On September 5, 2009, the commanding officer of NATO's German troops in Afghanistan ordered a U.S. Air Force fighter to destroy two fuel trucks hijacked by theTaliban. Within hours, he was being investigated by German prosecutors for the murder of innocent civilians--collateral damage. Under German law its forces can only be deployed for peacekeeping; America might be at war in Afghanistan, but Germany is not. Germany is not the only country that sets strict conditions on its NATO troops. Half of the allied forces in Afghanistan operate under restricted battlefield conditions. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stormed the beaches of Normandy with an Allied army that followed his every command; in Afghanistan military commanders must consult a checklist to figure out which allied soldiers can be sent into battle. NATO today is a shadow of what it used to be--the world's most formidable military alliance. Its original reason for existence, the Soviet Union, disintegrated years ago, and its dreams of being a world cop are withering in the mountains of Afghanistan. But eliminating NATO is not the answer, argues Sarwar Kashmeri. It is, for Americans and Europeans, still the safety net of last resort. Kashmeri believes NATO's future usefulness depends on its ability to partner with CSDP, Europe's increasingly successful security and defense establishment. It is time for NATO 2.0, a new version of NATO, to fit the realities of the twenty-first century.

Past NATO enlargement helped create a Europe whole, free, and at peace, but future enlargement, should it occur, faces a hostile and militarily revitalized Russia. This report examines the military requirements and resulting budget costs of extending NATO’s Article 5 commitment to countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, or Bosnia-Herzegovina, which are actively seeking NATO membership, and Sweden and Finland, about which there has been analysis and speculation about membership. Costs to the United States range from $11 billion per year to defend Ukraine to half a billion dollars or less to defend Sweden. The project recommends that NATO incorporate force requirements and cost considerations into its future decisionmaking.

This book advances North Atlantic Treaty Organization (henceforth, NATO) burden analysis through a decomposition of the political, financial, social, and defense burdens members take on for the institution. The overemphasis of committing a minimum of 2% of member state Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defense spending, as a proxy indicator of alliance commitment does not properly reflect how commitments reduce risks should Article V be invoked through attack (i.e., 2% is a political & symbolic target adopted by Defense Ministers in 2006 at Riga). Considering defense burdens multi-dimensionally explains why some members overcontribute, as well as, why burden sharing negotiations cause friction among 30 diverse members with differing threats and risks. In creating a comprehensive institutional burden management model and focusing on risks to members, the book explores the weaknesses of major theories on the study and division of collective burdens and institutional assets. It argues that member risks and threats are essential to understanding how burdens are distributed across a set of overlapping institutions within NATO’s structure providing its central goods. The importance of the USA, as a defense underwriter for some, affects negotiations despite its absence from research empirically; new data permit testing the argument (Kavanaugh 2014). This book contributes conceptual innovation and theoretical analysis to advance student, researcher, and policymaker understanding of burden management, strategic bargaining, and defense cooperation. The contribution is a generalizable risk management model of IO burden sharing using NATO as the case for scientific study due to its prominence.

Numerous states have passed gender integration legislation permanently admitting women into their military forces. As a result, states have dramatically increased women’s numbers, and improved gender equality by removing a number of restrictions. Yet despite changes and initiatives on both domestic and international levels to integrate gender perspectives into the military, not all states have improved to the same extent. Some have successfully promoted gender integration in the ranks by erasing all forms of discrimination, but others continue to impede it by setting limitations on equal access to careers, combat, and ranks. Why do states abandon their policies of exclusion and promote gender integration in a way that women’s military participation becomes an integral part of military force? By examining twenty-four NATO member states, this book argues that civilian policymakers and military leadership no longer surrender to parochial gendered division of the roles, but rather support integration to meet the recruitment numbers due to military modernization, professionalization and technological advancements. Moreover, it proposes that increased pressure by the United Nations to integrate gender into security and NATO seeking standardization and consistency on the international level, and women’s movements on the domestic level, are contributing to greater gender integration in the military. Winner of the 2015 ERGOMAS "Best Book in Civil-Military Relations" Award.