What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe, I think it's at least fair to say Obama was dragged kicking and screaming by NATO allies in to the Libyan intervention, just as a more clear cut example. I think it's a little naive to just assume our European allies lack levers to try and compel action, certainly they can't force us to do anything, but nor can we force them. But we likewise have levers, I mean several Euro countries have been ramping up defense spending at least in part because of urging from the US.

Kossovo/Serbia fits in there too.  Though I disagree with your claim about no real military threat to the Baltics.

[viper37]

I would argue in the modern era, with no Cold War, no serious military threat to NATO member states from Russia--and to be frank, no I don't think the threat to the Baltics is significant, and the threat to non-NATO members like Georgia/Ukraine/Moldova is outside NATO's mandate--NATO's primary function is operating as a tool for Western military intervention. That's how it was used in Afghanistan and how it's been used in interventions in North Africa and the Levant in recent years. I'll note that after the attacks in Paris, Francois Hollande publicly called on the United States to increase its efforts against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. That was a concerning moment for me, because you had a NATO member who hasn't hit the agreed upon 2% GDP defense spending in some time whining to the United States to commit itself more to a military intervention against a country not attacking another NATO member, when the U.S. was already significantly more involved than France itself was.

Yes, it was concerting, if you look at it this way.
If you look at it from another point of view though, the US did fuck up really bad in Iraq.  They destabilized an entire region to create anarchy and chaos and were never able or never willing to transform Iraq into a stable, functionning democracy.  In fact, the US administration had no plans for post-invasion, aside prayers, I guess.  It was obvious in the first 6 months after the invasion, there was basically no government, no coordination to establish any kind of civilian authority there.  Only after the resistance started to increase did the US tried to rush some kind of civilian authority there and coordinate rebuilding operations.

From this point of view, ISIS developped from the chaos inherent to a badly managed invasion by the US.  Without an invasion, it is doubtful that ISIS could have survived long enough under a Saddam like regime to mount an army and destabilize both Syria and Iraq.  This is the French point of view.

Also, there is the fact that the US took the lead in Afghanistan, asked for NATO's help after 9/11, the French and the other Euro-wheenies did make some effort to send troops over there, but it quickly  became abandonned by the US when the eye of Sauron turned itself toward Iraq.  Although 20 000 Air force soldiers stayed there (yes, the biggest number of troops were american), the vast majority of the intelligence network shifted elsewhere, and relations between NATO soldiers and the local populace was really strained due to repeated mistakes by the US soldiers due to insufficiant training in calling airstrikes as soon as they were shot at.  Not even counting the fact that fighting on the same battlefield as US soldiers puts you under risk or receiving US bombs just as much as dying from an ennemy bullet.

[Zanza]

I'll comment on Otto's post from a German perspective. I guess each country is special in its outlook.

I do think there are questions about whether Europe has traditionally actually maintained military capacity to defend themselves let alone other member states of the alliance. For pretty much all of its history NATO has basically been either the promise that America would fall on its sword (i.e. use its nuclear arsenal) in a battle with the Soviet Union

Between the 1960s and early 1990s at least Germany had a fairly capable conventional force and spent a much higher percentage of its GDP on defense than now. Of course Germany never had nuclear weapons of its own despite being a nuclear-capable state, but that was due to political limitations - domestic and foreign - not due to lack of investment. Germany of course promised to downsize its military in the peace treaty with between US, UK, France, USSR and the two German states in 1990 and it did downsize a lot. Call it peace dividend.

or as a vehicle for military interventionism (which is fine I guess, but obviously not the original intent of NATO.)

Germany has never been convinced of NATO as a vehicle of military interventionism. This is visible in its abstention in the UNSC vote on the Libya intervention and not participating in that war either. We are much more comfortable with NATO being just a defensive alliance and a vehicle for military cooperation between Western nations.

At the end of the day I don't mind, and in fact support, the West working together on things like Libya and Syria, but I also think given this more interventionist mandate for NATO, other NATO countries need to develop force projection of their own because I certainly don't want NATO to just be a vehicle for a country that spends 1% of GDP on its military to pressure my country into bombing a third country that hasn't attacked one of our allies. Basically if the West is going to do military interventions, I think we all need roughly the same skin in the game, the Cold War realities are gone now, and if anything Europe has significantly greater interest in issues like the Syrian conflict than the United States, but is devoting fewer resources to resolving it.

I don't think that there is any kind of political consensus within the West that NATO does indeed have such an interventionist mandate and with that comes the lack of political will to build a power projection capability. I would argue that while all countries can agree on the smallest common denominator, namely mutual defense, there is very little to suggest that the NATO members interest align on any other military activity. The Eastern Europeans are mainly interested in defense against Russia, most Europeans and probably Canadians are mostly interested in defense, but might tag along in some international interventions occassionally, whereas the US, France and UK are traditionally much more interested and active in international interventions.

[viper37]

I think looking at it just in terms of money isn't really ideal though, I see the necessity for the % of GDP goal, but like I said, it's really more important that NATO members other than the United States develop a capacity to project force. If they don't, or won't, I think the U.S. is right to be skeptical of projecting force on behalf of NATO.

It's kinda ridiculous to imagine a country of 5 million people to project force the same way a nation of 300 million can.  An aircraft carrier battle group costs the same, wether it be for Belgium or for the US or for the UK.

And it's pure sillyness to replicate everything everyone does.  A super power like the US can and must afford to have a very strong airforce, a very strong navy and a very strong infantry.

Other countries could specialize in one specific type of warfare, or for support missions.  Finland could specialize in light infantry, Canada could specialize in anti-submarine warfare, Belgium could provide hospital ships, stuff like that.  I'd much rather like some kind of system like this than have everyone bring their own aircraft carrier to the fight.  Anyway, it's not like it would be that useful to have 50 carrier group to defend against Russia.  Smaller countries would need to sacrifice other part of their military budget to be able to project force.  Maybe Belgium could afford an aircraft carrier, but they'd need to fly older jets instead of the F-35, or they'd need to let go of any mechanized infrantry dream.  Not that useful.

I agree that most countries should spend more on their military, including Canada, but projecting force is not what I envision for Canada's role in NATO.

[Admiral Yi]

Germany of course promised to downsize its military in the peace treaty with between US, UK, France, USSR and the two German states in 1990 and it did downsize a lot.

What do you mean by "promised?"  It suggests to me that Germany didn't really want to disarm but did it to make others happy.

[Zanza]

Germany of course promised to downsize its military in the peace treaty with between US, UK, France, USSR and the two German states in 1990 and it did downsize a lot.

What do you mean by "promised?"  It suggests to me that Germany didn't really want to disarm but did it to make others happy.

Germany wanted to disarm, but some of the other countries wanted that too. The other Western European countries were rather squeamish about German reunification and putting an upper limit to Germany's armed forces into the peace treaty was a way to lessen their concerns. The Soviet Union didn't really like the fact that its buffer zone in East Germany was now NATO territory. But of course there was also a powerful domestic German agenda, especially regarding disbanding East German units.

[celedhring]

Other countries could specialize in one specific type of warfare, or for support missions.

Spain does that a bit... our Navy is oversized when compared to the state of the other arms (which have laughable readiness levels), and it was commissioned in the late 90s and 2000s with NATO missions in mind. We can put out a quite decent task force out there (of course nothing compared to what the US can do).

[CountDeMoney]

Germany of course promised to downsize its military in the peace treaty with between US, UK, France, USSR and the two German states in 1990 and it did downsize a lot.

What do you mean by "promised?"  It suggests to me that Germany didn't really want to disarm but did it to make others happy.

It was part of the deal:  the Soviets agreed to allow the new Germany to become a member of NATO in exchange for caps on Zee German War Machine.  New treaties were signed and everything.  Punch was served.

[dps]

West Virginia Newspaper Slams Trump

Donald Trump squashed Hillary Clinton like a bug in West Virginia, 69% to 26%. The only state where his margin was bigger was Wyoming. That was then, this is now:

Thing is, there's a substantial number of his supporters who would cut their own throats than benefit from something That Nigger passed or allow That Cunt to have continued his policies.  I suspect there won't be much of a drop-off of support in WV at all in the long run.

Appalachian Regional Commission?

The Gazette's a liberal paper;  without looking it up, I'd be shocked if they didn't endorse Hillary in the general election and wouldn't be terribly surprised if they had endorsed Bernie in the primaries.  Given the size of Republican victories in the state last fall, I don't think the Gazette can credibly claim to speak for the state, certainly not for those WV voters who supported Trump.

[CountDeMoney]

Like I said, those knuckle dragging mouthbreathers will be more than happy to get pneumoconiosis for libertyness and freedomtude.  Fuck 'em.

[jimmy olsen]

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump  1h

What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?


Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump  2h

Just heard Fake News CNN is doing polls again despite the fact that their election polls were a WAY OFF disaster. Much higher ratings at Fox

CNN's polls were only off 2%. Which is normal.

[Admiral Yi]

Pretty sure Donald doesn't post on Languish Timmy.

[Jacob]

Pretty sure Donald doesn't post on Languish Timmy.

Even Ed is more coherent than Trump.

[alfred russel]

Pretty sure Donald doesn't post on Languish Timmy.

Even Ed is more coherent than Trump.

I imagine that if Trump posted on languish during the runup to the election, he would have bombarded us with posts rife with misspellings about how he was destined to win. Intelligent analysis would be absent from all of his many many posts. Basically, he would have been just like Tim, except that Tim of course was convinced Trump was doomed to lose.

Trump, like Tim, would have been completely insufferable, but in the end, at least he would have been right about the winner of the election. And because of that, he would have been an improvement.

[Admiral Yi]

Harsh fucking toke dude.