is NATO still relevant?

[oakpope]

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

Not UK alone.

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110309_PR_CP_2011_027.pdf

At or above 2% GDP :
Albania 2.0 %
France 2.0 % (without gendarmerie, with it it's more 2.2% I think)
Greece 2.9 %
UK 2.7 %

 

[oakpope]

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

Just ONE.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. France has had many actions without USA involvement. But until recently France were outside the integrated command of NATO. More recently there was an action in Ivory Coast to protect civilians and foreign countries' diplomatic people.

UK is also capable to conduct action on her own.

 

[BostonPirate]

Not UK alone.

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110309_PR_CP_2011_027.pdf

At or above 2% GDP :
Albania 2.0 %
France 2.0 % (without gendarmerie, with it it's more 2.2% I think)
Greece 2.9 %
UK 2.7 %

I just have on equestion in regards to this whole pay by gdp thingie....

Are people given votes in the NATO structure based on population or does each one nation have one vote?

So the Europeans are expecting us to pay the lionshare due to population, when the coastal and continental areas of the US never needs help or intervention, never needs military protection.

So... we are expected to pay more in real dollars than the other nations, and we get directly, no military help or require any. that means we are expected to pay the bulk of these bills yet are fighting old european wars, just to make sure the europeans don't break out into a third world war, which we would then have to get involved with and cost us even more.

And all this as the NATO nations discuss the evil empire of the USA.

Yeah

I'd say NATO needs to go away.

 

[BostonPirate]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. France has had many actions without USA involvement. But until recently France were outside the integrated command of NATO. More recently there was an action in Ivory Coast to protect civilians and foreign countries' diplomatic people.

UK is also capable to conduct action on her own.

what military actions under the NATO flag were ever undertaken without the USA?

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

News reports said support for the NATO action was unanimous, or it couldn't have been done.

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.

I keep seeing analyses from different think tnaks claiming that anywhere from a trillion over the next ten years to a trillion over the next three years can be saved without harming military effectiveness. That these are libertarian and libertarian-conservative think tanks lends weight.

And the matter of % GDP from the different countries is a serious issue, a reason for screaming Europe should pay more -- because they agreed to.

 

[Tengilethos]

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.

Isn't NATOs main role the defense of its members? European budgets are adequate for that, and I agree that the US should cut its defense spending. And it makes sense to primarily cut the number of bases and soldiers stationed in Europe. It is not our fault if the leaders of the United States want to maintain a stronger armed forces to wield more influence in world politics. And please notice that Europe fulfilled its obligations to the Alliance when they stationed a very significant number of troops in Afghanistan after Article 5 was invoked by the United States. But I agree that NATO currently does a poor job of coordinating offensive foreign actions that are in the Wests interest and should be overhauled to make the Alliance more effective, which includes the raising of military spending by those who don't spend the recommended 2%.

News reports said support for the NATO action was unanimous, or it couldn't have been done.

It was unanimous, but Germany was alway against intervention in Libya, and just didn't want to antagonize the other NATO members further after they abstained in the UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Gaddafi. Read this for more information: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,756782,00.html

That we let down our allies by not supporting the war in Libya is a huge disgrace and maybe even worse than what you accused us of, but we didn't want the action in Libya, and it was the French and Brits who asked for US assistance, and thus it is not hypocritical of us not to send forces, just a very bad decision.

 

[bankside]

AHHH

America is what ails the globe.

I see what this thread is all about.

bye guys

You've bought into George Bush Junior's "Either your with us or against us" mentality.

I did not even endorse MoltenRock's position; I was just pointing out that all the hyperbole is in your mind or maybe in some other thread of yours or his or whatever. His analysis in this thread is not one of emotional hatred.

And even by pointing that out I'm somehow anti-American.

 

[PhunkSpunk]

I've been wondering the same thing to for some time. All the former Warsaw Pact nations petitioned to join just as soon as they got free of the Sovs as an insurance policy against future Russian Imperialism. Unfortunately I think it succeeded in putting Russia on guard.

Seeing as the new dichotomy is shaping up to be Islam vs. The West, I think a Western Alliance including Russia will be called for to meet this new security threat. As I see it Russia, which has its own internal Islamic problems and shares a border with loose-cannon Iran, has everything to gain from this kind of understanding.

It would, of course, be an entente Cretian, though certainly wouldn't be called such.

 

[BostonPirate]

You've bought into George Bush Junior's "Either your with us or against us" mentality.

I did not even endorse MoltenRock's position; I was just pointing out that all the hyperbole is in your mind or maybe in some other thread of yours or his or whatever. His analysis in this thread is not one of emotional hatred.

And even by pointing that out I'm somehow anti-American.

no I really haven't

I have bought into the " tired of having the hand bitten that offers to protect you" line of thinking.

If the US role in NATO is detrimental to NATO, then by all means, lets get the hell out. We don't have the cash and we are not getting our moneys worth.

Operation of permanent millitary bases do NOT come out of NATO's budget to my knowledge, and if they do that would make the whole thing more palatable.

America does not need NATO, NATO needs the USA.

It would be nice if the citizens of the member states considered that on occasion.

 

[Tengilethos]

I agree.

Germany's choice not to send troops is not the core issue, really.

It's whether its role, in terms of the whole purpose of NATO, is relevant. Which brings us back to square one: Is NATO relevant if individual countries can pick and choose that way?

Either the entity is united, or it is not. A dis-united NATO is really just political masturbation.

I think it's time to disband it.

As long as NATO members provide assistance to each other in an Article V case (attack on one member), then it is still relevant and useful. The problem is that many people, especially the US leaders, want NATO to play a more aggressive role, shifting gears from defense to offense as someone said in this thread already. But NATO was never constructed with this intent in mind and is in need of a comprehensive overhaul to do that. And an dis-united NATO is really pointless if you want to intervene in foreign countries, because then those members who don't contribute but whose interests are protected by NATO are really free riding on the others. At this point you should either disband NATO, recognize that it is a purely defensive alliance or reform it.

This is the reason I like Kulindahrs idea of multinational units under NATOs command so much. If all contribute proportional to their GDP to these units who are then sent to the various conflicts that NATO agrees to intervene in, then nobody can shirk their responsibilities.

 

[oakpope]

I just have on equestion in regards to this whole pay by gdp thingie....

Are people given votes in the NATO structure based on population or does each one nation have one vote?

So the Europeans are expecting us to pay the lionshare due to population, when the coastal and continental areas of the US never needs help or intervention, never needs military protection.

I believe decisions are by consensus, meaning each nations have veto (I may be wrong). I found that USA never lost a vote.

"So the Europeans are expecting us to pay the lionshare due to population" : I don't understand, european nations in NATO have a greater population than the USA.

 

[Tengilethos]

I've been wondering the same thing to for some time. All the former Warsaw Pact nations petitioned to join just as soon as they got free of the Sovs as an insurance policy against future Russian Imperialism. Unfortunately I think it succeeded in putting Russia on guard.

Seeing as the new dichotomy is shaping up to be Islam vs. The West, I think a Western Alliance including Russia will be called for to meet this new security threat. As I see it Russia, which has its own internal Islamic problems and shares a border with loose-cannon Iran, has everything to gain from this kind of understanding.

It would, of course, be an entente Cretian, though certainly wouldn't be called such.

If you go this far, why not include Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia (sorry about that mistake earlier )? They are allies or part of The West, and for example by contributing to the defense of South Korea against North Korea the Europeans could lesson the burden on the USA, providing meaningful support. They might not help in a war Islam vs. The West, but if it really comes to China vs. The West this would be just a logical development.

no I really haven't

I have bought into the " tired of having the hand bitten that offers to protect you" line of thinking.

If the US role in NATO is detrimental to NATO, then by all means, lets get the hell out. We don't have the cash and we are not getting our moneys worth.

Operation of permanent millitary bases do NOT come out of NATO's budget to my knowledge, and if they do that would make the whole thing more palatable.

America does not need NATO, NATO needs the USA.

It would be nice if the citizens of the member states considered that on occasion.

Hmm, most Europeans are grateful for US protection of Europe, but should we really be not allowed to criticize the United States because of that? And who said the US is detrimental to NATO? And if the United States does not need NATO, then you could have occupied Afghanistan and Iraq all by yourself? Your allies troops were not helpful at all? I recognize that we get more out of NATO that the United States and these imbalances should be addressed, but part of that problem is Americas willingness to maintain enough forces to influence major events in the world while some of its allies don't see the need for that and spend accordingly.

 

[BostonPirate]

I believe decisions are by consensus, meaning each nations have veto (I may be wrong). I found that USA never lost a vote.

"So the Europeans are expecting us to pay the lionshare due to population" : I don't understand, european nations in NATO have a greater population than the USA.

right. People are comparing all of america to each of the Euro nations. what percentage of NATO is financed by the USA?

here are the member nations and their populations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

in 2010....

United States pop...311,328,000
contributed dollars 687,105 (in millions}


Total nato pop... 906,002,051
total nato budget 1,004,436 {in millions}




the USA comprises one third of NATO by population, and it pays for two thirds of the costs.

Since the other nations have primarily defensive forces, COULD they help us?

Permanent American bases come out of the Pentagons budget, not NATO's so we actually spend alot more than these figures suggest.

 

[BostonPirate]

If you go this far, why not include Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia (sorry about that mistake earlier )? They are allies or part of The West, and for example by contributing to the defense of South Korea against North Korea the Europeans could lesson the burden on the USA, providing meaningful support. They might not help in a war Islam vs. The West, but if it really comes to China vs. The West this would be just a logical development.


Hmm, most Europeans are grateful for US protection of Europe, but should we really be not allowed to criticize the United States because of that? And who said the US is detrimental to NATO? And if the United States does not need NATO, then you could have occupied Afghanistan and Iraq all by yourself? Your allies troops were not helpful at all? I recognize that we get more out of NATO that the United States and these imbalances should be addressed, but part of that problem is Americas willingness to maintain enough forces to influence major events in the world while some of its allies don't see the need for that and spend accordingly.

perhaps if we hadn't spent 680 trillion dollars on NATO in 2010 we could have afforded to on our own.

 

[Tengilethos]

perhaps if we hadn't spent 680 trillion dollars on NATO in 2010 we could have afforded to on our own.

You didn't spend 680 trillion dollars on NATO, that was the entire United States defense spending. And now I call YOU ungrateful for dismissing the contribution of NATO members to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This argument is pointless as long as we don't know what the USA spends on the defense of Europe. And some of these bases and troops are stationed in Europe to support the operations in the Middle East and to defend Israel. It is not our fault that we lie between the USA and the Arab nations.

But just a question here, who in this thread is against America reducing its defense spending? I have the impression as if most of us can agree on this, am I right?

 

[BostonPirate]

I don't know

It just seems to me that if we have to choose between NATO and healthcare as a nation, the choice is pretty clearcut to me.

Cut our nato spending by half and give medicare a few more years of solvency to get through the baby boomer retirement era.

Our spending is disproportionate to what we can pay at a point in time that other nations are not paying because they have more pressing domestic needs.

When you add that to the general attitude that the USA needs to learn its place?

It really makes NATO membership rather useless, IMO.

 

[BostonPirate]

You haven't got a clue to what US expenditure on NATO is, so I don't think you can justify statements like this. Suffice to say that non US NATO expenditures on Afghanistan have been considerable, and certainly far exceeding US expenditure on Libya. NATO expenditures are rather minimal compared to the entire US defense budget.

I have a clue. You ought to get one.

Its more than we can afford.

That is what we all know all too well. The rest of this is just nonsense. NATO has rellied for far too long on american might as its individual states have grown to resent american might.

That day is about to end.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar.../gates-warns-europe-it-risks-irrelevance.html

Mr Gates warned that, over time, US leaders may come to see military co-operation in Europe as an unnecessary expense.

“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence,” Mr Gates told the Nato summit in Brussels.

“If current trends in the decline of European defence capabilities are not halted and reversed, future US political leaders — those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me — may not consider the return on America’s investment in Nato worth the cost.” Nato’s 28 members have all signed up to a commitment to spend at least two per cent of their gross domestic product on defence. On current trends, only four will do so.

 

[BostonPirate]

Give me a number and links then. I was mild earlier but your wiki link reference was laughable. I can only assume you didnt read it or numbers arent your forte.

numbers aren't my forte?

TROLL

 

[BostonPirate]

The United States accounts for about three-quarters of total military spending by all NATO countries, and it has in the past taken the lead in military operations and provided the bulk of the weapons and matériel. But in a post-Soviet world, there is growing resentment in Washington about NATO effectively paying for the defense of wealthy European nations.

Those strains have deepened considerably during the air war against Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the first NATO-run multilateral war where Washington has pulled back from a leadership role.

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

 

[BostonPirate]

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

from that same article Gates also said this....

NATO’s shortcomings have long been the subject of black humor in Afghanistan, where American military officers sometimes refer to the official NATO command — called the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF — as “I Saw Americans Fighting.” In recent months, the aggravation with NATO in Afghanistan has intensified because of Libya.

“The Europeans enjoy generous social welfare programs in part because the United States subsidizes their defense spending,” said Andrew M. Exum of the Center for a New American Security, a military research organization, who was an Army infantry officer in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2004.

If the United States did not have large stockpiles of ammunition, a senior NATO official said, the NATO campaign would already have come to a halt. The Americans are selling the ammunition, but it was the American military budget that paid for its manufacture and stockpiling.