Stardate 20011207.1245 (On Screen): NATO head Lord Robertson says that the invocation of Article V of the NATO charter might well continue to apply in case action begins in Iraq. "Should evidence be put forward that Iraq is involved, Article V could take hold." Also, "The duty to support one another was invoked unanimously. It can only be revoked unanimously."
My suspicion meter just pegged. (Dammit, I thought I told engineering to recalibrate that sucker.) See, that could be read two ways. First, it might mean "German and French reticence notwithstanding, if there's really a good reason to fight there then NATO ought to help." But it might also mean "The United States is legally bound to only fight in Iraq if it can convince all the other NATO members that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attack, and even then only in ways approved by the other NATO members." Is this yet another attempt by Europe to restrain the impetuous Americans who won't listen to reason and go back to that oh-so-effective path of negotiation and sanctions?
I don't yet know if the US will attack Iraq. I don't even know whether it should. I do know that we're not going to submit that question to our allies or require their approval to make it. The United States will decide for itself whether to fight in Iraq and will fight alone if need be. Article V was intended to motivate member nations to war, not to restrain them from it. It's a mobilization clause, not a paralysis clause. (discuss)
