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

[grumbler]

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

Indeed.  Why fight third-worlders in Afghanistan when one can do so in Detroit or Arizona?

[Sheilbh]

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

That may be but the Turks were very ambivalent about it from the start, similarly the Germans abstained at the UNSC on the subject.  They all support it to enable their allies to go ahead, using the NATO command structure, but that's not necessarily the same as actually supporting it.

[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.

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 don't disagree with any of this, except to note that unlike the situation during the Cold War, Europe does not need the US to protect them from the USSR.

So while I can appreciate a country like Denmark wanting the US as an ally, I am not sure I see what is in it for the US. Denmark can adequately defend themselves from Russia with the assistance of the rest of the EU, who of course is also just as interested in defending against Russia. There was a time when Western Europe required US assistance to defend against the USSR - that is no longer the case.

So now, NATO as a defensive alliance against Russia seems like a pretty bad deal for the US.

Lets say at the height of the Cold War, it required 100 units of "stuff" to defend against the USSRs 100 units of stuff. Western Europe could only manage 50 units, so the US tossed in another 50, and we were all good. This makes sense, since Europe being over-run by the USSR would be bad for the US.

Now it seems like if you insist that NATO only exists for that purpose, to defend Europe against external threats of attack, then there is probably only the need for 50 units of stuff. So the US is still kicking in 40, and Europe is all "Hey, sweet, we only need 10! Cut the budgets!" But since Europe is perfectly capable of providing the needed 50 units on their own, every unit the US kicks in doesn't help US interests at all - it just saves the Euro countries from having to do it themselves. And they should have to do it themselves, right? You can play with those numbers, of course, maybe claim that there is only a need for 25 units, but that just argues even more that they don't need the US.

That is what I mean by the US should scrap the alliance, if in fact the position of the NATO countries is that it only exists to cover its original mandate, and anything more is someone elses problem. If that is the case, the US should most certainly get out. Europe does not need us for that - they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, and us staying in simply means that we are doing it for them for no benefit.

Hell, with the creation of the EU largely driven as a means of allowing the European nations to compete with the US economically, it seems downright asinine for the US to spend our resources defending Europe, which appears to just allow Europe the ability to better compete with the US, since they can spend so little on defense knowing the US is carrying the load.

[Slargos]

Is the purpose of NATO still to defend against Russia, though?

It seems that lately it's more of a platform for aiding consensus among the civilized nations rather than a military alliance. A NATO occupation of Afghanistan looks much better than a US occupation, and while I'm sure you don't mind seeing NATO troops on the ground, I expect you can manage on your own aswell.

[Berkut]

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.".

The thing is, Poland needs someone to help them against Russia, they could not handle them alone.

But why does that someone need to include the US? Poland is part of the EU, and the EU most certainly has vastly more resources than Russia, and hence can easily defend Poland (and the rest of the EU) against Russia without help from a country that most of them don't even like that is several thousand miles away.

Every dime the US spends on NATO (assuming the ONLY purpose of NATO is as described by most EU posters in the thread as a strictly defensive alliance) has zero effect on potential security against Russia. All it does is allow the EU to NOT spend that particular dime.

I think the US should take our dimes and go home. We can setup a different alliance amongst those who care about security beyond strictly European borders, or make ad hoc deals as necessary, or simply go it alone when needed.

This would, of course, result in vastly increased defense budgets amongst EU countries, but that is hardly our concern. It is even a benefit to us, probably.

[Berkut]

Is the purpose of NATO still to defend against Russia, though?

Well, that is clearly the question. I assumed everyone agreed that NATO was about more than that, but apparently that is not the case.

It seems that lately it's more of a platform for aiding consensus among the civilized nations rather than a military alliance. A NATO occupation of Afghanistan looks much better than a US occupation, and while I'm sure you don't mind seeing NATO troops on the ground, I expect you can manage on your own aswell.

Indeed. Problem is, what do you do when said NATO alliance includes a lot of countries who simply cannot contribute, even if they want to, because they lack the capability because they categorically refuse to maintain their militaries at a level where they are capable of actually doing anything? In that case, the US again needs to reconsider - if the point of NATO is to organize Western nations militaries so we can intervene when we wish, then everyone who is a part of NATO needs to kick in some. Obviously the US will always bear the lions share of that burden, but surely countries like Germany can manage to spend a third of the amount as a percent of GDP that the US does? I mean, if they are serious about participating, that is.

[Sheilbh]

That is what I mean by the US should scrap the alliance, if in fact the position of the NATO countries is that it only exists to cover its original mandate, and anything more is someone elses problem. If that is the case, the US should most certainly get out. Europe does not need us for that - they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, and us staying in simply means that we are doing it for them for no benefit.

What do you think the US is putting in and getting no benefit from?  I'm not clear.

My view is that there is an EU-like comparison in that I think for many countries NATO had a purpose which they all agreed on - it's how two member states could fight a war in the 70s wwithout causing too much difficulty for the alliance - and there's since been a gradual addition of new responsibilities and understanding that lots of countries didn't really sign up for and aren't necessarily very keen on.  It's like the EU's move from a single market in the 90s, through monetary union to bailout.  The US is Germany and Germany's Ireland.

Hell, with the creation of the EU largely driven as a means of allowing the European nations to compete with the US economically, it seems downright asinine for the US to spend our resources defending Europe, which appears to just allow Europe the ability to better compete with the US, since they can spend so little on defense knowing the US is carrying the load.

The EU's nothing to do with competing economically with the US - neither in its origins in the 50s or in the creation of the EU in the 90s. 

[Iormlund]

Berkut, you are onto somehitng but missing the mark. Money has nothing to do with it. It's all about political will.

If you combined just 1% of EU members budget and used it to deploy a coherent military force nothing except the US military would compare.

But there's simply no political will to do so.

[Berkut]

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

That may be but the Turks were very ambivalent about it from the start, similarly the Germans abstained at the UNSC on the subject.  They all support it to enable their allies to go ahead, using the NATO command structure, but that's not necessarily the same as actually supporting it.

So at what point does being in an alliance, and enjoying the benefits that being in an alliance brings, ever actually impose upon a country like Germany to actually do something other than what they want to do anyway? Does it ever?

It's not like for the past 60 years the US *wanted* to spend trillions of dollars parking tanks and planes and men in Germany. But they did so because it was worth it despite the cost.

What you are saying is basically that the alliance should only mean something when alliance members decide it is in their direct interest for it to mean something, and when not, oh well - we can just ignore it, or go along to get along, but don't ask the Germans to actually DO anything...gosh no!

And this doesn't even address the fact that some nations DID want to do something, were not ambivalent, and yet still needed to ask for help from the US to handle...Libya? That is just not right.

[Sheilbh]

Indeed. Problem is, what do you do when said NATO alliance includes a lot of countries who simply cannot contribute, even if they want to, because they lack the capability because they categorically refuse to maintain their militaries at a level where they are capable of actually doing anything? In that case, the US again needs to reconsider - if the point of NATO is to organize Western nations militaries so we can intervene when we wish, then everyone who is a part of NATO needs to kick in some. Obviously the US will always bear the lions share of that burden, but surely countries like Germany can manage to spend a third of the amount as a percent of GDP that the US does? I mean, if they are serious about participating, that is.

I don't think the point of NATO is to be able to intervene when we wish.  There are lots of countries in NATO who don't want to intervene in North Africa and the Middle East and in my experience they don't really understand why we want to either.

I think there's always going to be issues with how useful many countries can be in NATO because there are lots of minnows who won't be able to contribute effectively simply because their military may not be able to justify having x capability. 

And I think Germany's a bad example for anyone.  I don't think Americans get this about Germany but she is nothing like America in her attitude to military force and probably won't ever be.  The best that Germany could contribute to NATO, really, is money and post-combat support.

[Berkut]

That is what I mean by the US should scrap the alliance, if in fact the position of the NATO countries is that it only exists to cover its original mandate, and anything more is someone elses problem. If that is the case, the US should most certainly get out. Europe does not need us for that - they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, and us staying in simply means that we are doing it for them for no benefit.

What do you think the US is putting in and getting no benefit from?  I'm not clear.

Defending Europe from external threats - ie the original mission of NATO.

The US gets nothing from doing this today. Historically, without US help, we thought the USSR would crush Western Europe. Now, without US help, there still isn't any nation that can crush the EU, if the EU was forced to spend a reasonable amount on their own defense - which of course they would have to do without US help.

I am saying that if the EU was thrown on their own resources, they are perfectly capable of defending themselves (although of course they would have to spend a lot more on defense than they do now). Hence the US gains nothing from helping them.

My view is that there is an EU-like comparison in that I think for many countries NATO had a purpose which they all agreed on - it's how two member states could fight a war in the 70s wwithout causing too much difficulty for the alliance - and there's since been a gradual addition of new responsibilities and understanding that lots of countries didn't really sign up for and aren't necessarily very keen on.  It's like the EU's move from a single market in the 90s, through monetary union to bailout.  The US is Germany and Germany's Ireland.

I agree. Which is why I think the US should abandon the alliance if the alliance members are not interested in the alliance becoming something more than a strictly "defend Europe from the Soviet...errrhhh Russian, hordes". They don't need us for that, and if that is all they want NATO to be, they can damn well do it themselves.

Hell, with the creation of the EU largely driven as a means of allowing the European nations to compete with the US economically, it seems downright asinine for the US to spend our resources defending Europe, which appears to just allow Europe the ability to better compete with the US, since they can spend so little on defense knowing the US is carrying the load.

The EU's nothing to do with competing economically with the US - neither in its origins in the 50s or in the creation of the EU in the 90s. 

Yeah, right.

[Berkut]

Berkut, you are onto somehitng but missing the mark. Money has nothing to do with it. It's all about political will.

If you combined just 1% of EU members budget and used it to deploy a coherent military force nothing except the US military would compare.

But there's simply no political will to do so.

Of course there isn't - because there doesn't need to be. They don't even have to spend that 1% because the US is spending nearly 5% and guarantees the integrity of the NATO nations.

I completely agree with you. The EU could easily protect themselves without ANY help from the US. Therefore, if the only purpose of NATO is the defense of Europe, then the US should shake everyones hands, wish them all the best, and be on our way. Why in the world would the US share in the expense of defending Europe if Europe can do so without our help? All that means is that the US is spending money of defense so that the EU does not have to.

[Berkut]

I don't think the point of NATO is to be able to intervene when we wish.  There are lots of countries in NATO who don't want to intervene in North Africa and the Middle East and in my experience they don't really understand why we want to either.

OK, then what is the point of NATO?

If your argument is that NATO is strictly a defensive alliance, then the US does in fact need to GTFO ASAP.

I think there's always going to be issues with how useful many countries can be in NATO because there are lots of minnows who won't be able to contribute effectively simply because their military may not be able to justify having x capability. 

We aren't talking about minnows though. We are talking about the EU carrying its own weight. It does not. A few particular countries do, but as a whole, they do not.

And I think Germany's a bad example for anyone.  I don't think Americans get this about Germany but she is nothing like America in her attitude to military force and probably won't ever be.  The best that Germany could contribute to NATO, really, is money and post-combat support.

They don't contribute that either though, not at the levels to make up for their lack of direct support.

[Slargos]

Defense spending in Europe has atrophied, I think.

Swedish spending has officially more or less been unchanged the last decade or so, effectively reduced through inflation. However, AFAIK around 50% of it is just money being bounced around by different departments billing eachother. The Military rents buildings and land from the State at overinflated prices and while it's of course going to be impossible to say for certain I would wager 0.5% is closer to the truth than 1.2%.

Much of the rest is locked up in materiel purchases. The recent switch to a professional army is grinding to a halt because, unexpectedly (  ) it turns out that it was far more expensive than previously calculated.

[Sheilbh]

So at what point does being in an alliance, and enjoying the benefits that being in an alliance brings, ever actually impose upon a country like Germany to actually do something other than what they want to do anyway? Does it ever

It's not like for the past 60 years the US *wanted* to spend trillions of dollars parking tanks and planes and men in Germany. But they did so because it was worth it despite the cost.

Well the US gets bases in Germany which is useful for projecting power in places like the Middle East and North Africa, that is a tangible benefit to the US.  I mean I believe that in the last 10 years alone the US bases in Germany have been very useful in terms of Afghanistan and Iraq.

What you are saying is basically that the alliance should only mean something when alliance members decide it is in their direct interest for it to mean something, and when not, oh well - we can just ignore it, or go along to get along, but don't ask the Germans to actually DO anything...gosh no!

And this doesn't even address the fact that some nations DID want to do something, were not ambivalent, and yet still needed to ask for help from the US to handle...Libya? That is just not right.

I think it's reasonable for countries to only participate in military operations they support and consider in their interests.  I think Libya was a mistake, I don't think the US should have participated.  And I think the countries that really pushed for it, the UK and France, are pretty committed.  The ones who weren't supportive aren't that's fine.

What I mean is that I think NATO should operate as a braod strcuture for facilitating military and intelligence contacts and some general strategising and that there should be a general defence alliance - Article V.  But if NATO countries decide that they want to intervene somewhere unless other members are fiercely opposed - Iraq, for example - then NATO's structures should be put at the disposal of those member states.  So an attack on one is an attack on all, but an attack by one isn't necessarily an attack by all. 

I think expecting anything else from so large an organisation is just implausible - I mean there are disagreements in SEATO and that's only really got the Kiwis and Ozzies in it.  And I think this is only an issue because the meaning of NATO's been confused by interventions like Kosovo and Libya.