is NATO still relevant?

[kallipolis]

You know, just put ur nose out of woirld's bussiness and we will be fine. Believe me

I will give u a hint:

SFR of Yugoslavia was a federation of 6 states with legal Yugoslav people army. In 1991. Croats started separation with LOTS OF WEAPONS and paramilitar forces (u know, imagine Mexicans in California, Texas, New Mexico to have bunch of guns and start separation fighting US military) ... So, what do you think, who SOLD guns to them? Grow on fields like pop corn or some western industry earned cash?

Post WW11 Yugoslavia was welded together by the popularity of Marshal Tito, and his secret police ensuring that dissent was quickly, and ruthlessly crushed.

The Serb officered Yugoslav Army started the more recent Balkan conflict when assuming that tanks, and artillery were going to patch up a rapidly disintegrating Yugoslavia following the demise of Marshal Tito.

Yugoslavia was never a nation, rather an artificial patchwork of nations, created by the Western Allies which filled a security void following the collapse of the Austrian, and Ottoman empires at the end of the first world war.

There are no angels in this human tragedy. This should not prevent the political, and military leaders of the respective belligerent parties from facing justice at The International Court. This process has been, and continues to process those indicted for human rights crimes. There should be no exceptions.

 

[kallipolis]

The European members of NATO are more than able to offer support for the revolutionary forces in Libya. And are so doing. NATO policy is to encourage the Libyans to liberate themselves from Gadaffi's dictatorship.

Business news columnists are entitled to express their opinion.

There is now a well coordinated campaign under way between the generals in various NATO countries to ensure that budgetary cuts do not impact on their spheres of influence. They are out of luck.

 

[Tengilethos]

If NATO is not turned into the global military arm of The West, does it make NATO irrelevant? If it is merely an organization to react to direct attacks on its member states, is that reason to abolish it?

Honest question here.

And right now it is difficult to rate the war in Libya, what if it turns out at the end that Europe flew 80% or something of the sorties? Precise numbers will most likely only be available after the war is history already.
Speaking of history, zelebanana, you should study yours a bit better and look for other sources that don't tell you nationalistic propaganda.

 

[kallipolis]

If NATO is not turned into the global military arm of The West, does it make NATO irrelevant? If it is merely an organization to react to direct attacks on its member states, is that reason to abolish it?

Honest question here.

More to the point the various members of NATO do not wish to become an extension of United States worldwide policies, by virtue of being members of NATO.

NATO remains highly relevant in an unstable world that developed after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Each international scenario that demands an international response will be addressed by those members best able to deal effectively with each situation.

 

[kallipolis]

Teng:

We agree.

We just believe that perhaps Europe needs to put more financial support into it, while the US takes a more subsidiary role.

BTW, I couldn't agree with you more about China. I see grave danger there. Taiwan, in particular, is in great peril.

No it does not. With regard to Libya there are sufficient NATO bases in the Mediterranean that can, and have been moved into action to support NATO operations over Libya.

Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece and Turkey have bases that are available for NATO use in the current Libya campaign.

China owns so much United States sovereign debt it would destroy its own economy should it ever initiate military action against the United States.

Taiwan's political elite ensure that its relationship with China never encourages military confrontation. China and Taiwan are building bridges of cooperation. The United States Navy's presence in the China Sea ensures that China remains committed to a long term policy of regaining Taiwan through political, and economic cooperation.

 

[BostonPirate]

and its entirely priced out of our current range.

That and the obvious fact that not even the people we extend all this aide to deeply resent us for it in one way or another.

let Putin become president of Russia again, and we will see just how fast the EU decides it needs a defense.

Let them build their own.

Nato can handle diplomatic issues from here on out that make the western nations integrate more effectively economically. That is where we need to be. Finding ways to cooperate to save our interdependent economies, not spending cash to support the military defense of people that resent us when we do it.

We have starving and homeless of our own, thank you very much.

 

[Tengilethos]

More to the point the various members of NATO do not wish to become an extension of United States worldwide policies, by virtue of being members of NATO.

NATO remains highly relevant in an unstable world that developed after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Each international scenario that demands an international response will be addressed by those members best able to deal effectively with each situation.

But right here I believe that Americans are right. If it comes to the strict defense of the member states, then NATO does its job and the European nations spend enough on their military. But when NATO is used to intervene in foreign matters, then only Britain and France have the will and the forces in Europe to initiate that action, and only Britain is really willing to cooperate with the US in these matters. If waging war in foreign countries to defend our interests is really NATOs mission, then several countries in Europe are not contributing enough to NATO and ARE basically letting the USA do all/most of the work.

But does the USA really want to continue to do this? Perhaps it would be better for all NATO members to reduce defense spending for a time while they are getting their finances under control. It is nice for Greece to spend more than 2% of GDP on defense, but can the Greek really afford that? What about Spain, Portugal, or the US itself? And right now while the Chinese are still concentrating on building up their own economy and NATO doesn't face threats that can be fought with armies (the War on Terror is a waste of resources), it could be the best times to cut the military to be in a better condition should one day China attempt to take over the world.

 

[BostonPirate]

The Chinese are in hyper inflation right now. Something unpredicted and to a degree unexpected so quickly. In five years time, they are going to have serious issues economically.

The chinese may be growing an economy at an alarming rate, but the chinese aren't really so good at managing it, knowing how to cool it off.

They have no Greenspan, the master of inflation management, or any of his disciples. The Chinese are going into new territory so quickly that its frankly getting away from them.

NATO needs to be renegotiated, and I think its time for a NATO 2 treaty, one that defines economic interactions, illegalizes offshore tax havens so that the nations that house a business actually gets to TAX the corporations... Debt management and a unified set of regulations that manage all member nations stock exchanges... International banking regulations amongst member nations, so that the banks can't manipulate currency exchange rates and once again, allows hosting nations to recieve their taxes.

It seems to me that if we all just built our own defenses, and agreed to work on these things together, it would be more about nations protecting each others international rights, than protecting each other militarily.

 

[Tengilethos]

That's exactly what we're suggesting, Mitch.

As Gates has said, part of the reason Europe has vast social safety nets is because the US has footed the bill for its defense. (Excepting the UK)

That is totally wrong. Look up defense spending at the time of the Cold War and you will find that Europe spent much more on defense than today, more than the 2% stipulated by NATO rules. And even then we could finance our vast safety nets. If the US reduces its defense spending and pulls out of Europe, I highly doubt that our defense spending will go up one bit. Most of us have felt quite secure for a long time now (since the end of the Cold War), which is the reason our military budgets were shrinking in the first place.

And nobody forced you to spend 5% of your GDP on your armed forces, please don't pretend now that we in Europe are responsible for the mess your finances are in now.

But anyway, it seems like we all agree on at leas one thing: The US has to reduce its military budget which will lead to reduced contributions to NATO. This is after all what most of us in Europe have done after the Soviet Union fell, you have every right to do that too. If the Alliance becomes obsolete through that is another thing.

 

[kallipolis]

to a certain extent, some of it depends on how you define "defense."

the US hasn't been at risk of a ground invasion in the past hundred+ years... but if an anti-Western regime invades Kuwait to control their oil fields and potentially threaten the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, effectively crippling the first world, would repelling the invasion be considered as "defense" even though no NATO country is directly involved?

A nation's defence does not begin at its shores. Vital assets, such as oil, must also be protected. This includes the Middle East oil fields, tanker terminals and the sea lanes that permit ships to transit the oceans. Here we should include the Suez Canal, and the Panama Canal.

The West depends on oil for its very existence. Thus a threat to the oil fields of the Middle East, would be a threat to The West, which would entail a response by NATO members.

 

[kallipolis]

Another threat to the world is that of piracy in the Indian Ocean, arising from pirates with speed boats operating out of lawless Somalia.

Many merchant ships, with their crews have been captured by pirates and ransomed for huge sums of money.

Ships can be tracked by the pirates using GPS to locate, and follow those ships that will attract a high ransom, as a result of the value of their cargoes, as well as the actual ship. Oil tankers have been the prime target of the Somali pirates.

Currently there are several warships from a variety of countries patrolling the waters of the Indian Ocean. It is one of those criminal scenarios where countries as diverse, as India and China have also contributed war ships in response to pirate attacks on ships owned by their respective countries.

NATO has also contributed warships from the squadron working out of the Persian Gulf.

 

[JB3]

That is totally wrong. Look up defense spending at the time of the Cold War and you will find that Europe spent much more on defense than today, more than the 2% stipulated by NATO rules. And even then we could finance our vast safety nets. If the US reduces its defense spending and pulls out of Europe, I highly doubt that our defense spending will go up one bit. Most of us have felt quite secure for a long time now (since the end of the Cold War), which is the reason our military budgets were shrinking in the first place.

And nobody forced you to spend 5% of your GDP on your armed forces, please don't pretend now that we in Europe are responsible for the mess your finances are in now.

But anyway, it seems like we all agree on at leas one thing: The US has to reduce its military budget which will lead to reduced contributions to NATO. This is after all what most of us in Europe have done after the Soviet Union fell, you have every right to do that too. If the Alliance becomes obsolete through that is another thing.

I said it before in this thread and I'll say it again: If the Europeans are so confident they can defend themselves and don't need a US presence, then let's propose a massive closure of bases around the EU. Then let's see how quickly your governments come to us begging on their hands and knees that we keep them open for their sake.

I mean, get real dude. There's a reason they haven't been closed and it has nothing to do with the US.

 

[kallipolis]

I said it before in this thread and I'll say it again: If the Europeans are so confident they can defend themselves and don't need a US presence, then let's propose a massive closure of bases around the EU. Then let's see how quickly your governments come to us begging on their hands and knees that we keep them open for their sake.

I mean, get real dude. There's a reason they haven't been closed and it has nothing to do with the US.

Most of the American bases in Europe are inside Germany, and a left over of the Cold War. They could be reduced in number.

In the rest of Europe, including the United Kingdom the American armed forces share the base facilities of the host country.

As an example here in Greece the United States Air Force, use facilities at a Greek air force station on the island of Crete. The United States Navy uses the facilities of a Greek naval base at Souda Bay, also on Crete.

There are American serviceman serving at various bases throughout the EU, that are the property of the host country.

United States Military personnel in Europe:

• Germany – 53,951[2]
• Souda Bay, Greece - 386[2]
• Italy – 9,855[2]
• United Kingdom – 9,825[2]
• Spain – 1,286[2]
• Norway - 81[2]
• Sweden - 12[2]
• Belgium – 1,328[2]
• Portugal – 826[2]
• Netherlands – 579[2]
• Greece – 363[2]
• Greenland - 126[2]
• France - 55[2]
• Poland - 100
• Turkey – 1,594[2]
• Kosovo - 830[5] See NATO Kosovo Force

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

 

[BostonPirate]

Most of the American bases in Europe are inside Germany, and a left over of the Cold War. They could be reduced in number.

In the rest of Europe, including the United Kingdom the American armed forces share the base facilities of the host country.

As an example here in Greece the United States Air Force, use facilities at a Greek air force station on the island of Crete. The United States Navy uses the facilities of a Greek naval base at Souda Bay, also on Crete.

There are American serviceman serving at various bases throughout the EU, that are the property of the host country.

United States Military personnel in Europe:

• Germany – 53,951[2]
• Souda Bay, Greece - 386[2]
• Italy – 9,855[2]
• United Kingdom – 9,825[2]
• Spain – 1,286[2]
• Norway - 81[2]
• Sweden - 12[2]
• Belgium – 1,328[2]
• Portugal – 826[2]
• Netherlands – 579[2]
• Greece – 363[2]
• Greenland - 126[2]
• France - 55[2]
• Poland - 100
• Turkey – 1,594[2]
• Kosovo - 830[5] See NATO Kosovo Force

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

How about a bit of realism with a consideration of supporting staff....

this is an EXAMPLE of how many people it takes to support the larger ones up there.

read this article. Its worth the longer read.

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/09/all-bases-covered/

India, a rising power, almost had one (but the Tajiks said no). China, which last year became the world’s second largest economy as well as the planet’s leading energy consumer, and is expanding abroad like mad (largely via trade and the power of the purse), still has none. The Russians have a few (in Central Asia where “the great game” is ongoing), as do those former colonial powers Great Britain and France, as do certain NATO countries in Afghanistan. Sooner or later, Japan may even have one.

All of them together – and maybe you’ve already guessed that I’m talking about military bases not on one’s own territory – add up to a relatively modest (if unknown) total. The U.S., on the other hand, has enough bases abroad to sink the world. You almost have the feeling that a single American mega-base like Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan could swallow them all up. It’s so large that a special Air Force “team” has to be assigned to it just to deal with the mail arriving every day, 360,000 pounds of it in November 2010 alone. At the same base, the U.S. has just spent $130 million building “a better gas station for aircraft … [a] new refueling system, which features a pair of 1.1-million gallon tanks and two miles of pipes.” Imagine that: two miles of pipes, thousands of miles from home – and that’s just to scratch the surface of Bagram’s enormity.

this is the american global infrastructure in place right now....

Today, according to the Pentagon’s published figures, the American flag flies over 750 U.S. military sites in foreign nations and U.S. territories abroad. This figure does not include small foreign sites of less 10 acres or those that the U.S. military values at less than $10 million. In some cases, numerous bases of this type may be folded together and counted as a single military installation in a given country. A request for further clarification from the Department of Defense went unanswered.

What we do know is that, on the foreign outposts the U.S. military counts, it controls close to 52,000 buildings, and more than 38,000 pieces of heavy infrastructure like piers, wharves, and gigantic storage tanks, not to mention more than 9,100 “linear structures” like runways, rail lines, and pipelines. Add in more than 6,300 buildings, 3,500 pieces of infrastructure, and 928 linear structures in U.S. territories and you have an impressive total. And yet, it isn’t close to the full story.

and...

In addition to the unknown number of micro-bases that the Pentagon doesn’t even bother to count and Middle Eastern and Afghan bases that fly under the radar, there are even darker areas in the empire of bases: installations belonging to other countries that are used but not acknowledged by the United States or avowed by the host-nation need to be counted, too. For example, it is now well known that U.S. drone aircraft, operating under the auspices of both the CIA and the Air Force and conducting a not-so-secret war in Pakistan, take off from one or more bases in that country.

Additionally, there are other sites like the “covert forward operating base run by the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi,” exposed by Jeremy Scahill in the Nation magazine, and one or more airfields run by employees of the private security contractor Blackwater (now renamed Xe Services). While the Department of Defense’s personnel tally indicates that there are well over a hundred troops deployed in Pakistan, it counts no bases there.

All those projects create jobs. The global american military footprint is massive, and Europe thinks it can go it on its own. Allow the Shift of resources to fighting extremists and piracy, and take the rest home.

re open some fo the closed bases in the country that have been boaarded up since all our soldiers serve abroad.

Does anyone remember a time when you served in the military to get college grants, never expecting to go to war? We had a standing army, at home. It worked that way.

If the cold war is over and they arab spring requires our attention, its time to draw down NATO by all involved parties to a modest level that at least keeps constant diplomatic channels over and bring our men home.

Let Europe be Europe. Lets just take care of americans for a freaking while.

 

[BostonPirate]

so it looks like the Europeans want us gone, the GOP and the democrats seem to agree, and the public is about to pick up pitchforks if they dont create jobs.

Bring the men home and re open our bases.

 

[JB3]

Further to Kalli's post.

The US army has umpteen bases in Germany, 2 shared bases in Bulgaria and 2 shared in Italy.
The US marine corps has 1 in Germany.
The US navy has 1 shared base in Spain, 4 in Italy and 1 in Greece.
The US air force has 4 in Germany, 2 shared in Bulgaria, 3 shared in Italy, 2 shared in Spain, 1 in Turkey and 5 rented bases in the UK

In total, the US has forces around 80,000 stationed across the nations that Kalli listed, 3 of which are not even in NATO, some of which reside at facilities which are not even considered shared because the troop numbers are so small (Sweden, France and Poland). Your only UK base (of 6) which is not rented from the UK government is based in the British Indian Ocean Territory and your only Portuguese base is in the Atlantic (Azores)
You have bases across Germany, a few in Bulgaria, Italy, Spain and UK with 1 each in Turkey and Greece, so that is 7 of 26 European NATO countries, and two of those are ranked in the top 7 militaries in the world, and yet you seem to think European security is rested on US presence?? Which countries then exactly would be begging you to stay??

Are you really so dense as to think that the Europeans would willingly let the US leave?

You're not thinking of it the right way. Most of the bases are placed where they are for strategy; they are in central locations that allow for quick deployment throughout Europe and other areas. I can guarantee you that the former Soviet bloc countries would be begging for us to stay, as would any of the countries where bases are located. Do you understand how much those bases add economically?

Come on man, use your common sense. There's a reason those bases are still there, and it has nothing to do with US imperialism.

 

[JB3]

so it looks like the Europeans want us gone, the GOP and the democrats seem to agree, and the public is about to pick up pitchforks if they dont create jobs.

Bring the men home and re open our bases.

And make sure none of the countries where we currently have bases get a single red cent from the closing process.

 

[Kulindahr]

Interesting back and forth here.

My comment at the moment is that when there has been talk of closing bases in Europe, by far the loudest protests come from Europe -- but not the only ones.

The biggest reason the bases are where they are today is inertia: it's where they were put for Cold War reasons, and especially with economic tentacles into the communities by them, there they stay. There are few good reasons to have such a concentration of bases in Germany, but the local politicians scream any time there's a hint one might be closed, because they're a big boost to the economy, and some politicians in the U.S. scream for obscure reasons.

NATO military staff should sit down, no politicians present and decide which US bases in Germany make sense any more, and whittle the number down to at most six. It would probably make sense to have some in Romania -- but they shouldn't be U.S. bases, they should be joint NATO bases .


In conjunction with this, all the cheating members who aren't meeting their treaty agreements should be sanctioned and required to shape up. Maybe their governments can be taken to court -- in the U.S., treaties are law, and if a treaty says you have an obligation, it's at least theoretically possible to sue the government to make it meet its obligation.

 

[JayHawk]

On the other hand there was an article in the newspapers recently that China is fast developing really scary anti-naval rockets that could even sink an aircraft carrier relatively cheaply. You cannot sink a land base but you can sink these destroyers. Who would stop China from selling these weapons to Iran for example? Or to North Korea, to let them challenge the US Navy in the Chinese Sea?

The weapon is a ballistic missile that has extremely sketchy guidance. That aside we have learned to kill ballistic weapons. That is a what ship do with SBM's launch intercontinetally. Same principle applies to a MANEUVERABLE target that they are trying to hit.

Not a threat. Just another ridiculous expenditure by China. The warhawks are using it and the next generation stealth fighter to raise the alarm bells and push more military development and cash towards the defense of SE Asia and all of our treaties in that region that demand we defend so many. We had already defeated that "carrier Killer" before it IOC'ed (Initial Operational Capability). That and the fifth generation fighter is a copy and rarely do their copies execute the way ours are designed to perform. Regardless the drums will be sounded to send money to fighters.

I dont mind the money going to the development. Honestly 25% of our military spending is for hardware... the rest of the 75% is people. (Housing, healthcare, bases, barracks, commissary, exchanges, educational programs, recruiting) ... SO the military spending will drop significantly as we withdrawal from all fronts and shrink the forces again. That and if anything our exploits over the last 15 years have proven if you dont have the best equipment then it does not matter how many people you have. You will be defeated.

Please dont think I am minimizing China. they are on a track to go global instead of regional. They are making huge strides in that direction. They will find that operating a aircraft carrier is much more difficult than it looks as the Soviets found out.

So bottom line for me is either your on top or your the first loser. So we must keep our edge.

That doesnt change what I have previously posted although this was fairly off topic it was a response and I still maintain if you sign an agreement to do X Y and Z then you should honor it or dissolve that agreement and design another. NATO is broke. Lamenting about what it used to do will not fix it.

 

[bankside]

Interesting back and forth here.

My comment at the moment is that when there has been talk of closing bases in Europe, by far the loudest protests come from Europe -- but not the only ones.

The biggest reason the bases are where they are today is inertia: it's where they were put for Cold War reasons, and especially with economic tentacles into the communities by them, there they stay. There are few good reasons to have such a concentration of bases in Germany, but the local politicians scream any time there's a hint one might be closed, because they're a big boost to the economy, and some politicians in the U.S. scream for obscure reasons.

NATO military staff should sit down, no politicians present and decide which US bases in Germany make sense any more, and whittle the number down to at most six. It would probably make sense to have some in Romania -- but they shouldn't be U.S. bases, they should be joint NATO bases .


In conjunction with this, all the cheating members who aren't meeting their treaty agreements should be sanctioned and required to shape up. Maybe their governments can be taken to court -- in the U.S., treaties are law, and if a treaty says you have an obligation, it's at least theoretically possible to sue the government to make it meet its obligation.

Kulindahr, I agree with the broad lines of your plan.

Unfortunately the law suit idea is probably off the table due to the concept of sovereign immunity.

Incidentally, while those countries should live up to their military expenditure commitments, UN dues should also not be allowed to fall into arrears. Defence is a necessity, but militarism need not be favoured at the expense of diplomacy.