is NATO still relevant?

[JayHawk]

The largest Nato action in decades is Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in which hundreds of non US NATO soldiers have been killed defending American interests...
But feel free to continue your demagoguery. Your appreciation of their sacrifice is noted.

I signed an agreement to pay my credit card debt at a rate of XX% and if I dont follow through I am penalized.

If your country signs an agreement to perform a certain task in a certain way and I meet the agreement and you do not then you are defaulted. PERIOD. NO FUCKING EXCUSES.

The folks dying in a specific theater has ZERO bearing on that principle.

However since you brought it up allow me.

The UK has demonstrated amazing wherewithal and there are other nations that have very well trained forces. As I have mentioned in the past coordinated efforts are extremely difficult to bring off. SO other nations end up doing one of two things. One they are give back ground security positions so the pointy end of the spear and can be a cohesive force of one nation that has devoted ALL resources to accomplishing the goal. Two their nation gives them LIMITED powers to act and therefore they are ineffective on the battlefield and unfortunately they die to provide a political statement for their country. BEEN THERE AND SAW IT. When was the last time you did anything other than click on a freakin link for info on the war? SO dont fucking lecture me sunshine.

 

[JayHawk]

that's kinda the point that I was trying to make.

not that Europe should ramp up its military spending, but that America should cut back its own and stop feeling that it has to be the sole protector of Western interests abroad if no one else feels the same.

That I concur with completely. We need to stop giving the world a free nursing tit. Bush tried the "We will free you by ousting your despotic leaders" The world gave a resounding "NO" to that idea.

Best idea now is to pull back. Keep using our Navy to ensure the sealanes remain unhindered for commerce. Ramp our marines while dropping our Standing Army a bit to compensate. That way we can easily enter anywhere on earth we decide it is in our interest to do so. Finally we should start immediately withdrawal of our force stationed overseas UNLESS the host nation both request and pays for our services.

 

[JayHawk]

Could you actually try to adress the post instead of ranting incoherenly? You brought up American Blood. Not me. Fact is, more NATO blood was spilled for the US then he other way around. In the last decades more money was spend on US interests then the other way around.

Oh really how so? The bases in Europe, European missile defense. US Destroyers deployed to prevent missile launches from terrorist. WHY you say? No capability in Europe to defend such a thing. That and at 1615 to 904 I would think simple math would apply for you but there does that help? Go ahead and prove more european deaths are at the ends of American agression. And no your not permitted to use the enemy because they happen to be whack jobs from Europe.

Maybe I should remind you of the thousands of American soldiers(colleagues?) that died in Afghanistan. They all die for a political statement as well? What are you actually trying to argue with your nationalistic grandstanding pissing contest? What has the US actually accomplished in Afghanistan?

Remind me? Wow you are really full of yourself arent you?

The Americans dying there are doing so while achieving the objective and given every opportunity to kill or be killed in the war effort. UNLIKE many of their NATO counterparts depending on country of origin.

As per 2011 the US pays about 20% of NATO costs. That seem unfair?

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

You want to dissolve NATO? Whatever, just don't bring shit assed arguments as money or the cost of defending other nations. The only thing the US has
defended of late are its own military industrial complex and the illusions of grandeur of its leaders. Cleaning out your own pigsty is clearly mor difficult then scapegoating an alliance that in the past few decades has benefited the US more then its allies. US 'defense' spending is at ridiculous levels. Maybe the US should try to reach its signed targets on Humanitarian Aid spending instead of bitching about other nations military spending.

Please feel completely free to prove a word you have said. Germany certainly didnt benefit from being reunited as a country. I wonder if Berlin was entirely eastern how long that process would take, I wonder how defended Norway feels against a previous soviet threat, yeah we benefit more from that since we deployed and operated from our coast the whole time... Hmmmm.

The cost in blood is what I see everyday. Period nothing else matters. If the countries in NATO actually devoted 2% of GDP then they MIGHT be competent enough to do the work to fend for themselves. But alas working has never really been a European strong suit.

Nope NATO is a failed concept whose time has passed. 9 times out of 10 the obstruction to reaching our goals is located in Europe. I wonder why Mr. Hussein hung around so long with no effects of economic sanctions that were agreed to by UN countries. I wonder if any NATO countries were supplying the man with what he needed?

No I am afraid our fr-enemies are our Achilles heel not our strength that we can't possibly do without.

 

[Tengilethos]

The cost in blood is what I see everyday. Period nothing else matters. If the countries in NATO actually devoted 2% of GDP then they MIGHT be competent enough to do the work to fend for themselves. But alas working has never really been a European strong suit.

We can fend for ourselves, thank you very much. We even contribute to operations that are absolutely not in our interests, like deploying forces in Afghanistan where many Europeans have died, only to mark us as a target for terrorism. I don't disagree with the ousting of the Taliban, but I believe it was not in OUR best interests. And during the Cold War Europe was a strong and absolutely necessary partner for the United States with a much bigger military, as was appropriate at that time. And most Europeans are extremely grateful for the United States help in our defense against the Soviet Union (while noting that supporting us was in your interests as well in the fight against your biggest enemy).

Missile launches from terrorists? Yes that is the propaganda you are fed with, but who would do such a thing? Europe has nuclear forces independently of the United States, if Iran were to do such a foolish thing (which they again would not do because Israel is a much... "better" target in their minds) they could be nuked do dust. And against Russia the Missile Shield is not effective.

Again, we feel secure because we have no enemies near us that can or want to attack us, not because of bases or destroyers the US has stationed here.

Pretending like the USA and their military is the only thing between Europe and immediate destruction by hostile foreign powers is ridiculous, because no European nation (if you exclude Georgia, not a NATO member) is currently under military threat and only distracts from the real issue. The only thing that is at stake here is the Wests ability to project power to all parts of the world and influencing events in a benign direction. This is a serious problem in my opinion, and the Europeans should indeed beef up their military capabilities to help the United States in this.

 

[Kulindahr]

We can fend for ourselves, thank you very much. We even contribute to operations that are absolutely not in our interests, like deploying forces in Afghanistan where many Europeans have died, only to mark us as a target for terrorism. I don't disagree with the ousting of the Taliban, but I believe it was not in OUR best interests. And during the Cold War Europe was a strong and absolutely necessary partner for the United States with a much bigger military, as was appropriate at that time. And most Europeans are extremely grateful for the United States help in our defense against the Soviet Union (while noting that supporting us was in your interests as well in the fight against your biggest enemy).

Missile launches from terrorists? Yes that is the propaganda you are fed with, but who would do such a thing? Europe has nuclear forces independently of the United States, if Iran were to do such a foolish thing (which they again would not do because Israel is a much... "better" target in their minds) they could be nuked do dust. And against Russia the Missile Shield is not effective.

Again, we feel secure because we have no enemies near us that can or want to attack us, not because of bases or destroyers the US has stationed here.

Pretending like the USA and their military is the only thing between Europe and immediate destruction by hostile foreign powers is ridiculous, because no European nation (if you exclude Georgia, not a NATO member) is currently under military threat and only distracts from the real issue. The only thing that is at stake here is the Wests ability to project power to all parts of the world and influencing events in a benign direction. This is a serious problem in my opinion, and the Europeans should indeed beef up their military capabilities to help the United States in this.

So what do you think of the idea of an actual NATO ready force, already trained and integrated for working together?

 

[bankside]

that libya graphic seems to show not only is nato relevant, but that no one country is shouldering the burden. relative to its size, canada's doing not too badly, for instance.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

That they act in their own interest?
May as well dissolve all governments.

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.

Which is exactly why it should be done! Shuffling military units on paper is all very well, but when you want to actually fight, they're going to have to work together. Better to get them used to doing it now rather than later.

It should be a requirement for membership: if you expect protection, your portion of the ready force is there are participating and, well, ready.

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.

Obama should contact Spain and France about relocating our bases out of Germany. Romania is contributing well, given its size and conditions, so talk to them as well. If Germany can't join in on an operation they voted for, they deserve a little penalty.

I don't get this 'vote for it, but don't pitch in' business. It's got me thinking that my proposal above doesn't go far enough: ready forces and the training involved are important, but just in case there are operations NATO votes for, there should also be a NATO standing force, which every country would have to contribute to in both personnel and funding. Allow volunteers, too; people who want to join a specifically NATO force, obviously multinational, instead of their national force, should be welcomed.

Of course there would be cries that it was a step to turn NATO into NAA, the North Atlantic Alliance, a step on the way to the NAU, the North Atlantic Union, but oh well; if you're going to have an alliance that does military operations, everyone ought to participate -- and there really ought to be units ready to go, multinational in nature.

 

[JayHawk]

Missile launches from terrorists? Yes that is the propaganda you are fed with, but who would do such a thing? Europe has nuclear forces independently of the United States, if Iran were to do such a foolish thing (which they again would not do because Israel is a much... "better" target in their minds) they could be nuked do dust. And against Russia the Missile Shield is not effective.

Gee I wonder why we have agreements to keep a missile shooter capable of missile defense between you and Iran? Weird. Must be we just like to hang out over there. I suppose we have different definitions of terrorist.

But I suppose your right. If Europe is fully able to fend for itself then there is absolutely no reason for us to be over there.

that libya graphic seems to show not only is nato relevant, but that no one country is shouldering the burden. relative to its size, canada's doing not too badly, for instance.

I suppose we will see if that is effective. Doesnt look very effective currently but we will see. I am glad the POTUS is allowing NATO to do the work it decided need be done this time. I hope it becomes a trend.

"There's no doubt that militarily, NATO is approaching something of a crossroads—it's been approaching this crossroads for some time," he said. Gates, he said, expressed publicly what was long said private: "that NATO's capabilities risk falling below a threshold where they can be effective."
I wonder what the paragraph above means?????

Gates said the U.S. share of NATO defense spending is now more than 75 percent, and just four other members—Britain, France, Greece and Albania—spend more than the agreed 2 percent of economic output on defense.


The article goes on to say that European nationals dont feel threatened, don't feel as if radical islam is a problem they should deal with militarily and dont wanna pay for it.

I AGREE.. Time to get a divorce.

 

[JB3]

We can fend for ourselves, thank you very much. We even contribute to operations that are absolutely not in our interests, like deploying forces in Afghanistan where many Europeans have died, only to mark us as a target for terrorism. I don't disagree with the ousting of the Taliban, but I believe it was not in OUR best interests. And during the Cold War Europe was a strong and absolutely necessary partner for the United States with a much bigger military, as was appropriate at that time. And most Europeans are extremely grateful for the United States help in our defense against the Soviet Union (while noting that supporting us was in your interests as well in the fight against your biggest enemy).

Missile launches from terrorists? Yes that is the propaganda you are fed with, but who would do such a thing? Europe has nuclear forces independently of the United States, if Iran were to do such a foolish thing (which they again would not do because Israel is a much... "better" target in their minds) they could be nuked do dust. And against Russia the Missile Shield is not effective.

Again, we feel secure because we have no enemies near us that can or want to attack us, not because of bases or destroyers the US has stationed here.

Pretending like the USA and their military is the only thing between Europe and immediate destruction by hostile foreign powers is ridiculous, because no European nation (if you exclude Georgia, not a NATO member) is currently under military threat and only distracts from the real issue. The only thing that is at stake here is the Wests ability to project power to all parts of the world and influencing events in a benign direction. This is a serious problem in my opinion, and the Europeans should indeed beef up their military capabilities to help the United States in this.

If you guys can fend for yourselves then why do your governments continue to request US resources to protect them? If you actually believe what you say is true, then don't come whining to us when you guys get attacked by a rogue missile that would have been taken out by the missile shield.

Seriously, the arrogance of some of you guys. You want to know why the US still has a huge presence in Europe? Go ask your own fucking governments.

 

[JB3]

Your graph is outdated, US involvement has been mostly limited to the first few weeks.
Exactly as Obama states in the speech you are quoting and is made clear in the article you ripped your graph from...

That doesn't change what he said. The US has still provided the majority of the forces and missions in the conflict. The US has 8500 troops committed to the effort (double the rest of the nations combined), 153 aircraft (half of the total), 2,000 sorties (a little less than half), and 228 cruise missiles fired. (the majority of the 246 so far)

If that is playing a supporting role, then I want to know what his (and your) definition of 'leading role' is. Care to explain instead of making smart ass comments?

And no, the graph isn't outdated. Its from May 22nd.

 

[MoltenRock III]

This thread is funny. The US nationalists all kvetching over US spending is too high compared to Europe. As if the US didn't use it's own military might for it's own gain. Give me a fucking break.

It's time to gut the military by a minimum of 35% if not 50% of it's trillion dollars per year and growing budget.

 

[JB3]

This thread is funny. The US nationalists all kvetching over US spending is too high compared to Europe. As if the US didn't use it's own military might for it's own gain. Give me a fucking break.

It's time to gut the military by a minimum of 35% if not 50% of it's trillion dollars per year and growing budget.

Its no worse than the Europeans acting is if their governments aren't asking for the US presence. Any time the US attempts to close a base in Europe, the country in which its based throws a temper tantrum until the military changes its mind.

I don't care much about the NATO spending argument. Its missing the point, and that's whether NATO actually serves a purpose any more, or whether its a waste of money. I agree with you about the military budget, btw. Cut it by half and divert the $500 billion to education and infrastructure.

 

[Kulindahr]

Its no worse than the Europeans acting is if their governments aren't asking for the US presence. Any time the US attempts to close a base in Europe, the country in which its based throws a temper tantrum until the military changes its mind.

I don't care much about the NATO spending argument. Its missing the point, and that's whether NATO actually serves a purpose any more, or whether its a waste of money. I agree with you about the military budget, btw. Cut it by half and divert the $500 billion to education and infrastructure.

Except that's $500 of money we don't have.

But do that, and go to good patriotic Eisenhower-Republican tax rates, and we'd have money to spend on infrastructure -- and could be paying down the debt.

Oh -- to keep the super-wealthy happy, put in the bill that anyone paying in the top bracket can make an extra donation of $1 million, and get a pass on speed limits.



On the roads that have been rebuilt with that money, of course.

 

[Kulindahr]

That doesn't change what he said. The US has still provided the majority of the forces and missions in the conflict. The US has 8500 troops committed to the effort (double the rest of the nations combined), 153 aircraft (half of the total), 2,000 sorties (a little less than half), and 228 cruise missiles fired. (the majority of the 246 so far)

If that is playing a supporting role, then I want to know what his (and your) definition of 'leading role' is. Care to explain instead of making smart ass comments?

And no, the graph isn't outdated. Its from May 22nd.

I'd like to see a graph of percentage involvement over time.

 

[Tengilethos]

So what do you think of the idea of an actual NATO ready force, already trained and integrated for working together?

That is a very good idea. It would allow the smaller members to better allocate their resources in their contribution to NATO. Instead of them spending on their army, navy and air force, it would be better for them to concentrate on one field. And it would mean that everyone contributes their fair share when NATO acts, not only a few of the members, which would be a huge boost in my opinion.

Obama should contact Spain and France about relocating our bases out of Germany. Romania is contributing well, given its size and conditions, so talk to them as well. If Germany can't join in on an operation they voted for, they deserve a little penalty.

I don't quite understand the need for US bases in Germany anyway. I certainly don't mind them, they give a nice little boost to the local economies (I'm German), but should these troops not be deployed in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe where they are nearer to the military conflict zones? Stationing them in Turkey for example, near Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, strikes me as much more sensible.

Gee I wonder why we have agreements to keep a missile shooter capable of missile defense between you and Iran? Weird. Must be we just like to hang out over there. I suppose we have different definitions of terrorist.

But I suppose your right. If Europe is fully able to fend for itself then there is absolutely no reason for us to be over there.

You only need to look at the Wikipedia article to learn that a big majority in Poland and the Czech Republic are against the Missile Shield. But okay, if some of the members want this protection against Iran, I suppose Europe as a whole benefits. In this case it should be possible to compensate the USA financially. How expensive is it? I doubt that it is a significant portion of your defense spending. If someone has exact numbers that would be really helpful.

And please don't pretend that your forces in Europe are only there to defend us and not to protect your global interest as well. The bases were quite handy when you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not like it would be cheaper to have them stationed in the United States and shipped from there to the various conflict zones.

 

[Tengilethos]

^Teng:

That's not exactly the point.

The point is: do we need so many bases in Europe? So many in Asia?
Most of those bases really are relics from the Cold War. The Cold War is over.

You say we used bases in Germany as transit points for the war in the Middle East. Fair enough. But do we need so many bases in Germany? Surely one will do.

Now look in this thread: with one Dissent (MoltenRock), the American Left and American Right agree:

1.We need to cut the defense budget
2. A huge part of that is asking our Allies to help defend themselves.

1. Do that. I agree, the Cold War is over. Scale down your bases and shut those that are no longer needed. I see no reason at all to keep conventional ground forces in Europe (I mean American soldiers). Russia has huge problems keeping Chechnya and Dagestan pacified, who really thinks that hey will try to invade Estonia or Poland? This is a good place for the United States to cut wasteful defense spending. Those troops that remain should be stationed closer to the action, in the direction of the Middle East (if not in Turkey, then why not in Greece or Cyprus?). So there should be no reason for any military bases in Germany at all, except perhaps as transit/supply points as you have said.

2. I simply don't believe that Europe has any reason to increase their military for defense, as I cannot see any threat in that direction. France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Poland alone have more than 1 million soldiers in their active armed forces, the Russians have 1.2 million soldiers. Europe can defend itself, should the need arise. In the case of the destroyers that are stationed in Europe for missile defense, than we could and should either take part in this or compensate America for their protection of us.

The big problem is not defense, but rather the capability of NATO to wage wars outside of Europe, in which the Europeans don't contribute enough in my opinion. That is the reason why Kulindahr has the right idea, create a multinational unit so that all members of the Alliance share the burden in securing our interests abroad. That should allow the USA to reduce military spending further, while some European nations would have to increase their armed forces.

 

[kallipolis]

To be honest with you, i don't see why the US doesn't just ask the UK if it can position a land based missile defence system on one of the British bases in Cyprus. Why have battleships doing the job, although we should all know this is a make-do option after Obama rightfully (to appease Russia) shelved plans to build in the Czech Rep. or Poland.

There are already land based anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence systems operating at UK bases on Cyprus.

The CIA operate U2 aircraft surveillance aircraft out of RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus.

 

[oakpope]

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.
Europe's oil sources. It explains why in particular France was so eager, which I was mildly surprised about at the time.
.

The graphic is very outdated and wrong.

France imports 10% of its oil from Lybia, Italy 24%, Austria (12%), Portugal (11%) and Ireland (13%), etc. France is also less reliant on oil for energy as 78% of elecrical power comes from nuclear plants. Oil doesn't explain by itself France's engagement in Lybia, or we would has send 4 planes like other nations

For Syria : Syrias' air defense is far more stronger than Libya's, and, for France in particular, we don't have enough planes to go to war to Syria. Lybia, Afghanistan, UAE and bases all over the world has depleted our stock.

 

[BostonPirate]

Maybe I should remind you of the thousands of American soldiers(colleagues?) that died in Afghanistan. They all die for a political statement as well? What are you actually trying to argue with your nationalistic grandstanding pissing contest? What has the US actually accomplished in Afghanistan?

this bit has been bugging me, and I come back to it and read it over and over again. It sets off so many warning bells in my head for such a deep held and hard to express reason.

Look we have to hold it together as a nation and stop having the us versus them conversation. We need to find a " new We the people" that can think of life in american politics beyond the ideologies of the extremes.

Afghanistan was attacked. their ruling class, the taliban, was an effective army that controlled a nation. known to be uncontrollable. The Bush doctrine made them our enemies for hiding and aiding Bin Laden.

The Afghanistan war had a clear opjective... to unseat the radical elements within the taliban, and kill or capture the leadership of Al Queda that lived in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The soldiers went to bring justice for those killed on 9-11.

With the exception of that blind cleric, due to OBL's death it would seem the objective is now complete and Obama and Karzai are now negotiating the withdrawal from Afghanistana that is scheduled to start in July.

The US Soldiers there died honorably to make sure that The victims of 9-11 had justice of some sort. They achieved that goal although it took ten years, and many were lost.

Their lives or deaths should not be treated lightly as a debate point.

 

[MoltenRock III]

2. A huge part of that is asking our Allies to help defend themselves.

Maybe they are spending exactly enough to "defend themselves". Given the bloated, all encompassing, loud-mouthed, axiom that is the US military industrial complex, spending over a trillion per annum, maybe, just maybe America can gut her capacity by staggering sums with no loss of defense of USA borders, territories, and protectorates.

No one is "forcing" the USA to pick up the tab. The USA does it willingly, and then wants to bitch about it later? Blah.

Keep in mind the USA neutered Germany and Japan, and wanted to make sure to never have those countries pose a threat again. Both countries political structures were formed to keep them in check. It's hard to demand that these countries change overnight for the pleasure of the USA's budgetary purpose simply because America doesn't want to raise taxes to a level on par with the rest of the western capitals.

America slashing its defense funding doesn't rest on the allies increasing their own. That's the problem I have with this thread, and so many Americans demanding others to spend more, when there is NOTHING stopping America from slashing her defense funding right now. With reduced military spending comes reduced status and "loud mouthedness" whereby America cannot shout as loudly at other countries to do this, that, and the other.

Republicans have been loath to ever cut defense spending given that a nation that spends less and less on the military spends more and more on her own citizens via education, healthcare, and other social programs. Over the past 10 years the US military budget has doubled.