Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?

[CountDeMoney]

Defense spending in Europe has atrophied, I think.

Stunning analysis there.   

[Berkut]

Well the US gets bases in Germany which is useful for projecting power in places like the Middle East and North Africa, that is a tangible benefit to the US.

BUt the US did not spend trillions on NATO forces in order to get some bases in Germany. We can get bases in Germany (or wherever) simply by negotating deals for them directly, like we do all over the world that is not NATO.

What I mean is that I think NATO should operate as a braod strcuture for facilitating military and intelligence contacts and some general strategising and that there should be a general defence alliance - Article V. 

I think in that case the US is foolish to participate in the manner that it does. Europe does not need our help to defend themselves. At this point they *want* our help, simply because it saves them money. Individual European nations need help from someone, but not from us, and hey, look! There is this incredibly wealthy set of countries with much more direct shared defensive concerns with them they can get that help from.

[Slargos]

Defense spending in Europe has atrophied, I think.

Stunning analysis there.   

Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly. What I meant was that it has deteriorated to the point where rebuilding it is going to be difficult at best.

[Sheilbh]

We aren't talking about minnows though. We are talking about the EU carrying its own weight. It does not. A few particular countries do, but as a whole, they do not.

But the EU doesn't have a military.  Of the 28 NATO members a majority are smaller than Pennsylvania, economically they'll come off even worse.  Yet they've each got a military with their own fighter planes to defend their territory and all the rest.  Because of that aspect of NATO it actually provides sort-of reverse economies of scale.

[Slargos]

We aren't talking about minnows though. We are talking about the EU carrying its own weight. It does not. A few particular countries do, but as a whole, they do not.

But the EU doesn't have a military.  Of the 28 NATO members a majority are smaller than Pennsylvania, economically they'll come off even worse.  Yet they've each got a military with their own fighter planes to defend their territory and all the rest.  Because of that aspect of NATO it actually provides sort-of reverse economies of scale.

Without a common command and procurement infrastructure, the synergy effect of a "European" army is obviously not going to be very big.

[Sheilbh]

BUt the US did not spend trillions on NATO forces in order to get some bases in Germany. We can get bases in Germany (or wherever) simply by negotating deals for them directly, like we do all over the world that is not NATO.

What are you meaning by the trillions?  What's the spending that's not been useful.

I think in that case the US is foolish to participate in the manner that it does. Europe does not need our help to defend themselves. At this point they *want* our help, simply because it saves them money. Individual European nations need help from someone, but not from us, and hey, look! There is this incredibly wealthy set of countries with much more direct shared defensive concerns with them they can get that help from.

I think the US and UK especially are foolish for trying to turn a large, ungainly defensive alliance into a nimble alliance that's able to intervene in a wide range of situations.  On the other hand I also think there's value in that defensive alliances structures and the rest being place when some NATO members decide to intervene.

[CountDeMoney]

I think the US and UK especially are foolish for trying to turn a large, ungainly defensive alliance into a nimble alliance that's able to intervene in a wide range of situations.  On the other hand I also think there's value in that defensive alliances structures and the rest being place when some NATO members decide to intervene.

In this day and age, collective security requires an expeditionary posture.

[Sheilbh]

In this day and age, collective security requires an expeditionary posture.

I disagree in NATO terms.  I don't really thing any of NATO's interventions - or the West's - have significantly increased our security.  Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Libya haven't done that.  I think Afghanistan probably has but that was a defensive war and is NATO's longest operation and probably it's most supported.  I think the intelligence sharing and infrastructure that runs alongside NATO has probably done more for our collective security than any of those wars - with the exception of Afghanistan.

Aside from that probably the most useful things for collective security have been things like the drone attacks and cyber-attacks on Iran's nuclear program.  And I believe NATO's actually been pretty helpful on the whole 'cyber-war' thing because of the experience in the Baltic states.

[Slargos]

I think the US and UK especially are foolish for trying to turn a large, ungainly defensive alliance into a nimble alliance that's able to intervene in a wide range of situations.  On the other hand I also think there's value in that defensive alliances structures and the rest being place when some NATO members decide to intervene.

In this day and age, collective security requires an expeditionary posture.

If by "expeditionary" you mean large scale deployment of MOABs against population centers in the Arab world, then I am in complete agreement.

[Jacob]

I don't disagree with any of this, except to note that unlike the situation during the Cold War, Europe does not need the US to protect them from the USSR.

...

That is what I mean by the US should scrap the alliance, if in fact the position of the NATO countries is that it only exists to cover its original mandate, and anything more is someone elses problem. If that is the case, the US should most certainly get out. Europe does not need us for that - they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, and us staying in simply means that we are doing it for them for no benefit.

There's certainly nothing wrong with a radical reassessment of NATO, what it's for and whether it's worth it for the US and if not what it should do. Personally, I think it would be a real shame for all involved if it came down to "you're being a bunch of cheap skates, screw you we're going home." There's enough shared history and goodwill and enough shared interests that NATO ought to be reassessed and wound down in a way that doesn't jeopardize those.

Hell, with the creation of the EU largely driven as a means of allowing the European nations to compete with the US economically, it seems downright asinine for the US to spend our resources defending Europe, which appears to just allow Europe the ability to better compete with the US, since they can spend so little on defense knowing the US is carrying the load.

I don't think the creation of the EU was driven as a means to compete with the US economically, like at all.

If a complete cost-benefit analysis suggests that it's not worth it maintaining an alliance to defend Europe then that's one thing, but to predicate it on "because the EU is set up to compete against the US" seems way off.

[Iormlund]

In this day and age, collective security requires an expeditionary posture.

I disagree in NATO terms.  I don't really thing any of NATO's interventions - or the West's - have significantly increased our security.  Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Libya haven't done that.  I think Afghanistan probably has but that was a defensive war and is NATO's longest operation and probably it's most supported.  I think the intelligence sharing and infrastructure that runs alongside NATO has probably done more for our collective security than any of those wars - with the exception of Afghanistan.

To be fair the only successful part of Afghanistan had been completed long before NATO showed up.

[Jacob]

It's not like for the past 60 years the US *wanted* to spend trillions of dollars parking tanks and planes and men in Germany. But they did so because it was worth it despite the cost.

To be fair, though, the US did benefit a fair bit from being the leader of the Free World. Yes, you spent a lot of money to maintain that position and lots of non-Americans benefitted from it, but America did pretty well out of it for a while - business was good, people went along with what you wanted in global politics and so on.

That's not to say that it may not be worth it anymore.

[Camerus]

Can't the US significantly curtail its defence spending and involvement in missions without leaving NATO wholesale?  Seems a bit like a false dichotomy, and one that wouldn't make strategic sense.

How so?

Political and strategic benefits of maintaining NATO for the US (albeit with significantly reduced US military spending and reduced involvement in things like Libya) > benefits of cancelling / withdrawing from the alliance willy-nilly.

[Jacob]

Political and strategic benefits of maintaining NATO for the US (albeit with significantly reduced US military spending and reduced involvement in things like Libya) > benefits of cancelling / withdrawing from the alliance willy-nilly.

Yeah. I mean, if the scenario that Berkut paints is accurate, that the Euros don't really want the US there and the US feels like it's wasting money on European defense, it should be possible to cut that down substantially without too many hurt feelings.

Why not keep the integrated command structure, procurement, intelligence processing and training bits in place. So if at some point in the future it becomes necessary (for defence or expeditionary purposes) to work closely together it's possible to do so without too many hiccups.

I don't see what the downside of doing that is.

If it makes sense to cut expenses from having forces stationed overseas and expensive programs that are more about Europe than the US, fair enough, but I don't see the need to throw everything associated with NATO out.

I mean, if the US decides that acting as a guarantor of Europe is too expensive to be worth it even that is not enough to entirely trash NATO in my opinion.

The strategic and diplomatic benefits of keeping NATO around in one shape or other is still worth it for all involved parties, even if there's a complete restructuring of goals and disposition (and attendant costs).

[Berkut]

It's not like for the past 60 years the US *wanted* to spend trillions of dollars parking tanks and planes and men in Germany. But they did so because it was worth it despite the cost.

To be fair, though, the US did benefit a fair bit from being the leader of the Free World. Yes, you spent a lot of money to maintain that position and lots of non-Americans benefitted from it, but America did pretty well out of it for a while - business was good, people went along with what you wanted in global politics and so on.

That's not to say that it may not be worth it anymore.

Hey, I do not argue at all that it has not been worth it historically.