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

[Iormlund]

I have an idea. Since we're paying for their defence, why don't they pay for our social welfare programs.

And what exactly are you defending us from?

[Razgovory]

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?

Are films and farms still subsidized in Europe?

[alfred russel]

I have an idea. Since we're paying for their defence, why don't they pay for our social welfare programs.

And what exactly are you defending us from?

We can't answer that without tipping off the very serious threats that we are on to them. Just pay us the money.

[alfred russel]

What did you fix by creating a ridiculous hyperbole?

The mistaken notion that spending on defense is ipso facto wasteful or less desirable than other forms of government spending.

I see 3 problems with your post:

1) Spending on the military is going to disproportionately fall outside of the country versus other waste such as agricultural subsidies. Maybe agricultural subisides aren't economically ideal, but at least you are putting money back into your economy. Paying soldiers in Germany doesn't have that effect.

2) At least most subsidies produce a product that has some use. I can fly on airbus. I can eat european food. I get use out of those things. Hans making speeches to the Freedom Foundation, not so much.

3) Having an overly large military promotes war. We wouldn't be bombing people in Libya if we didn't have a military that could do so effectively without the risk of more than a handful of casualties. I doubt we would have invaded Iraq if we didn't have a military that could cover that, plus Afghanistan, plus our other commitments around the world.

[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.

On the other hand, comparing US % of military spending to that of other Euro nations could be a bit misleading, given the US' extensive involvement in east Asia (which is beyond the scope of NATO) and a certain questionable, self-initiated US military adventure of the past decade...

[Ed Anger]

I have an idea. Since we're paying for their defence, why don't they pay for our social welfare programs.

And what exactly are you defending us from?

Your inner, baser desires. You know without big poppa pump watching you people, you'll start killing yourselves. Your Welcome.

[alfred russel]

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.

On the other hand, comparing US % of military spending to that of other Euro nations could be a bit misleading, given the US' extensive involvement in east Asia (which is beyond the scope of NATO) and a certain questionable, self-initiated US military adventure of the past decade...

Keep in mind that if the US spent as much as the euros on defense, it should still be much more effective. That is because it could capture savings from having only 1 military, as opposed to however many european countries there are.

[dps]

I think the US should evaluate is its overall military budget and the number of conflicts we are engaged in (I think a good target at the moment would be 0).

I don't think that there's ever been a moment when that wasn't a good target.

Plenty of moments when it wasn't a reachable target, though.

[Admiral Yi]

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?

[grumbler]

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.

Agree, but NATO is a bureaucracy and a decision-making process as well as a set of letters.  NATO exists because any bilateral military relationship between a country and the US is going to be weighed heavily in the favor of the US, so a multilateral organization was created to at least give the Euros and Canucks, jointly, a seat at the table equal to that of the US.  If the other folks don't have the muscle to deserve the seat, then maybe the organization entitling them to that seat no longer serves a purpose.

OTOH, NATO does provide a lot of good PR, so maybe downgrading it from a decision-making body like the Security Council  to a talking society like the General Assembly, but still keeping it at a much lower cost, would be the right approach.  I have nothing against the existence of the alliance, just against the extra costs of having alliance obligations/standardization/infrastructure which no longer serve a purpose.

If we use the General Assembly model, we can even bring in the Russians.

[Razgovory]

If we use the General Assembly model, we can even bring in the Russians.

We can't let the Russians in, they'll see the big board!

[CountDeMoney]

As long as there is a Russia, there will be a need for our commitment to NATO.  Even if it's a NATO-lite, with just us and the Brits.

[grumbler]

If we use the General Assembly model, we can even bring in the Russians.

We can't let the Russians in, they'll see the big board!

I know someone would jump on that opportunity! 

[starbright]

He is just another flavor of freedom-fries politician.

Even if NATO serves no purpose as a military organization it is still useful as a political alliance. Europe is a potential superpower, unlike, let's say South America. I say people think in absolutes. Without a frequent reminder that we are supposed to be friends little complaints will turn into long term resentments and unlike South Americans, Europeans CAN actually do something about it.

And he is not admitting that Europe helps US achieve things it cares about more than money. Bases in Europe protect them from a nonexistant threat, but support current US deployments. If the missile defense system is ever fully deployed it seems to do a lot more to protect American mainland than Europe.

If Congress decides to withdraw from NATO the wise thing to do is let it end with a whimper. Even powerless and without US support NATO is still useful.

[Zoupa]

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.

You're not making any sense.