# Bosnia-Herzegovina applies for NATO membership



## CougarKing (3 Oct 2009)

Wouldn't this make Serbia more uneasy especially since Croatia also recently became a NATO member?



> BRUSSELS, October 2 (RIA Novosti) - A delegation from Bosnia-Herzegovina handed in on Friday an official application for a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP).
> MAP is designed to assist aspiring partner countries meet NATO standards and prepare for possible future membership. Aspiring nations must first participate in MAP before they join the alliance.
> NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed Bosnia's move, and said he was expecting the country's leadership to conduct further democratic reforms.
> After joining NATO's Partnership for Peace program in 2006, Bosnia and Herzegovina signed an agreement on security cooperation in March 2007.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (3 Oct 2009)

Maybe 5 Corps out of Bihac, who we spent years babysitting, can come help us patrol Panjwayi.

Another reason to take NATO's future seriously....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Oct 2009)

I heard that at the US National War College, they have a Serb, Croat and Slovene candidate.  It also has an Israeli, Lebanese, Egyptian and Saudi candidate....  

Apparently at a personal and professional level, they get along just fine.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2009)

That's all good and well that we can tip 'em back in the mess with eachother.  I seem to remember a collegial game of floor hockey back in the day as well.

But that doesn't mean they are ready or useful as a NATO ally.  Admitting countries that have little to offer the Alliance will only further dilute its abilities (if it has any left) to act in a coherent manner.  There are other ways to foster engagement with "2nd World" countries - the EU comes to mind.

I'd suggest the _one_ factor for ISAFs inability to get anything done is the open door policy following the Cold War and I can't wait for Afghanistan and the ANA to join NATO in 2016....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Oct 2009)

The expansion of NATO is problematic for exactly that reason - it is a mutual defence pact, and what exactly will these new countries bring to that fight?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2009)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The expansion of NATO is problematic for exactly that reason - it is a mutual defence pact, and what exactly will these new countries bring to that fight?



...and what do we wish to mutually defend.  At least, in its conception, there was a mutual understanding on that.  Now-a-days, perceptions seem to lie anywhere between national borders and the whole world.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2009)

Is this anything new?  No.  If you go back to the original members of NATO you can find Turkey and Greece.  These two nations have actually gone to war against each other over the Island of Cyprus.  They are still facing each other on the Island.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is this anything new?



Well, depends how you classify new?  If new is post Cold War, then yes - it is new.

Turkey actually had (has) something to offer the alliance in terms of both military power and geographic area.  Greece had (has) a Belgium or Denmark type of importance to it.

In my opinion, BiH offers neither....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Oct 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and what do we wish to mutually defend.  At least, in its conception, there was a mutual understanding on that.  Now-a-days, perceptions seem to lie anywhere between national borders and the whole world.



You don't buy Article 5 as a justification for AStan?


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, depends how you classify new?  If new is post Cold War, then yes - it is new.
> 
> Turkey actually had (has) something to offer the alliance in terms of both military power and geographic area.  Greece had (has) a Belgium or Denmark type of importance to it.
> 
> In my opinion, BiH offers neither....



It is a nation, like Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. that currently separates two older NATO nations physically from the rest of NATO nation's borders.  An island/land mass in the middle, separating NATO nations.  

The question may be better asked if this should be an inclusion into NATO, or an inclusion into the EU or the EU "Brigade"?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2009)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You don't buy Article 5 as a justification for AStan?



To quote a smarter Devil's Advocate than myself:

What I buy is irrelevant - what member nations buy is and I bet you if they knew of ISAF now they'd probably have been a little less eager to rush to the flag for what many view as a cabinet war or 21st century adventurism.  An alliance is only really handy if there is a common view of what needs to be defended and a common understanding of the conviction in defending it.  I don't think NATO currently has concensus on either.

Regardless, at the risk of going off topic, its hard to see any real links between the rationale for that specific declaration and the current mission.  I'd challenge that trying to move German troops to Southern Afghanistan to prevent another "9/11" is tenuous at best.


----------

