France and Article 5

Nick P

Donor
Given that most of the attackers were French, who exactly would France want NATO to attack? Belgium?

If you want to use this as a reason for NATO to go after ISIS in Syria you'd need to have a lot more countries directly affected (other attacks?) and willing to get involved in the huge mess out there. Otherwise it'd be a half hearted affair with an outcome no better than Iraq post 2003.
 

GarethC

Donor
Hollande: We're invading Syria and invoking Article 5.
NATO: Erm, well, yeah. [looks at the ground and shuffles feet embarrassedly]

The US will offer all the supply aid the French want, and all the air power that the French can use, as long as it's a US flag officer in charge of all air operations. The British will offer a couple of dozen combat jets (and have less trouble with Parliamentary objections to striking Syria than OTL), plus logistical support, the use of Akrotiri in Cyprus, and some RN assets - the CVH or LPH with some Apaches and an AAW destroyer for air operations direction probably. Other NATO nations will offer many things -supplies, medics, transport aircraft, etc, and possibly a limited air and naval commitment to offensive operations, but not combat troops on the ground. It's better for Hollande not to ask and so not be told no, and accept the limited arms-length aid that is on offer.

The spectre of conflict with Russian forces is... interesting in the Chinese proverb sense, and Washington, while not exactly gleeful at the prospect, will certainly not turn down the opportunity to let it be seen as the patron of France's humiliation of Putin through the coincidental overthrow of Assad along the way to the destruction of IS. Sticking it to the Russians always plays well at home. Aiding an ally whose civilians have been systematically murdered, though, is not a good enough reason for the deaths of US service personnel, for a reasonably large swathe of registered voters, and avoiding the committment of main force ground units to a French war is probably a necessity. Public opinion in other European countries is actually more tolerant of the costs of a ground war, but either the capability is not really present, or in the case of the UK, the fear not of the electorate but of the Eurosceptic faction in the governing Conservative party will mandate against Cameron committing UK ground troops.

Note that France is in essence going to be invading Syria on its own, with just air, naval, and rear-echelon support - regardless of the treaty language, it's not going to get major troop committments from the rest of NATO. Article 5 is for when the Russians roll west and send whatever they call the Shock Armies nowadays through Poland, not for anything else, and anyone who dreams otherwise is just wrong.

Having said all that, I'm not sure that trying to reimpose the League of Nations mandate on Syria is going to play all that well with the French electorate either.
 

Devvy

Donor
Doesn't Article 5 only mandate members to offer help and assistance - which could be done in a non-military manner?
 
Article 5 is not that: when a country is attacked, the other ones MUST defend it with all their molitary poser.

Yes it has been designed with the cold war in mind but it works the same way as the article is still the same.

If they don't answer "as if they have been attacked" well, the alliance does not exist anymore.

By the way have you noticed that right now the French are really active:
- Lybia, first to attack
- Mali, defended the country and crushed the islamists
- Syria
- Irak
- Djibouti
- Centrafrique
WTF!

Also have a look at this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_1hWqSz6I (if you don't want to see eveyrhing, have look at 14.20)

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX2rS6p3akw
 
All NATO countries would have to go along and Turkey won't without getting what it wants which is a large chunk of Syria and Iraq at very least in its sphere of influence if not the areas becoming Turkish puppets.

Who didn't want an Article 5? I suspect Berlin, because it doesn't want to do anything outside the KRG other then for show and Turkey unless it get what it wants a pound of flesh from Syria and Iraq.

As for Obama it's hard to read, he might have supported it, but he might also have felt pressured by an Article 5 to do more then he wants to do and let's just say we have many retired generals who found out pressuring this WH to do more then they want to doesn't go well.
 
Top