BRUSSELS—The scale of the attacks on Friday night in Paris highlighted the weakness in Europe’s security strategy and immediately sparked conversations about whether a more direct military approach could be needed.
Analysts were divided about whether the attacks, and the inadequacy of the international community’s approach to Syria, must inevitably mean a more direct military intervention, or simply stepped-up partnerships and assistance to states in the region.
French and North Atlantic Treaty Organization officials said Paris is unlikely to formally bring NATO into the response to the attack, either by calling a formal consultative meeting or by evoking collective defense provisions.
On Saturday, French President François Hollande called the attacks an “act of war” by Islamic State that was “prepared, organized and planned from abroad.” He said an investigation will help establish those links.
Mr. Hollande and his top security advisers were meeting Saturday morning to discuss their response to the attacks.
A French official said Paris would welcome an expression of solidarity from NATO but is unlikely to call a formal meeting to discuss the attacks.
Gen. Philip Breedlove, NATO’s top military commander and head of the U.S. European command, said in a statement that he is contacting senior French officials to offer the assistance of the American military.
“We will continue to stand beside our oldest NATO ally to deter, disrupt and defeat terrorists who threaten our values, freedoms and our way of life,” Gen. Breedlove said.
Officials from NATO and France said there appears to be little appetite for stepped updirect military intervention in Syria.
The western alliance has invoked its collective defense provision only once, after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the U.S. Under Article 5 of NATO’s Washington Treaty, an attack on one is considered to be an attack on all. The invocation of the NATO treaty after the Sept. 11 attacks led, eventually, to NATO taking a role in the Afghanistan military mission.
U.S. defense officials and analysts said the strength of that link to Islamic State militants in Syria will be critical in determining the next steps.
Jerry Hendrix, a military analyst at the Center for a New American Security, said the stronger the direct evidence in the Islamic State’s involvement, the more likely that allies will suggest that NATO’s collective defense provisions could be invoked.
But he said that the alliance’s collective defense provisions only come into play when an outside group—such as al Qaeda during the Sept. 11 attacks—is shown to have a direct role.
Indeed, some NATO officials believe invoking Article 5 in response to a terrorist attack was stretching the collective defense provisions.
Bruno Lete, a NATO expert in the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund, said the attacks appear to be a situation where NATO could be called together for consultations, rather than collective defense. So-called Article 4 consultations, which have been called by Turkey and Poland in recent years, are more common.
Analysts agreed that the attacks are likely to shift the debate over Syria and instability in the south. NATO, Mr. Lete said, has put in a huge amount of effort in rebuilding its defense and deterrence against Russia, but has a much less developed strategy for heading off threats to the south.
“France and Europe can no longer afford to ignore the threats emanating from the Sahel and the Levant,” Mr. Lete said.
Mr. Hendrix said the attacks make clear that the growing instability in Syria, northern Iraq and the Middle East must be addressed more directly. “This could be a catalyst event that galvanizes the international community to take action,” he said.
Europe has focused much of its counterterrorism efforts on tracking people who have gone to Syria or other troubles pots to fight along side militant groups. But with thousands of such former foreign fighters within their borders, France, Belgium and other nations have struggled to keep close track.
They have also boosted patrols and guards at key buildings likely to be targeted. American security officials and analysts have long said such tactics just push terrorists to other, so-called softer targets, a critique that was proved on point Friday.
Mr. Hendrix said it is possible that the Paris attacks could convince European officials of the wisdom of the American approach of confronting terrorist groups overseas in order to try to prevent attacks at home. The key, Mr. Hendrix said, using a sports analogy, was to trying “to play an away game.”
“Europe has chosen to play a home game and they are now dealing with attacks on their home territory,” Mr. Hendrix said.
But the difficulty the U.S. has had training partner forces in Syria has shown how tricky it will be to have success with stepped-up military action if it doesn’t involve a greater presence of U.S. or western allied forces on the ground, Mr. Hendrix said.
“You go out and take the fight to them,” he said. “It is going to be messy but the only way to get away from playing defense is to go back on offense.”
But Mr. Lete said the response to instability in the south “does not require tanks, Fighter jets or frigates.”
He said NATO must be ready with a new strategy by next July’s summit meeting in Warsaw and must also look at working more closely with the European Union.
Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-attacks-prompt-debate-on-further-military-intervention-on-syria-1447499860
