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

[Ancient Demon]

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?

Germany would use their large military forces to defend their own territory, but it's dubious that much of that would be made available to defend another NATO country if Germany itself wasn't threatened.

[Iormlund]

Germany would use their large military forces to defend their own territory, but it's dubious that much of that would be made available to defend another NATO country if Germany itself wasn't threatened.

What makes you come to that conclusion? And why wouldn't Germany feel threatened if Russia swallows its Eastern neighbors?

[Admiral Yi]

Hasn't Germany drastically reduced its military since the end of the Cold War?  I recall some articles posted here about divisions being disbanded right and left.  And isn't the conscription period down to like 9 months?

[alfred russel]

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.

All the americans? 

[Ed Anger]

Hasn't Germany drastically reduced its military since the end of the Cold War?  I recall some articles posted here about divisions being disbanded right and left.  And isn't the conscription period down to like 9 months?

Last time I looked the Heer was down to 100,000 men or so.

[Ed Anger]

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.

All the americans? 

Your disloyalty has been noted.

[Iormlund]

All the americans? 

[The Brain]

Germany handed in its man card in 45 and has yet to get it back.

[Zanza]

Hasn't Germany drastically reduced its military since the end of the Cold War?  I recall some articles posted here about divisions being disbanded right and left.  And isn't the conscription period down to like 9 months?

At the end of the Cold War, the reunified Germany had about half a million men under arms. Which was far more than allowed under the reunification treaty.

At the moment the German military has about 220,000 soldiers, but something like half of that are in support, not combat roles.

Conscription was suspended and now they can't find enough volunteers to fill the ranks.

In the next few years, the military will be downsized to something like 180,000 men. The army will be downsized from eleven to eight brigades. As far as equipment goes, we'll have less Leopard II tanks than Switzerland soon. 

[Iormlund]

Yeah, but Switzerland has all those plains to defend.

[CountDeMoney]

And what exactly are you defending us from?

You're more than welcome to deal with Russia by yourself.  That would be fun to watch.

I very much doubt Russia could get anywhere near the Pyrenees. And certainly never beyond those. Our only vulnerable enclaves are in Africa, and those are specifically excluded from NATO.

Stop playing so much Europa Universalis.  There's more to geopolitics than how many hexes tanks can cover, Timmaylund.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

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.
....
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.

To wit:

Only five of the 28 NATO allies meet NATO's recommendation that countries should spend at least 2% of GDP on defence: America, Britain, France, Greece and Albania.

[CountDeMoney]

There was no "direct attack on a NATO member country",

NATO said otherwise.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't know about Germans, but it certainly true in Spain, especially since Ceuta, Melilla and the rest of our African possessions are excluded from the Treaty so we can't expect help where we're actually vulnerable.

Like the subway?

[Sheilbh]

I haven't read the rest of the comments but isn't this more that the US and others (including the UK) have transformed NATO's purpose.  It was a defensive alliance and that element remains; it's still the core of the Atlantic alliance and I don't think any NATO member state would let any other suffer an attack.  But in an attempt to make NATO relevant in a world where that sort of attack is simply implausible we've seen it become an offensive alliance in Kosovo and in Libya despite the fact that it's not what it's designed for, it's not what all member states want it to be and it's not necessarily performing missions that have strong alliance support. 

It seems striking that the Afghan war, which is the one which most resembles a defensive war, is also the mission that probably has widest NATO support and has had commitment from most NATO members for the best part of a decade.

I'm not sure if it's the commitment to but the purpose of NATO that needs re-evaluation.  Having said that I do think a defensive alliance across the Atlantic's generally a very good thing and it's good to have a forum for military-military contacts and cooperation and an established command structure.  What will probably happen, and this may be a good thing, is that structure becomes sort-of portable with each mission that NATO states choose to participate in rather than NATO as a whole always engaging.

Also there's the problem of having however many militaries.  I remember reading that even within the NATO command structure each military is fundamentally worried about their political leadership back home and even under a joint commander can't necessarily perform integrated operations very well.  So I think General Rupert Smith mentions in 'The Utility of Force' that though he had three brigades under his command in Bosnia they were from three countries; he couldn't perform the sort of missions that required a division for that reason, only ones that needed only a brigade.

Personally I wonder if we've just been doing too much.  I mean the UK's military has been in some form of conflict or other for the best part of the last two decades.  I'm not sure if that's healthy, if all of those conflicts were necessary, useful or right