is NATO still relevant?

[rareboy]

yay canuckistan.

I think Nato is relevant.

It gives the north american and British and French economies a boost everytime that there's a chance to blow shit up.

At the moment, the Nato alliance is doing what it needs to.

And the US should be happy that it has more allies through this alliance than enemies.

 

[JayHawk]

NATO is an amazing waste of money and resource for Americans. All too often we have to spend MORE to integrate a bunch of yahoos from another country into a conflict. Why more? You CAN NOT have blue on blue because it makes us look incompetent and removes the meager support provided by whatever member state has the resultant loss. Not to mention as a troop it sure would suck to die for nothing. SO since communications, tracking, leadership and a multitude of other things don't mesh well on the organized hell that is a battlefield; we pay more people to simply keep other nations out of our way while we execute and then allow them in after to clean up.

Now dont get me wrong. Many of these military units are effective and extremely capable. However in over the horizon wars where you cant see what your killing it is extremely difficult to differentiate the enemy from a partner. Hell it is extremely difficult to tell when you a hillside away from one another much less a thousand miles away. Jets doing Mach 1 dropping guided ordnance dont have time for ID checks.

In any event that is the biggest issue I see. The capable countries with viable economies are quite willing to participate often and those without are certainly willing to be protected. It wont go away however. Washington has perceived military threats and we will keep a presence where ever that exist. Look at all we do in southeast asia and the western pacific to keep our friends comfortable with a growing and sometimes irresponsible China. It is telling however that we have much less confining ties in that region. Perhaps with NATO we learned a lesson or two about execution?

 

[Telstra]

waste of money ?

depends where the money goes.

 

[ChickenGuy]

I have no objection or problem with NATO, and yes, it is most certainly relevant.

I agree that some countries don't pull their weight, and it is often left to a few, including the British, to do most of the hard and costly work. I'd like to see a little more military readiness from the Spanish, Italians and in particular the Germans. As for the others, I would point out that none of them are as large and populous as the United States, and some are indeed proportionately doing their bit.

Of course, Europe is never going to have the MASSIVE defence expenditure of the United States. But despite this, NATO did reasonably well in past conflicts like the former Yugoslavia wars. The British at least have also been fighting and sacrificing in Afghanistan for years now, on top of fighting and serving in Iraq (even if I objected strongly to that one) and now Libya.

I admit that like the U.S. I too am a little impatient and dismayed that Libya seems to be taking forever. I would say that European military strategy is a little more methodical and patient that what the American military would be like. Time will tell whether this approach works. If it does, then NATO will have helped remove a tyrant from its borders and helped ordinary Arab citizens on their path to a better life. If it doesn't, then either the UN will withdraw the resolution authorising action (no doubt backed by Russia and China) or we shall just have to invade Libya with troops on the ground. Gaddafi would be gone within weeks, if not days, if only we had the balls to do that.

I wish that the Iraq debacle hadn't left Europeans so terrified of military action, and bluntly, casualties and deaths of their citizens. Some like the British still stand up when asked to. I wish I could say the same for other European countries.

 

[JayHawk]

The european military and public gut for doing what need be done at times was not robust prior to Iraq. So I wouldnt lay that entirely on the Iraq war.

Many nations devote time and treasure to efforts but I still maintain that it is more of a hindrance than a help. The Brits have certainly served well. However only the Brits are charged with doing actual work in an area of responsibility. They effectively do that work. More oft than not even after we have bled clearing an area, American troops have gone back into areas turned over to other nation security teams to simply bleed again clearing out the insurgents. It is irresponsible to have troops in a conflict and not give them the general authorization to execute their given duties. That is what happens though. Soldiers so hamstrung by their own governments are wasting their time for a political statement. That and they are wasting my countrymen's blood...and yours for that matter.

BTW: When I speak of Europe and their Armies I dont necessarily include the UK in my opinions. They have been invaluable during both the cold war, the middle east and with support for my nation. They do often what we cannot because it would be too high profile for the US to do some activities. Particularly with Iran and the former Soviet Union.

 

[Kulindahr]

NATO ought to require every member state to maintain a ready force, the size to be calculated based on economy and population. The ready forces would have a unified command, and train together to act as a single entity.

And when NATO votes to do something, whatever other forces may be committed, the ready force is activated.

Officers especially should be rotated through the ready force, and a roster of ready-force certified officers maintained, so that if more forces are needed, they can be put under their own officers who are part of the integrated command.

For ground forces, most likely this will mean troops to move in and hold what others have taken -- but at least they will be there, participating.

For special forces, multinational units should be built up.

And since many members aren't really capable of having separate air forces worthy of the name, a unified, integrated NATO air force should be organized.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just a comment on Libya: it's a travesty in my view that Turkey hasn't asked for volunteers from its infantry, to go to Libya and train and assist the rebels (freedom fighters?). There are many defensive roles they could play, freeing the rebels to focus on ending the affair.

 

[ZmercTheDuke]

when first read thread title "is nato revelant"
I was going say a witty joke: ask gadaffies son and grandkids, oh wait...

but now it just seems out of place.

anyways, i guess its good, if nothing more then just for our PR. I mean if we didnt spend money their, they would find something new to tax as on.

 

[bankside]

Canada is about to buy 35 billion dollars (hard currency i.e. Canadian dollars) worth of American fighter jets without even giving suppliers from any other country a chance to bid on it. They haven't even bothered to work out the support and maintenance costs that will go with it over the next 30 years.

I think the US can throw in a few bullets for the Libyan mission.

 

[kallipolis]

22% of Europe's oil comes from Africa (ie: Libya)... why else would the EU beat the drums of war over Libya while remaining practically silent on the revolutions in Syria and Bahrain?

Nigeria is also a major supplier of crude oil for the EU countries.

The UK Foreign Secretary has been waxing lyrical on the troubles in Syria.:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13741954

Bahrain is a difficult problem for the EU countries because of the presence of an American naval squadron based in Bahrain. Additionally the Shia population of Bahrain has been influenced heavily by (Shia) Iran. The ruling elite of Bahrain is Sunni.

 

[archive]

22% of Europe's oil comes from Africa (ie: Libya)... why else would the EU beat the drums of war over Libya while remaining practically silent on the revolutions in Syria and Bahrain?

And this is one of the reasons why NATO irrelevant in my opinion.

 

[JayHawk]

Canada is about to buy 35 billion dollars (hard currency i.e. Canadian dollars) worth of American fighter jets without even giving suppliers from any other country a chance to bid on it. They haven't even bothered to work out the support and maintenance costs that will go with it over the next 30 years.

I think the US can throw in a few bullets for the Libyan mission.

If you look at the US military budget in whole, i think it can easily be said 35 billion is toilet paper.

Out of couriosity do you know anything about fighter jets? Or to you they are all pretty much the same thing.... planes. Well a US fighter jet with current US radar and targeting systems which is usually not exported. However the US enjoys a special relationship with places like the UK, Japan, Israel and Canada and that means they get MOST of that technology. That means your fighter jet is two to three generations ahead of ANY of your likely opponents.

Ever see the movie where the nuclear powered carrier goes back to WWII? Same concept. Total and complete air superiority. Countries that enjoy that special relationship and look elsewhere are doing two things. 1) trying to drive us off our price and 2) Appearing politically to consider other options. There is no other option if you want you pilots to come home.

Finally what Canada spends for their arms and where they get them has NOTHING to do with NATO efficacy.

 

[JayHawk]

NATO ought to require every member state to maintain a ready force, the size to be calculated based on economy and population. The ready forces would have a unified command, and train together to act as a single entity.

And when NATO votes to do something, whatever other forces may be committed, the ready force is activated.

Officers especially should be rotated through the ready force, and a roster of ready-force certified officers maintained, so that if more forces are needed, they can be put under their own officers who are part of the integrated command.

For ground forces, most likely this will mean troops to move in and hold what others have taken -- but at least they will be there, participating.

For special forces, multinational units should be built up.

And since many members aren't really capable of having separate air forces worthy of the name, a unified, integrated NATO air force should be organized.

I like the idea in training concept but the reality is many officers of both our and other nations military's have issues taking orders from other nation superior officers. That is why we integrate in large group that all get a seat at a flag level table. Nationalism trumps efficiency.

 

[JayHawk]

"Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

Well doing all the work is quite a bit of support... what we meant to say is we will let the European military command structure make decisions and try to guide. Oh and here is an ARG... have fun.

 

[BostonPirate]

well they blew and are blowing up Libya when no one else wanted.

I guess it is still vital to our european allies, who need support to act on events more quickly than we did in WW2.

Isn't NATO just a treaty organisation that made it easier to respond to Soviet Expansion?

It still has place, even if what we spend on it needs to be reconsidered and its place of importance geopolitically within our allies structure.

Gates just made a speech further expanding the Obama doctrine of war, stating that in the future countries were going to have to start paying for their own defenses and that the USA could no longer economically support, bankrolling the worlds police force.

That I think signals a huge drawdown in military spending in this next budget that is turning out to be a ten year roadmap that the nation is going to create to get the deficit under control again.

NATO will continue, but it needs to change the way it spends and it needs to change the way it finances itself, and going forward, we will have to accept what that means.....

If we are one of many contributing equally, we are one of many voices and we can't demand that the world obey us in all military actions and puts us in charge of them.

 

[JayHawk]

well they blew and are blowing up Libya when no one else wanted.

I guess it is still vital to our european allies, who need support to act on events more quickly than we did in WW2.

Isn't NATO just a treaty organisation that made it easier to respond to Soviet Expansion?

It still has place, even if what we spend on it needs to be reconsidered and its place of importance geopolitically within our allies structure.

Gates just made a speech further expanding the Obama doctrine of war, stating that in the future countries were going to have to start paying for their own defenses and that the USA could no longer economically support, bankrolling the worlds police force.

That I think signals a huge drawdown in military spending in this next budget that is turning out to be a ten year roadmap that the nation is going to create to get the deficit under control again.

NATO will continue, but it needs to change the way it spends and it needs to change the way it finances itself, and going forward, we will have to accept what that means.....

If we are one of many contributing equally, we are one of many voices and we can't demand that the world obey us in all military actions and puts us in charge of them.

I agree mostly. That last sentence will never occur. No matter the political posture of whatever situation. We always have a flag officer running our end of the show and will always retain the upper hand in deciding employment of our forces.

I equate it to the college and professional football. While the college coaches are very effective at what they do only in rare instances do coaches do well when they cross those lines and play professionally. It is simply a different game because the players are different and must be played for their strengths and weaknesses.

If anything we will echo support and provide no actual integrated support in future conflicts IF the Obama doctrine is carried out on the out years. In the near term he can not replace or alter the Chain of command in the things we are involved in currently. It would be a disaster.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Interesting graphic, Loki. I didn't actually realise the size of U.S. involvement in this. I thought they'd have been much more on an even share with U.K. and France than is in fact the case.

I see that Spain and Italy are in fact participating, so I'd correct my earlier post. Even Belgium is committing a lot (relative to it's small size) and also the Scandinavian countries.

Germany's lack of appearance is really obvious, and a bit ridiculous, to be honest. I would tend to agree with the opinion that NATO countries, especially of Germany's size and population, should be obliged to contribute SOMETHING to this effort. And as has been suggested, you have to question why Germany is allowed to reap the benefits of NATO membership if they're plainly not willing to get involved in conflicts at all. I'm very disappointed in that country.

Loki also made a telling observation which I never knew about - Europe's oil sources. It explains why in particular France was so eager, which I was mildly surprised about at the time. Meanwhile, over in Syria, where over 1,000 have been killed and even more displaced, that country is given a mild verbal ticking off and nothing more.



At times, I find it difficult not to become cynical.

 

[JayHawk]

SO hmmm... the people participating don't even do what is in the agreement BUT we should continue to fund it with our most precious resource - American Blood.

Just hmmmm...

 

[BostonPirate]

SO hmmm... the people participating don't even do what is in the agreement BUT we should continue to fund it with our most precious resource - American Blood.

Just hmmmm...

thats interesting... lets pick an arbitrary date... say... 1995 to acnowledge end of the CCCP....

How many american lives have been lost under the nato banner since then?

I have no idea of even knowing how to find that info.

 

[Tengilethos]

came across this today... apparently the NATO treaty requires member countries to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

only 5/28 countries actually do -- the US, Britain, France, Greece, and Albania.

On the other hand, has anybody accused Canada or Australia of free-riding on the United States because they do not spend 2% of GDP on defense?

The observation about the oil sources in North Africa is nonsense. Europe was supporting these dictators because they sold them their oil willingly, while the rebels perhaps won't do that (depending on who exactly wins in these rebellions). And if Gaddafi wins now, that would disrupt the flow of oil considerably.

I believe Europe has enough military for defense. Who would attack us? The countries in North Africa? While we perhaps don't have the military to bomb them to the ground, they have even less military strength. Countries in the Middle East, for example Iran? If they go to war their first target would be Israel, not Europe. Russia? That is the most probable possibility, but still pretty remote. The economic ties between Europe and Russia are stronger than ever, and relations with the nations in Eastern Europe are getting better.

Add the fact that both the United Kingdom and France have nuclear weapons... In my opinion Europe is quite secure, even without the (appreciated) protection of the United States.

If the people in Europe would feel threatened, then they would ramp up military spending and mobilize more forces, but many don't, in contrast to the United States. That is the problem NATO currently has, while the United States, United Kingdom and a few others want a certain level of military spending to defend western interests in the world, another part of the Alliance either doesn't see it's interests threatened or feels it hat enough forces to deal with any problems. Any reform of NATO has to take this into account.