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

[grumbler]

It is not irrelevant. Governments need to sell foreign ops to their electorates, and with the Taliban toppled and Afghanistan back to a complete mess there is just no way to do that. What was once an expedition to build a wonderful paradise of women's rights is now a waste of men and money to prop yet another warlord.

And the problem with NATO is that this discussion really cannot be had at the ministers level (i.e. the "when is enough enough?" discussion).  That's why I am thinking NATO has outlived its usefulness.

[Iormlund]

That kinda defeats the purpose of collective security don't you think?

What has collective security got to do with this?

Is it or isn't it ridiculous to say you are defending someone that needs no defense?

NATO is a collective security organization.  The whole idea is that countries that aren't likely to be invaded (like say the US), help support and protect those that do have a chance of being invaded (like say Germany in the Cold War), thus deterring a potential aggressor.  Saying that you don't need to spend money on the military because the enemy probably won't get that far undermines the whole process and displays a great deal of irresponsibility.

So, in essence, you concede that the US is not defending any of the countries it is bitching about, which was my whole point.

I'm all for collective security, by the way. But that has nothing to do with sending men to overseas deployments.

[Iormlund]

And the problem with NATO is that this discussion really cannot be had at the ministers level (i.e. the "when is enough enough?" discussion).  That's why I am thinking NATO has outlived its usefulness.

I agree.

It is wise to keep common standards and train together. But we don't need a formal alliance for that.

[Berkut]

It is not irrelevant. Governments need to sell foreign ops to their electorates, and with the Taliban toppled and Afghanistan back to a complete mess there is just no way to do that. What was once an expedition to build a wonderful paradise of women's rights is now a waste of men and money to prop yet another warlord.

And the problem with NATO is that this discussion really cannot be had at the ministers level (i.e. the "when is enough enough?" discussion).  That's why I am thinking NATO has outlived its usefulness.

Oddly enough, when I posted this thread I would have disagreed with you. Since the overwhelming response of the Euroes seems to be that they don't feel there is even a problem, I am shifting around to agreeing with you.

[Razgovory]

That kinda defeats the purpose of collective security don't you think?

What has collective security got to do with this?

Is it or isn't it ridiculous to say you are defending someone that needs no defense?

NATO is a collective security organization.  The whole idea is that countries that aren't likely to be invaded (like say the US), help support and protect those that do have a chance of being invaded (like say Germany in the Cold War), thus deterring a potential aggressor.  Saying that you don't need to spend money on the military because the enemy probably won't get that far undermines the whole process and displays a great deal of irresponsibility.

So, in essence, you concede that the US is not defending any of the countries it is bitching about, which was my whole point.

I'm all for collective security, by the way. But that has nothing to do with sending men to overseas deployments.

Er, those countries also have responsibilities to other countries in the alliance countries don't they?  We all protect each other and we all contribute.  For a country like Germany to say, "We aren't in immediate danger, why should we contribute?" is abusive to the relationship.  During the Cold War the US was never in any danger of being directly invaded, yet the US did contribute heavily to the defense of Europe.  Now the frontier has moved east, and Russia is on the rise again.  We ask that Western Europe contribute to the alliance such as when we contributed to the Alliance when we weren't immediate danger.

[Iormlund]

Raz, why do you keep bringing defensive obligations to the argument?

Germany, to put forth your very own example, does not like to send troops to remote actions that have nothing to do with defense - which is what Gates is bitching about. Yet they still have a crapload of modern panzers, fighters or subs. What do you think would help most a neighboring NATO ally in case of Russian invasion?

[Martinus]

Raz, why do you keep bringing defensive obligations to the argument?

Germany, to put forth your very own example, does not like to send troops to remote actions that have nothing to do with defense - which is what Gates is bitching about. Yet they still have a crapload of modern panzers, fighters or subs. What do you think would help most a neighboring NATO ally in case of Russian invasion?

Precisely. Gates (and Americans here) seem to equate the ability to send troops to Afghanistan or Libya with an ability to defend the NATO countries against an external invasion (i.e. NATO's purpose). It's apples and oranges.

[grumbler]

So, in essence, you concede that the US is not defending any of the countries it is bitching about, which was my whole point.

  So, one man's opinion becomes "the US" "bitching about" some countries?

I'm all for collective security, by the way. But that has nothing to do with sending men to overseas deployments.

Kinda ironic, given that almost any US participation in collective security would involve "overseas deployments."

I do understand your point, though; Spain's interests would not seem to be served by many overseas expeditions beyond those against pirates and the like.

[grumbler]

Precisely. Gates (and Americans here) seem to equate the ability to send troops to Afghanistan or Libya with an ability to defend the NATO countries against an external invasion (i.e. NATO's purpose). It's apples and oranges.

And since the defense against external threats is meaningless any more, NATO has served its purpose and should be folded, if that was its sole purpose.  I don't see why you (and Euros here) don't see this.

[dps]

Raz, why do you keep bringing defensive obligations to the argument?

Germany, to put forth your very own example, does not like to send troops to remote actions that have nothing to do with defense - which is what Gates is bitching about. Yet they still have a crapload of modern panzers, fighters or subs. What do you think would help most a neighboring NATO ally in case of Russian invasion?

Precisely. Gates (and Americans here) seem to equate the ability to send troops to Afghanistan or Libya with an ability to defend the NATO countries against an external invasion (i.e. NATO's purpose). It's apples and oranges.

If you don't have the fuel and munitions needed to support a handful of planes blowing up Khaddifi's shit, you sure don't have the fuel and munitions that would be needed to support the large number of planes that would be needed to blow up Russia's shit, should it ever come to that.

[Iormlund]

So, in essence, you concede that the US is not defending any of the countries it is bitching about, which was my whole point.

  So, one man's opinion becomes "the US" "bitching about" some countries?

This is hardly the first time this topic has come up. And every time it does the reaction of US posters is pretty much the same (Damned Yuro freeloaders!). It's only natural to detect a pattern.

[Iormlund]

If you don't have the fuel and munitions needed to support a handful of planes blowing up Khaddifi's shit, you sure don't have the fuel and munitions that would be needed to support the large number of planes that would be needed to blow up Russia's shit, should it ever come to that.

I think it is a safe bet to say someone would notice a Russian military buildup big enough to threaten the continent in time to get the munition stocks up.
If no one else, the bomb manufacturers ceratinly would.

[Razgovory]

Raz, why do you keep bringing defensive obligations to the argument?

Germany, to put forth your very own example, does not like to send troops to remote actions that have nothing to do with defense - which is what Gates is bitching about. Yet they still have a crapload of modern panzers, fighters or subs. What do you think would help most a neighboring NATO ally in case of Russian invasion?

Cause it's a alliance.  Defensive obligations are sort of the reason for alliances.

I imagine fuel and munitions  would be important to the defense of a country.  Since European states are bumming these off the US, that raises questions of the ability of any arm of defense.


From what I understand, this oversees adventure was pushed not by the US but by a leader of a European country.  However, our European friends seem incapable of doing it themselves, so they are essentially using the US as their military.

[Razgovory]

If you don't have the fuel and munitions needed to support a handful of planes blowing up Khaddifi's shit, you sure don't have the fuel and munitions that would be needed to support the large number of planes that would be needed to blow up Russia's shit, should it ever come to that.

I think it is a safe bet to say someone would notice a Russian military buildup big enough to threaten the continent in time to get the munition stocks up.
If no one else, the bomb manufacturers ceratinly would.

Yeah, that worked so well the last time.

[Ancient Demon]

I think it is a safe bet to say someone would notice a Russian military buildup big enough to threaten the continent in time to get the munition stocks up.
If no one else, the bomb manufacturers ceratinly would.

The Russians don't need to "threaten the continent", they can easily threaten some peripheral NATO countries without a vast noticable buildup.