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

[Jacob]

A few thoughts:

1 - I'm happy that both of the countries I have attachments to - Denmark and Canada - are contributing in a way that puts them in the "okay, not everyone's riding for free" group. That fits with what I think should be done, as a citizen of one and a permanent resident of another of those countries.

2 - I think Gates is pretty much on the money in calling for NATO members to upgrade their capabilities at least to the point where they can contribute more than just words.

3 - Disbanding NATO? Even from a purely US centred view I'd think that is a bad idea, even if the other members fail to improve their contributions. I expect there are benefits for the US - economic, logistical, diplomatic etc - in maintaining the alliance and it wouldn't be a good idea to throw those away in a fit of pique. By all means reevaluate how NATO functions, what it does and how much money the US puts into it, but there's enough of a shared history and enough commonality in geopolitical goals (in spite of the incessant bickering) that maintaining NATO is still in the interest of the US. But still re-evaluating the organization and approaching it in the way that reflects the current world as it is rather than how it was fifty or even twenty five years ago seems worthwhile (and probably inevitable).

[Razgovory]

The responses (so far) are basically translatable into:

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight anymore".

I'm not sure if the US should ditch NATO, but I'm open to the idea.  I think we need to take long hard look at the alliance.  I'm not sure exactly how the Euros would react.  Would it weaken our Special Relationship with the Brits?  Would Western Europe gravitate toward Russia?  I doubt Eastern Europe would, and even if the US left NATO I imagine Eastern European states would want to keep strong military ties to the US.  What about Turkey?  An important regional player in a very strategic spot with lots of nasty neighbors, their relationship with the US has become strained.  If the US left Nato how would they react?  Having Turkey develop a military relationship with Iran or Syria or even Russia would not be a positive development.

[DGuller]

I think the moral hazard is going to be there whether NATO lives or not.  Does anyone really believe that US would stand aside if Western Europe were in danger again?  At the very least, another Lend-Lease would be a given.

[11B4V]

europeans 

[MadImmortalMan]

I think the moral hazard is going to be there whether NATO lives or not.  Does anyone really believe that US would stand aside if Western Europe were in danger again?  At the very least, another Lend-Lease would be a given.

No question that's true. There's nothing stopping the US from re-balancing the force commitment expectations though. That shit is expensive.

[Zoupa]

As long as we're willing to pick up the slack why should they spend money on defense that could be spent on bread and circuses?

Really, Max? Bread and circuses? That's where the other NATO nations are spending their shrinking budget? And what's this we thing? Aren't you Canadian?

[Zoupa]

I'm not sure what kind of international troops would be on the ground in Afghanistan today if the US hadn't been in NATO on 9/11.

Plus you'd be patrolling the gulf of Aden etc without NATO's help. What kind of commitment would you have gotten from the UK, Poland etc regarding Irak if the US hadn't been part of the same alliance?

[Sahib]

It is horrible that we live in an era where european countries prefer to spend their money on CAP payments to the Duke of Westminster, subsidizing commercial aircraft production, and distributing structural funds to the Neapolitan mafia, rather than than basic national security

Fixed

What did you fix by creating a ridiculous hyperbole?

[MadImmortalMan]

As long as we're willing to pick up the slack why should they spend money on defense that could be spent on bread and circuses?

Really, Max? Bread and circuses? That's where the other NATO nations are spending their shrinking budget? And what's this we thing? Aren't you Canadian?

Actually they're spending it on debt service obligations. 

[Scipio]

It is horrible that we live in an era where european countries prefer to spend their money on schools, social assistance, and health care rather than bombs and tanks.

I will be happy only when the military and the schools have to hold bake sales to make payroll.

[Valmy]

I will be happy only when the military and the schools have to hold bake sales to make payroll.

[Maximus]

Really, Max? Bread and circuses? That's where the other NATO nations are spending their shrinking budget? And what's this we thing? Aren't you Canadian?

Nothing wrong with bread and circuses. Both are very nice things to have, wouldn't mind some myself. I have an idea. Since we're paying for their defence, why don't they pay for our social welfare programs.

[alfred russel]

Exactly. That is the point. Why should the US continue to participate in NATO if the rest of NATO is not interested in participating beyond their demand for a say in how the military paid for by the US is used?

Why should a country that cannot even contribute when they actually politically support the mission because they can't be bothered to support what little military they do have get a voice in how NATO as a whole is used?

Maybe they shouldn't actively support bombing in Libya because it is an incredibly bad idea? It seems unfair to criticize countries for not militarily participating after giving nominal political support when they were requested by us (and other co-belligerants) to give that nominal political support in the first place.

[Berkut]

Exactly. That is the point. Why should the US continue to participate in NATO if the rest of NATO is not interested in participating beyond their demand for a say in how the military paid for by the US is used?

Why should a country that cannot even contribute when they actually politically support the mission because they can't be bothered to support what little military they do have get a voice in how NATO as a whole is used?

Maybe they shouldn't actively support bombing in Libya because it is an incredibly bad idea? It seems unfair to criticize countries for not militarily participating after giving nominal political support when they were requested by us (and other co-belligerants) to give that nominal political support in the first place.

Read the article.

[alfred russel]

Exactly. That is the point. Why should the US continue to participate in NATO if the rest of NATO is not interested in participating beyond their demand for a say in how the military paid for by the US is used?

Why should a country that cannot even contribute when they actually politically support the mission because they can't be bothered to support what little military they do have get a voice in how NATO as a whole is used?

Maybe they shouldn't actively support bombing in Libya because it is an incredibly bad idea? It seems unfair to criticize countries for not militarily participating after giving nominal political support when they were requested by us (and other co-belligerants) to give that nominal political support in the first place.

Read the article.

I read the article. Unimpressed. There have been many similar articles about how the Russian military is in total disrepair as well. Since they provide the only real offensive threat to NATO (unless you want to count rouge missiles from Iran), I don't care. I expect that if the Russians rolled into Poland through Belarus that plenty of Europeans through NATO would find a way to put up a spirited resistence on the front lines.

I don't care if NATO countries want to maintain militaries capable of bombing Yemen and Libya or invading Iraq or nation building in Afghanistan or whatever military adventure seems like fun at the moment. There isn't political will in much of Europe to do those things anyway.