," a senior NATO official said ahead of a two-day meeting of foreign ministers that will end on Friday with a special standalone statement on terrorism.

But apart from sending early warning planes to patrol U.S. skies and putting on a show of naval power in the eastern Mediterranean, it has not played a visible role in the U.S.-dominated theater of war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

Officials insist that NATO has not been sidelined. They point to offers by several allies to send troops and refueling and overflight facilities provided for U.S. warplanes.

They also deny that NATO's exclusion from the frontline means it has lost its purpose as a military machine.

In fact, the reason for the lack of participation in Afghanistan is that the US didn't want them there. The point is precisely that NATO has been sidelined and that it's largely lost its purpose (which was to oppose the Warsaw Pact). Kosovo killed NATO and this war may well bury it. This is their last chance to dig back out of the grave. So what have they got planned? Damned little, actually, because they really don't have the ability to do much. Among NATO members, the only nations with substantial capability to project force outside Europe are the United States and the United Kingdom -- and both of them are already doing so, not under NATO command. So the Europeans plan to "call for" more defense spending in Europe, to try to develop the ability to project force (which won't be cheap and won't come soon -- ten years at a minimum) and they promise to increase cooperation and intelligence sharing. It appears to be an empty gesture.

So what's this really about? I think it's three things. First, I do think it's one last attempt to try to get included in the decision-making process in this war, mainly so as to hold back the US. In particular, I think it's intended as a way of preventing the US from attacking Iraq. They're going to say "See, America, we're at war now too, so stop all that unilateral action and don't do anything unless we all agree to it. In particular, let's we not fight a war in Iraq, OK? OK? Right? OK?" That's not going to fly; the US had quite enough of that in Kosovo and won't be submitting to a coalition command in this war.

Second, I think it's a round-about apology; it's a way of admitting that Europe was wrong about Afghanistan and about the war on terror as such. (Remember that their plan for responding to 9/11 was aid and diplomacy and sanctions.) Third, it's a last ditch attempt to keep the US from pulling out of NATO once the war is over. (discuss)

By the way, notice what their definition is of "all out war against terrorism": rethinking the organization of NATO and its forces, enhanced border security, law enforcement cooperation, and coordination witn non-NATO countries like Russia. If that were all the US had done after 9/11, bin Laden would have laughed himself silly -- and then started to plan his next attack.