Any narrative that all members signed up to would not be a useful document. Just as our enemies, our friends are motivated by different agendas, some of them hidden.
You have the serious players, the countries that believe the war in Afghanistan must be fought in order to eliminate the region as a useful sanctuary/training base/recruiting pool for international terrorists.
You have the team players, countries that believe NATO must be supported and be successful in order to achieve the larger goals of international order and security.
You have the aspirant players, those who participate because they believe this is the best way to earn NATO membership, US dollars, and/or domestic support for their militaries.
Then there are the wannabes, states that believe they have to provide support if they want to be taken seriously as international middle-weights.
Some countries fall into one or more categories. Overlay this welter of motivations with domestic political considerations, varying degrees of aversion to casualties, and legitimately different approaches to warfighting/stability operations, and you can see that constructing something like a coherent 'Why we Fight' narrative is doomed to failure.
Bookmarks