US General asks for more troops

[Warspite]

No argument from me Valmy. It is a sad state of affairs though.

But hey - Denmark is a damn small country. When it comes to the military and costs, there is a scaling factor involved - it is likely prohibitively more expensive for a very small nation to contribute boots on the ground.

My disappointment in NATO is not really about Denmark.

If it's about Germany not pulling her weight militarily, then even most Europeans (with a knowledge of defence issues) would agree with you. Hell, I'm the first in line to say the Germans have to ditch their pacifist hangover and start forking out for European expeditionary capability.

Britain, on the other hand, has currently committed the near total majority of her combat formations (those suitable for Afghan ops, that is) to the operation. The figure I heard today is that we only have 1,300 combat troops spare - just about enough to form a battlegroup.

Maybe it is a "sad" state of affairs, but unlike the USA, the EU is made up of 27 different militaries. You may not like it, but there it is. Britain already spends 65 billion on defence - and why should the electorate rationally vote for more, when a) schools and hospitals matter more to them and b) there is a good argument to be made that the UK's terror threat is actually domestic, and so if anyone should get the extra billions it is the intelligence services and police.

The issue is not as clear cut as your dichotomy paints.

EDIT: and to further muddy the water, in the back of all policy-makers heads on this issue is the resort of turning to a containment strategy. That is, building a new Afghanistan is not the only way to serve our own purposes. I'm not saying this is the correct course, but it is an option.

That could be true - although that isn't the argument that I have ever heard made to justify the alck of commitment to the mission.

It's pretty implicit. If states considered the mission that be that important, they would send in more troops and raise spending. Like how states that consider social welfare to be that important have generously funded systems.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut, you blow everyone of when you tell them their effort cannot be compared with the glory of the US

And the measure of force ratios may not be worth much in relation to absolute numbers, but IMHO it is EXACTLY a measure of poltical and national will, if not a measure of anything else

In what respect?

Seems to me its a measure of the fact that the US has extensive global military commitments as compared to its allies.  So that even a high priority theater like Afghanistan is going to struggle to get a high percentage of total US troops.    And berkut has a good point - the US "compensates" for this fact by maintaining a high overall level of military mobilization comapres to its allies.

This whole ratio of in theater to out of theater troop levels seems to me totally irrelevant as a measure of anything.

I agree.  All this finger pointing regarding percentage deployed in Afghanistan is completely off the mark.  If other countries have a higher percentage deployed than the US, that just means that we have far fewer places in which we deploy our troops.  A much more meaningful measure would be percentage deployed in all areas around the world.

The fact is that only a few NATO countries meaningfully participated in Afghanistan and we few who did lacked the manpower, equipment and resources to do the job properly.

I accept Berkut's criticism for what it is.  In the good old days we could rely on the US to keep us safe from the big bad Russians.  But the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war.  The Western world can no longer rely on the US to carry all the defence load.   The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

[Berkut]

I agree.  All this finger pointing regarding percentage deployed in Afghanistan is completely off the mark.  If other countries have a higher percentage deployed than the US, that just means that we have far fewer places in which we deploy our troops.  A much more meaningful measure would be percentage deployed in all areas around the world.

The fact is that only a few NATO countries meaningfully participated in Afghanistan and we few who did lacked the manpower, equipment and resources to do the job properly.

I accept Berkut's criticism for what it is.  In the good old days we could rely on the US to keep us safe from the big bad Russians.  But the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war.  The Western world can no longer rely on the US to carry all the defence load.   The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

[Warspite]

The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

The West and NATO are out of their Cold War thinking.

That is precisely why European defence expenditure - ie, 'hard' capacity - has declined since the end of the Cold War. The US too was doing this, until 9/11.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has undertaken ever-expanding roles for which it was emphatically not used during the Cold War: three interventions (Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia) and two out-of-area missions (Afghanistan, Gulf of Aden).

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

The problem is not that NATO itself is outdated, the problem is that the underlying political bargain that created and sustained NATO is in danger of unravelling. A lot of people, experts among them, simply don't believe that invading states that support terror, and that hard military capacity, is the best way to combat terror. Remember that a number of key European states are battling terror on the inside - in our council estates and run-down neighbourhoods. This is a problem that the US does not have, and so does not have to consider as part of its own anti-terror strategy.

But the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war.

Hmm, personally I consider the "new insecurity" a bit over-hyped, and the product of some questionable rose-tinted assessment of the Cold War.

[Berkut]

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

"Completely and utterly"?

Who are you arguing with?

[Warspite]

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

"Completely and utterly"?

Who are you arguing with?

The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

[crazy canuck]

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

The problem is not that NATO itself is outdated, the problem is that the underlying political bargain that created and sustained NATO is in danger of unravelling. A lot of people, experts among them, simply don't believe that invading states that support terror, and that hard military capacity, is the best way to combat terror. Remember that a number of key European states are battling terror on the inside - in our council estates and run-down neighbourhoods. This is a problem that the US does not have, and so does not have to consider as part of its own anti-terror strategy.

But the world has become, ironically, much more dangerous since the end of the cold war.

Hmm, personally I consider the "new insecurity" a bit over-hyped, and the product of some questionable rose-tinted assessment of the Cold War.

To your first point.  No, I am arguing that NATO must adapt to the new threats better then it has.  Is this even a contentious point?  I thought not until I read the rest of your post which seems to argue that many NATO members do not have the political will to do so which just reinforces Berkuts original criticism doesn't it?

[Berkut]

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

"Completely and utterly"?

Who are you arguing with?

The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.

[crazy canuck]

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

If your point is that NATO should not be expected to adapt to modern threats then what is the point of NATO exactly?

[Warspite]

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

"Completely and utterly"?

Who are you arguing with?

The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.

I'm "going on" about the debate of the purpose of NATO that has been going on for the last twenty years. Of course, since you have never thought about it, it is clearly not an issue.

[Berkut]

I don't think I am going to argue with him on this anymore - if he thinks NATO cannot and should not be anything more than a counter to the USSR (and cannot and should not change its mission either), which in case he hasn't noticed doesn't exist anymore, then he should be arguing that NATO should simply disband entirely, as it has no purpose, and absent a shift in priorities, cannot have any purpose.

This is just the kind of weak argumentation that I mean - a fig leaf cover for not having the honesty to simply admit that NATO doesn't want to be bothered - they lack the will to go and fight a few thousand poorly trained and armed insurgents.

We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".

[Warspite]

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

If your point is that NATO should not be expected to adapt to modern threats then what is the point of NATO exactly?

Because a lot of people in NATO member states think that NATO does not serve a purpose any more.

[Warspite]

I don't think I am going to argue with him on this anymore - if he thinks NATO cannot and should not be anything more than a counter to the USSR (and cannot and should not change its mission either), which in case he hasn't noticed doesn't exist anymore, then he should be arguing that NATO should simply disband entirely, as it has no purpose, and absent a shift in priorities, cannot have any purpose.

This is just the kind of weak argumentation that I mean - a fig leaf cover for not having the honesty to simply admit that NATO doesn't want to be bothered - they lack the will to go and fight a few thousand poorly trained and armed insurgents.

We've gone from "We can't!" to "We don't think it is important!" to "NATO isn't meant for that!".

You wouldn't know the first thing about my views on NATO. 

As for your last sentence, people in the defence sector have been having that exact debate since at least Kosovo. But, since you don't know about that, it didn't happen. So much for your superior argumentation. 

[Berkut]

Basically you are arguing NATO - an alliance of many states with a sixty year history - should completely and utterly align itself towards a set of threats for which it was not designed, and is indeed questionably suited.

"Completely and utterly"?

Who are you arguing with?

The west and NATO is going to have to get out of its cold war thinking and begin to build forces to deal with the modern threat of terrorists and the States that give them aid.

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

I don't need to to reject your claim that it requires some kind of "utter and complete" transformation, or whatever it is you are going on about.

I'm "going on" about the debate of the purpose of NATO that has been going on for the last twenty years. Of course, since you have never thought about it, it is clearly not an issue.

You claimed that CCs was demanding that NATO "utterly and completely" change - in a manner that of course suggests that this was some kind of incredible request. Those are your words.

Of course NATO does not need to do any such thing to create the capability to deal with situations like Afghanistan. The members just have to spend some more money, time, and blood. Bringing the purpose of NATO when it was formed a half century ago into the argument is just a red herring.

[Berkut]

Can you square this with the original NATO concept of collective territorial defence?

If your point is that NATO should not be expected to adapt to modern threats then what is the point of NATO exactly?

Because a lot of people in NATO member states think that NATO does not serve a purpose any more.

So now your argument for why NATO should not invest more into the capability to deal with things like Afghanistan is that NATO should not exist to begin with - rather than that NATO cannot possibly make this "utter and complete" strawman transformation you previously claimed was the problem?

BTW, my point has nothing to do with NATO, except insofar as NATO is a group of countries that roughly matches up with the group of countries I think should be more willing to deal with issues like Afghanistan. I couldn't care less whether countries like Germany start hitting at their weight under the auspices of NATO or not - I was all for the EU military, if it meant a net increase in capability.