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

[alfred russel]

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.

The GDP of Russia is around $2 trillion. The GDP of the EU plus US is around $30 trillion. Do we really need to spend 2% of our GDP to deter the Russians? (yes, I know we have other commitments as well)

[Razgovory]

Don't know.  If we don't we could probably stop them before they get past the Pyrenees.

[CountDeMoney]

Do we really need to spend 2% of our GDP to deter the Russians? (yes, I know we have other commitments as well)

It's a recommendation by the alliance for alliance members that wish to be in the alliance.

It's obvious that there's a fundamental difference of opinion on either side of the Atlantic on what the mission should be.  And who would've thought it wouldn't be the Americans that were stuck in a 1963 Cold War mindset?

Personally, I think we're through with NATO as a viable proactive international entity as well. US/Euro cooperation on collective security should be solely limited to law enforcement, since the Euros can't truly understand the concept of collective security beyond Maginot thinking.

[Slargos]

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.

The GDP of Russia is around $2 trillion. The GDP of the EU plus US is around $30 trillion. Do we really need to spend 2% of our GDP to deter the Russians? (yes, I know we have other commitments as well)

Depends.

I would, while being relatively ignorant on the issue, assume that most of defense spending is in running costs rather than weapons systems. Hence, with cheap labour the cost of fielding an army of Russians may be vastly lower than of Germans or Americans.

[Jacob]

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.

Especially since, I believe, a fair bit of that fuel comes from Russia to begin with.

[Admiral Yi]

Anyone know which countries exactly are running out of bombs?

[Iormlund]

Regarding numbers, Spain used to mask a lot of its weapon procurement programs within the 'Ministry of Science and Technology' budget to downplay (deeply unpopular) military spending.

[grumbler]

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.

So "US posters" has become "the US?"  Okay, if you wanna think that. 

[Iormlund]

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.

So "US posters" has become "the US?"  Okay, if you wanna think that. 

To me, you guys ARE the States.

[Berkut]

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. 

Every single NATO member voted in support of the current intervention in Libya.

[Berkut]

I am a bit nonplussed. I am very surprised the response to this article is "Yeah, the US should totally re-think their commitment to NATO - it doesn't really make sense anymore" from the Euroes.

[Iormlund]

Every single NATO member voted in support of the current intervention in Libya.

I suspect that was more of a 'Ok, we don't mind others bombing the crap out of Ghaddafi' than a 'Sure, let's bomb the crap out of Ghaddafi' deal.

[Jacob]

I am a bit nonplussed. I am very surprised the response to this article is "Yeah, the US should totally re-think their commitment to NATO - it doesn't really make sense anymore" from the Euroes.

I think it varies from European country to European country. I'm pretty sure countries like Denmark and Norway, for example, are still very keen on NATO. Having longer histories of being pushed around by the nearby big countries, they appreciate the advantage of having a far off big country to be friends with. At least that's the classical Danish position as I understand it.

Even if you think that the various recent foreign wars are a waste of time and US Imperialist Adventurism^TM (and I think that's not an uncommon position in Europe whether or not you agree with it), then it still makes sense to me chip in once in a while as long as we're counting on the US in case of things going really wrong.

That's certainly my position from Canada, and the same when I think about it from a Danish perspective. We're counting on the US in case the Russians or anyone else decides to make a bunch of trouble; it's only fair to help them out with their various projects within reason.

To say that "there's no trouble now or in the next ten years, so fuck it" seems short sighted. Let's keep the bonds as strong as feasible.

[The Brain]

America should withdraw from world politics and concentrate on settling the vast interior of the continent.

[Razgovory]

I am a bit nonplussed. I am very surprised the response to this article is "Yeah, the US should totally re-think their commitment to NATO - it doesn't really make sense anymore" from the Euroes.

I think it varies from European country to European country. I'm pretty sure countries like Denmark and Norway, for example, are still very keen on NATO. Having longer histories of being pushed around by the nearby big countries, they appreciate the advantage of having a far off big country to be friends with. At least that's the classical Danish position as I understand it.

Even if you think that the various recent foreign wars are a waste of time and US Imperialist Adventurism^TM (and I think that's not an uncommon position in Europe whether or not you agree with it), then it still makes sense to me chip in once in a while as long as we're counting on the US in case of things going really wrong.

That's certainly my position from Canada, and the same when I think about it from a Danish perspective. We're counting on the US in case the Russians or anyone else decides to make a bunch of trouble; it's only fair to help them out with their various projects within reason.

To say that "there's no trouble now or in the next ten years, so fuck it" seems short sighted. Let's keep the bonds as strong as feasible.

I bet Poland is pretty keen on it (Marty not withstanding).  Though, you know, it might be fun if this time, we took Russia's side.  Make it a game, "What ever you can take in 90 days, you get to keep.  Go nuts.".