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

[Berkut]

Berkut, I read Martinus post as the US not losing much from the Baltics not being able to commit forces to other theaters.

The Baltics aren't even in NATO, are they? Or are they?

I rather doubt that Gates was talking about Lithuania.

As for Afghanistan, I have to disagree completely. It IS a secondary action. It has always been. The US made it clear enough when it shifted most of its weight to Iraq.

I mean secondary to the modern role of NATO. Afghanistan is an action taken in response to a direct attack on a NATO member country, therefore not a secondary action.

Libya is not a direct response to an attack on a NATO nation, hence I see it more as a "Hey, participate if you want, don't if you don't" kind of thing. IE, secondary. NATO can be used as a convenient organizing structure to the Libya action, but that action is not really central to the point of NATO. Does that make sense?

[Martinus]

I don't think there is any real issue with some countries choosing to not participate in a clearly secondary action like Libya.

Where there is a problem is

1. Countries not being interested in participating in non-secondary actions, like Afghanistan, and
2. Countries choosing to participate in actions, then realizing that they cannot at the level or for the duration needed because they simply lack the capability to do so.

NATO is not about Russia anymore. At least it isn't ONLY about Russia.

If the argument is that the only purpose of NATO is to defend from Russia, then I think the US should most certainly get out. The EU should not need our help any longer to defend themselves from Russia.

Which countries are you talking about, then?

For the record, Poland sent troops to Afghanistan, but you have to understand that most NATO members do not and will not have the kind of deployment capabilities the US have.

And in any case, Afghanistan was not even covered by the NATO's casus foederis, so again I am not sure what we are talking about here. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance.

You didn't read the article, did you?

I repeat: which countries are you talking about. The article does not mention any countries as "culprits".

And it goes for inordinate lengths about Libya - which a lot of countries did not commit to militarily simply because they had various deals and interests in Libya.

[Berkut]

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).

I'm just wondering whether, seriously speaking, things were ever different in the past? Did any of the countries that are now free riding really substantially contribute to the alliance during the 20th century? It's not like Germany had a huge army in 1980s that is sent to, say, Falkland War, and only now started to disband it. I'm not sure I understand where the Gates' critique is coming from.

You didn't read the article, did you?

The Falklands War? That wasn't even a NATO action.

I don't see anything in the article answering my question whether in the past the NATO countries that are not willing to commit now were committing significant military resources.

Really?

I think it is pretty much just assumed. Certainly in the past Germany, for example, contributed significant resources to NATO. The had a top notch military force.

[Martinus]

The Baltics aren't even in NATO, are they? Or are they?

Good to know you know what you are talking about, then.

[Jacob]

Who said anything about the EU?

Zoupa did.

All I read is bitching about big NATO countries not pulling their weight. And those are precisely the least threatened by Russia.

I guess. I think that if Russia starts mucking around with Poland, the Baltics and/or the Balkans that's going to be a significant headache for the EU, even the countries that do not share a border with them.

[Martinus]

Really?

I think it is pretty much just assumed. Certainly in the past Germany, for example, contributed significant resources to NATO. The had a top notch military force.

Which, if my memory serves right, was never sent anywhere abroad (except on UN peacekeeping missions) before Afghanistan. I fail to see how what they have been doing since constitutes a significant deterioration of their commitment to NATO missions (read: American military adventures).

[Razgovory]

I'm a bit confused.  Is your argument, "We shouldn't have to spend much on NATO because we aren't on the front lines"?

No, my argument is that it is ridiculous to tell someone they owe you protection money when in fact there's nobody to protect them from.

Would it be less ridicules if you lived next door to Russia?

[Iormlund]

I mean secondary to the modern role of NATO. Afghanistan is an action taken in response to a direct attack on a NATO member country, therefore not a secondary action.

Libya is not a direct response to an attack on a NATO nation, hence I see it more as a "Hey, participate if you want, don't if you don't" kind of thing. IE, secondary. NATO can be used as a convenient organizing structure to the Libya action, but that action is not really central to the point of NATO. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, except the primary objective in Afghanistan was accomplished a long time ago.

[Berkut]

You didn't read the article, did you?

I repeat: which countries are you talking about. The article does not mention any countries as "culprits".

And it goes for inordinate lengths about Libya - which a lot of countries did not commit to militarily simply because they had various deals and interests in Libya.

It uses Libya as an example of an action that NATO member countries should have no trouble supporting, assuming they have the desire to do so.

Yet several countries apparently ahve had to ask the US for munitions and fuel because they have run out. The point of the article is that NATO as a group has largely failed to maintain their militaries at a level necessary to effect even a pretty trivial intervention with needing to ask the US for assistance with meeting their own obligations.

Note that this does not mean they can't go into something like Libya without the US participating, but that the US has to actually help them with their own contributions. IE "Hey, we all agree to go into country A. The US is providing 2 divisions, the UK 1, France 2 brigades, and countries C, D, and E a battalion each"....

....

"Uhhh, yeah...hey US, could you loan us some gas and ammuntion and stuff for our troops? Turns out we kind of forgot to buy any last year..."

The issue Gates is talking about is not so much political will to actually intervene, but that some NATO countries lack the capability to even engage in as minor an intervention as Libya. That is a problem for the alliance.

[Berkut]

I mean secondary to the modern role of NATO. Afghanistan is an action taken in response to a direct attack on a NATO member country, therefore not a secondary action.

Libya is not a direct response to an attack on a NATO nation, hence I see it more as a "Hey, participate if you want, don't if you don't" kind of thing. IE, secondary. NATO can be used as a convenient organizing structure to the Libya action, but that action is not really central to the point of NATO. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, except the primary objective in Afghanistan was accomplished a long time ago.

That is a different debate though. Not an unimportant debate, but not really relevant to the discussion at hand, unless of course the reason some countries are failing to make their commitments is that they are over-involved in Afghanistan. I rather doubt that is the case though.

[Berkut]

Really?

I think it is pretty much just assumed. Certainly in the past Germany, for example, contributed significant resources to NATO. The had a top notch military force.

Which, if my memory serves right, was never sent anywhere abroad (except on UN peacekeeping missions) before Afghanistan. I fail to see how what they have been doing since constitutes a significant deterioration of their commitment to NATO missions (read: American military adventures).

Libya is now an American military adventure? Huh?

You are basically arguing that the US should in fact ditch NATO, since the mission of NATO (defending Europe from Russia) is no longer relevant. I will maek you down in the "This the US should stop spending so much money on NATO" column.

[Martinus]

I mean secondary to the modern role of NATO. Afghanistan is an action taken in response to a direct attack on a NATO member country, therefore not a secondary action.

Oh please. You don't believe it, do you? It was a policing action, a bit like they used to do against Barbary Coast pirates. There was no "direct attack on a NATO member country", there was a terrorist attack which was allegedly orchestrated by a guy living a nice life in the territory of your own ally, Pakistan.

[Berkut]

The Baltics aren't even in NATO, are they? Or are they?

Good to know you know what you are talking about, then.

Now see, that is pretty funny.

This coming from the guy who claimed that the Falklands was a NATO action. Stay classy Marty.

[Razgovory]

Really?

I think it is pretty much just assumed. Certainly in the past Germany, for example, contributed significant resources to NATO. The had a top notch military force.

Which, if my memory serves right, was never sent anywhere abroad (except on UN peacekeeping missions) before Afghanistan. I fail to see how what they have been doing since constitutes a significant deterioration of their commitment to NATO missions (read: American military adventures).

Incorrect.  They participated in the Kosovo war which was a NATO operation.

[Martinus]

Libya is now an American military adventure? Huh?

You are basically arguing that the US should in fact ditch NATO, since the mission of NATO (defending Europe from Russia) is no longer relevant. I will maek you down in the "This the US should stop spending so much money on NATO" column.

Afghanistan was an American military adventure. So was Iraq (although not a NATO event, it was supported by a number of NATO members, such us the UK, Poland, Denmark, Canada).