Page 2 of 2 <

NATO's First Line of Defense? It Shouldn't Be Here.

Discussion Policy

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

There are plenty of voices in Ukraine and Georgia calling for a more nuanced and cautious approach to foreign relations, including with Russia. But in pushing the NATO issue to the fore, the Bush administration is using its waning days to reward local leaders who have the most to gain from confronting Moscow.

NATO should remain an option for any country in the Euro-Atlantic area that has internalized the habits of restraint, consensus and prudence that have made it one of history's most meaningful alliances. But building a new line of watchtowers on Europe's eastern frontier is a poor substitute for learning to get along with your neighbors. After all, the ancient towers are still there in Ushguli, but no one feels any safer as a result.

kingch@georgetown.edu

Charles King is chairman of the faculty of Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. His most recent book is "The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus."

< 2