Five reasons why Article 5 of the NATO treaty does not mean the USA will engage ISIS on the ground

Article 5 does not mean the USA is obligated to fight a ground war against ISIS.

Rumors have begun to circulate that France may invoke Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, which would compel the United States to join France in a ground war against the Islamic State. Here are five reasons why this is not going to happen.

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) - The 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the agreement that formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has an article which provides for the common defense of any country that is attacked. The article requires that all members of NATO join the attacked nation, if it so requests. Read for yourself:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

This article has social media and the shock-jocks in alarm because it could theoretically be used to compel the United States to join a land war against the Islamic State (ISIS). However, even at this point, where France has suffered an attack, the invocation of Article 5 remains unlikely.

1.    NATO may decide that a ground war isn't feasible. A ground war in Syria would put Allied troops next to possible Russian adversaries as well as Syrian Army forces. This complication, along with many other political complications, make putting troops into the field a dicey proposition. While there's little doubt Allied troops could destroy ISIS, there is fear they could cause a wider, inter-state conflict that could pit the United States and Russia against one another. NATO commanders would likely decide against a ground war, even if Article 5 were invoked.

2.    France may not invoke Article 5. President Francois Hollande himself announced that the terror attacks should not be allowed to change the "soul" of France. In other words, he does not wish to plunge his country into war. He has already pledged to strengthen laws and to add 5,000 personnel to the police forces in his country, but he has made no mention of a ground war. Such a war would require the participation of French troops, a prospect that is unsavory to the French as to Americans.

3.    Attacking ISIS on the ground is exactly what they want. ISIS is an apocalyptic cult within Islam. They believe the end of the world will come when they draw the armies of the world into battle in Dabiq, Syria. Their attacks are intended to provoke the armies of the world into ground combat. However, leaders of the world's governments understand this, so they're probably reluctant to play into ISIS hands by giving them what they want most. A ground war against ISIS could also help the organization to attract new recruits, which is the opposite of what we want to see.

4.    Conventional attacks are degrading the Islamic State already. International cooperation continues to improve, allowing authorities around the world to freeze assets and to arrest those responsible for supporting the terrorist organization. The Kurds are retaking territory from ISIS in a slow, methodical campaign, aided by Allied airstrikes. Meanwhile the Syrian Army is now supported by the Russians, which will close the vise on ISIS from the west. Since these methods are beginning to degrade ISIS ability to strike, there's little need to change tactics.

5. Article 5 is already in effect in the war on terror since NATO countries have been cooperating since September 12, 2001, when the United States invoked the Article against Al Qaeda. Given this, the United States and other countries are already doing all they can to fulfill their obligations under Article 5. There's no reason to expect a ground invasion is imminent, especially given President Obama's great reluctance to commit American troops in that part of the world.

While a ground war against ISIS may be the fastest way to defeat the terrorist organization, it brings with it tremendous complications and risks. It may be difficult to believe, in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack, that we're already on the right path to contain and destroy ISIS, but the conventional wisdom says this is what is happening. As long as our patience and resolve holds out, there will be no need for Article 5 to be invoked.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online