is NATO still relevant?

[Kulindahr]

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.

All the more reason to get rid of some -- it would reduce the temptation to cowboy presidents to invade countries that haven't attacked us.

 

[BostonPirate]

@ Molten:

IF they were spending enough to defend themselves then why do we get stuck bearing the load all the time and footing the bill?

it seems to me that fifty percent of NATO is a grifting scheme to get us to fight europes battles endlessly, suck the cash out of america and then complain in a host of ways about how horrible we are in a host of ways.

Its tacky.

 

[Centexfarmer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/europe/11gates.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat1.html

is there any compelling reason for why the US should feel compelled to defend Europe's security interests if they themselves are confident that the world is at such peace that there's no need to support a military of their own?

it feels a little out of place when the US is defending Europe's interests in Libya while cutting our own domestic spending back home, as Europe keeps cutting their own defense spending to pay for social programs.

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

In my opinion NATO ceased to have any real relevance after the Berlin Wall came crashing down in 1989.

More than 20 YEARS ago.

Since that time it's only appeared to be a political tool of the United Nations first, and the European Union second.

An old West Texas Rancher once asked me, "Did I ever tell you the story about how a camel is a horse designed by a committee?"

Look at the current European Union.

What in Gawd's Green Acre does the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with that?

If the EU really isn't interested in investing in their own "domestic tranquility," or having a say in the direction of where they'd like to see NATO proceed/succeed, then why should the American taxpayer continue to invest 3 dollars to every 1 that the EU provides?

Besides, Americans are just borrowing our 3 dollars from the Chinese anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

^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.

I'd be thrilled to see it cut to five! IIRC, the US has almost forty Army bases alone, and better than a dozen Air Force ones.

We could move an Air Force one to Romania, closer to "risk" areas, another to Greece, perhaps (their economy could certainly use it!), leave on in Germany, and shut the rest.

For the Army, I can see having one infantry base, one armor, and one missile defense in Germany. Again move a couple out to the "edges" -- and shut the rest.

Though at the moment, I'm ticced enough at Germany I'd just shut them all.

 

[MoltenRock III]

@ Molten:

IF they were spending enough to defend themselves then why do we get stuck bearing the load all the time and footing the bill?

it seems to me that fifty percent of NATO is a grifting scheme to get us to fight europes battles endlessly, suck the cash out of america and then complain in a host of ways about how horrible we are in a host of ways.

Its tacky.

Show me the treaty that mandates the USA pick up 50% of the bill (or whatever you think it is). Who's forcing the USA to pay those expenditures? Which "endless battles" are you pissed off about that "Europe" is starting / wanting? Sorry BP, but you're just scapegoating.

The USA in my lifetime, and yours, has been at war more than it has been "at peace". The USA is spending around 50% of every dollar spent by the entire world. If you add in NATO and the US's staunchest allies, defense spending is about 70% of total global expenditures. So really who is the USA trying to "defend" against? It's pretty clear. It's not about defense at all, but rather naked imperialism renamed, rebadged, and respun. The USA's defense spending is it's own problem. Scapegoating NATO countries is silly really, when the fault lies with ourselves / our government.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the EU really isn't interested in investing in their own "domestic tranquility," or having a say in the direction of where they'd like to see NATO proceed/succeed, then why should the American taxpayer continue to invest 3 dollars to every 1 that the EU provides?

Obama should tell Boehner he will veto any defense bill that doesn't cut that to 2 to 1 by next year, and 1 to 1 the next.

 

[BostonPirate]

Molten, Theres nothing that will get you out of an "I hate america"binge once you start going on one, so I am just going to hold my answers until you can reach a point of rational discussion on it.

If that day never comes, it would be a pity that we never had the chance to get to know each other better.

Such is the effects of a grudge against a people.

They tend to keep you apart from what cures the problem in the first place.

Your anti american crap just gets to be a bit much for me to stomach sometimes, and I let you know that I feel that way every couple of weeks.

You arent changing, and I can't have reasonable debate with people that operate from an emotional position inre a specific frame.

Since your frame of refence is a real strong dislike of america and I am an american, born from a long line of them all the way back to the beginning of the nation, it it doubtful we can get past it.

unfortunately, because I like some of your ideas and you are a very intelligent man.

But just as the GOP hates gays, you hate america. I am an american gay, and you generally get the same response from me that they do for that reason.

Get off your high horses. You can deny that the USA has done all the heavy lifting since ww2 if you want.

Reality, subterfuge, and intelectual debris do not hide that anger in you.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Or as Andrew J. Bacevich (professor of Boston University) said:

Washington's aim is this: take a Cold War-inspired organization designed to keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the Americans in, and transform it into a post-Cold War arrangement in which Europe will help underwrite American globalism without, of course, being permitted any notable say regarding U.S. policy. The allies have not proven accommodating.

 

[bankside]

Molten, Theres nothing that will get you out of an "I hate america"binge once you start going on one, so I am just going to hold my answers until you can reach a point of rational discussion on it.

If that day never comes, it would be a pity that we never had the chance to get to know each other better.

Such is the effects of a grudge against a people.

They tend to keep you apart from what cures the problem in the first place.

Your anti american crap just gets to be a bit much for me to stomach sometimes, and I let you know that I feel that way every couple of weeks.

You arent changing, and I can't have reasonable debate with people that operate from an emotional position inre a specific frame.

Since your frame of refence is a real strong dislike of america and I am an american, born from a long line of them all the way back to the beginning of the nation, it it doubtful we can get past it.

unfortunately, because I like some of your ideas and you are a very intelligent man.

But just as the GOP hates gays, you hate america. I am an american gay, and you generally get the same response from me that they do for that reason.

Get off your high horses. You can deny that the USA has done all the heavy lifting since ww2 if you want.

Reality, subterfuge, and intelectual debris do not hide that anger in you.

I reread every one of Molten's posts, in this thread, and he's on topic and making a point worthy of consideration. Based on these posts alone, you're imagining hatred.

If moderate gay non-Republican Americans confuse criticism of American foreign policy as hatred of America, then Molten's posts are not an overbearing attack but a naïve understatement of the magnitude of the problem.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Obama should tell Boehner he will veto any defense bill that doesn't cut that to 2 to 1 by next year, and 1 to 1 the next.

I LOVE IT!

If Boehner wants to cut spending, where there it is BEYOTCH!

Or as Andrew J. Bacevich (professor of Boston University) said:

Washington's aim is this: take a Cold War-inspired organization designed to keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the Americans in, and transform it into a post-Cold War arrangement in which Europe will help underwrite American globalism without, of course, being permitted any notable say regarding U.S. policy. The allies have not proven accommodating.

Then why try to "arm twist" the EU alliance like Secretary Gates appeared to do on his way out the door?

 

[MoltenRock III]

...and I am an american, born from a long line of them all the way back to the beginning of the nation, it it doubtful we can get past it.

As you love to point out weekly. But perhaps that is why you cannot honestly, and reasonably without bias see the USA for what it is, vs. what you think it is, or wish it to be. I want America to succeed for the Average Joe, I really do. But varnishing over the warts and scabs doesn't lead to true answers for the many problems America faces. It just garners feel goodisms that do nothing, accomplish nothing, and waste time.

But just as the GOP hates gays, you hate america.

I do not, nor ever have "hated" America. But this is what virtually every other person outside of America deals with when discussing anything about America. The US's nationalist zeal for pointing out the inequalities and inequities everywhere around the globe, yet because of nationalism most Americans cannot look at a counterpoint about the USA without deeming it "hate".

There's dozens upon dozens of Americans on this thread all bitching that Europe should be spending more and more $$$ to fund NATO. How many million Americans die, and how many billions in $$$ did the US spend to demilitarize and denationalize Europe? Yet again, now, because its convenient demand that Europe spend more money, time, resources, and human lives to restart Europe's martial past. Why would a sane person want to undo the pacification of Europe?

 

[BostonPirate]

I reread every one of Molten's posts, in this thread, and he's on topic and making a point worthy of consideration. Based on these posts alone, you're imagining hatred.

If moderate gay non-Republican Americans confuse criticism of American foreign policy as hatred of America, then Molten's posts are not an overbearing attack but a naïve understatement of the magnitude of the problem.

AHHH

America is what ails the globe.

I see what this thread is all about.

bye guys

 

[MoltenRock III]

AHHH

bye guys

Tell NickCole I said "hello".

 

[Centexfarmer]

As you love to point out weekly. But perhaps that is why you cannot honestly, and reasonably without bias see the USA for what it is, vs. what you think it is, or wish it to be. I want America to succeed for the Average Joe, I really do. But varnishing over the warts and scabs doesn't lead to true answers for the many problems America faces. It just garners feel goodisms that do nothing, accomplish nothing, and waste time.



I do not, nor ever have "hated" America. But this is what virtually every other person outside of America deals with when discussing anything about America. The US's nationalist zeal for pointing out the inequalities and inequities everywhere around the globe, yet because of nationalism most Americans cannot look at a counterpoint about the USA without deeming it "hate".

There's dozens upon dozens of Americans on this thread all bitching that Europe should be spending more and more $$$ to fund NATO. How many million Americans die, and how many billions in $$$ did the US spend to demilitarize and denationalize Europe? Yet again, now, because its convenient demand that Europe spend more money, time, resources, and human lives to restart Europe's martial past. Why would a sane person want to undo the pacification of Europe?

BostonPirate let me translate this for you *clears throat*

Those of us who live and breath the American flags flying off of our porches (Now Made in China), and who drive our American "branded" automobiles; Ford, Chrysler, and GM, which are now manufactured in Canada and Assembled in Mexico, and who cling to a 1950's/1960's "cold war" idea of America aren't doing our country any real or true service by clinging onto the idea of what America was, but rather should embrace what America has become.

So someone who might be a little more objective comes along, and presents a scenario that might be more conducive to how people OUTSIDE of the Grand ole USA sees us, and you want to take offense?

I don't personally know MoltenRock III.

What I know of him when he posts here? Yeah he can be a dick.

I like to hear from people who travel.

I like to hear their experiences and what they've heard.

I don't care who's sharing it, I'm interested to know how people outside of my "bubble" sees things, and what the people that they've been talking to share with them.

Seriously!

How can we discuss something like NATO, which was formed to 'halt the spread of communism' in Eastern Europe, without being able to discuss what it's role/mission is 20 some odd years after the fall of the "Iron Curtain" without at the very least determining the resolve of the European Union's desire to even keep it, or something resembling it intact?

 

[BostonPirate]

Tell NickCole I said "hello".

honey...

you haven't chased me off. you just bored me to death with bitterness.

You want to be a bitch and do this? we can do it. You want to act respectfully and let me leave your thread and hate party gracefully? YOU can do that too.

its up to you. shall we have an adversarial relationship, are you just more interested in USA bashing, or can you consider the fact that the way you approach things puts people that love this nation off?

its up to you, sweetheart, but you are CERTAINLY not dismissing or disposing of me, after that assinine comment I quoted up above.

 

[BostonPirate]

BostonPirate let me translate this for you *clears throat*

Those of us who live and breath the American flags flying off of our porches (Now Made in China), and who drive our American "branded" automobiles; Ford, Chrysler, and GM, which are now manufactured in Canada and Assembled in Mexico, and who cling to a 1950's/1960's "cold war" idea of America aren't doing our country any real or true service by clinging onto the idea of what America was, but rather should embrace what America has become.

So someone who might be a little more objective comes along, and presents a scenario that might be more conducive to how people OUTSIDE of the Grand ole USA sees us, and you want to take offense?

I don't personally know MoltenRock III.

What I know of him when he posts here? Yeah he can be a dick.

I like to hear from people who travel.

I like to hear their experiences and what they've heard.

I don't care who's sharing it, I'm interested to know how people outside of my "bubble" sees things, and what the people that they've been talking to share with them.

Seriously!

How can we discuss something like NATO, which was formed to 'halt the spread of communism' in Eastern Europe, without being able to discuss what it's role/mission is 20 some odd years after the fall of the "Iron Curtain" without at the very least determining the resolve of the European Union's desire to even keep it, or something resembling it intact?

its just the weekly bash america excuse that molten has latched onto, and if he had been more pragmatic for the last year Ive been here I might just consider it, but for me its just the ungratefull expat who finds a new reason to call the USA the Wolf weekly.

Its getting to be old schtick. I question my nation PLENTY, thank you very much, and never to I do it without the desire to make itself better

 

[Tengilethos]

according to wikipedia, NATO has engaged in 5 military actions

-the Balkan Wars
-Afghanistan
-training Iraqi security forces (at the request of the Iraqi government and UN)
-protecting ships from piracy off the Somali coast
-Libya

ostensibly, the only one of those that I can think of as "underwriting American globalism" would be training Iraqi security forces, given that the US was attacked by Afghanistan and an attack on one NATO country is supposed to be considered an attack on all NATO countries.

Which is the reason why there ARE NATO forces in Afghanistan, Europeans fighting together with Americans (US + Canada), and supporting the operation.

If we had current figures about the military involvement in Libya, perhaps we would see that the contribution by Europe is enough there? And google Operation Atalanta to see the EU anti-piracy efforts in Somalia.

Many NATO members didn't believe in any WMD's in Iraq, and surprise surprise, there weren't any. Bastards for not believing George Bush when he spoke before the United Nations... Still there is quite was a significant military presence in Iraq by Alliance members because they wanted to support the US.

I'd be thrilled to see it cut to five! IIRC, the US has almost forty Army bases alone, and better than a dozen Air Force ones.

We could move an Air Force one to Romania, closer to "risk" areas, another to Greece, perhaps (their economy could certainly use it!), leave on in Germany, and shut the rest.

For the Army, I can see having one infantry base, one armor, and one missile defense in Germany. Again move a couple out to the "edges" -- and shut the rest.

Though at the moment, I'm ticced enough at Germany I'd just shut them all.

I don't understand your reasoning here. Germany never supported military action in Libya (which I believe was wrong and contributed quite a bit to the recent electoral defeats of the government parties in various state elections), and we could have just vetoed the NATO plans so that nobody would have attacked Libya, but instead we just abstained and don't contribute anything. And now you want to spin it like Germany wanted to bomb Libya and requested US aid but doesn't do anything to support this operation? That is just not true.

And for BostonPirate, as I said, the US is not picking the tab to defend Europe because we are quite secure and would not mind if the United States reduced its military spending. The only problem is that then NATO and especially the US would have less power to influence events in the world and perhaps nudge them in the right direction to serve our/your/both ours and your interests.

 

[Kulindahr]

Show me the treaty that mandates the USA pick up 50% of the bill (or whatever you think it is). Who's forcing the USA to pay those expenditures? Which "endless battles" are you pissed off about that "Europe" is starting / wanting? Sorry BP, but you're just scapegoating.

The USA in my lifetime, and yours, has been at war more than it has been "at peace". The USA is spending around 50% of every dollar spent by the entire world. If you add in NATO and the US's staunchest allies, defense spending is about 70% of total global expenditures. So really who is the USA trying to "defend" against? It's pretty clear. It's not about defense at all, but rather naked imperialism renamed, rebadged, and respun. The USA's defense spending is it's own problem. Scapegoating NATO countries is silly really, when the fault lies with ourselves / our government.

I can't think of any European conflicts since WWII. The only conflict I can think of that Europe "dragged" the U.S. into was Vietnam -- grew out of a French treaty commitment.

Or as Andrew J. Bacevich (professor of Boston University) said:

Washington's aim is this: take a Cold War-inspired organization designed to keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the Americans in, and transform it into a post-Cold War arrangement in which Europe will help underwrite American globalism without, of course, being permitted any notable say regarding U.S. policy. The allies have not proven accommodating.

I've read that before. It's not an unreasonable interpretation of things.

 

[oakpope]

As I read in another forum, many problems in NATO come from the fact that NATO has transitioned from a defensive organization unto an offensive one.
No country in the world pose a real threat to NATO. Terrorism in NATO countries is not fighten by tanks and airplanes.

So in the recent years, NATO has mainly displayed its force outside of NATO.

Since WWII USA has an offensive force. Pretty much all west european nations were defensive. So the transition takes a toll on european nations. Furthermore there was a great numbers of eastern european countries integrated into NATO. It is a massive task to make all those countries' armies compatible and trained to work together. Many US troops in Europe are employed in that : training and assuring compatibility.

Now, politically, I think there are problems remaining. Are the goals of NATO the same for all the countries involved ? I'm not sure. Nations are egoist and do what it's best for them. I think many nations thought that by entering NATO they would be protected by the USA with a mininum effort of their own. I believe they were mistaken.

 

[BostonPirate]

He has a point, guys.

@Moltenrock: It's mostly due to Republicanism, MoltenRock.

But there're signs that this issue is beginning to crumble within the Republican Party itself. The Tea Partiers, for example, believe that everything should be put on the table, and David Stockman, who was one of Reagan's top flunkies, strongly believes that the time has come for massive cuts in the defense budget.

The Democrats won't be an impediment to this.

@Mitchymo: we're not talking about raw $$ spent by each country, but a percentage of each country's GDP.

By this measure, the EU is not pulling its weight, with the sole exception of the UK.

yeah well if we are equal partners, of the north atlantic treaty organisation, I suggest first that congress create legislation that only allows us to spend annually, per treaty agreement, the averaged amount of cash that all the rest of the co signors have contributed.

If we have the time and the resources from then on, when something occurs, then let them, vote on it.

I want to see ONE NATO operation that can succeed without american money and american technology.

They keep coming back with hat in hand to the USA after we did our part and used our tech to level the field in the first part of the Libyan action. Now Sarcozy wants to ever expand the mission and Obama has not been very enthusiastic about the constant beggars bowl being shoved in his face as the economic and political situation goes to crap here at home.

Nato wants to prove its relevance? Operate ONE action without the USA's involvement.

Just ONE.