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

[Jacob]

A related question to the Americans here:

How does this sort of reciprocal thinking apply to other places where you have alliances? I mean, the US are pretty much guarantors of Korean, Taiwanese and Israeli defence for example. Those countries are, I imagine, spending proportionally more on their own militaries than Europe is but does that significantly reduce American costs for her commitment? Are the benefits the US gains from acting thusly disproportionately higher than those it gains from being a guarantor of European defence?

Or does this sort of thinking apply there too, that it may not be worth it anyhow, and the sentiment is trending towards isolationism?

[Admiral Yi]

Political and strategic benefits of maintaining NATO for the US (albeit with significantly reduced US military spending and reduced involvement in things like Libya) > benefits of cancelling / withdrawing from the alliance willy-nilly.

When I asked my question originally I was hoping you would elaborate said benefits.

[Jacob]

Hey, I do not argue at all that it has not been worth it historically.

Okay cool

How about this scenario then:

It seems that the sentiment is that there is that the threat to Europe has receded significantly.

Couldn't the pulling out of American resources be done more along the lines of "well, it looks like things are pretty chill here, so we'll take our crew and go home or maybe go hang out in Asia where there may be trouble brewing. We're still best pals and if the shit hits the fan, we'll be back, of course, but it'll probably take longer now than if we kept our guys here. But that shouldn't be a problem, because we agree that things look pretty chill, right?"

Pull out the resources, save a bunch of money but maintain the alliance. While you agree to help Europe in case someone attacks it, nothing says you'll have to be able to solve the problem immediately. Maybe, just like WWII you'll have to spend some time arming up and getting your shit together before you show up, but that's okay because we don't expect WWII (or III) to happen in this neighbourhood for the next little while.

You get to save your money, you still get the same amount of help with various interventions (not too great in military terms, but political and logistical support is still useful) and Europe and the US can still remain really good friends.

That, to me, seems much better for both parties than a "screw you, you're not pulling your weight so we're going home" American withdrawal from NATO. I mean, personally I'd prefer it if other NATO members pulled their socks up a bit, but that doesn't seem like it will happen in the foreseeable future.

[CountDeMoney]

A related question to the Americans here:

How does this sort of reciprocal thinking apply to other places where you have alliances? I mean, the US are pretty much guarantors of Korean, Taiwanese and Israeli defence for example. Those countries are, I imagine, spending proportionally more on their own militaries than Europe is but does that significantly reduce American costs for her commitment? Are the benefits the US gains from acting thusly disproportionately higher than those it gains from being a guarantor of European defence?

Or does this sort of thinking apply there too, that it may not be worth it anyhow, and the sentiment is trending towards isolationism?

We do not have alliances like we have with NATO.  Korea and Taiwan are bilateral defense agreements, and we don't have shit on paper with Israel.

And I would argue that the parameters driving Korean and Taiwanese defense expeditures are directly in relation to a still-active state of war and 50 years of direct threats to sovereignty respectively.

[Admiral Yi]

Couldn't the pulling out of American resources be done more along the lines of "well, it looks like things are pretty chill here, so we'll take our crew and go home or maybe go hang out in Asia where there may be trouble brewing. We're still best pals and if the shit hits the fan...

...we might come and help out or we might not, depending on what mood we're in.

[Jacob]

When I asked my question originally I was hoping you would elaborate said benefits.

Here are a few things that make sense to me:

• Being in a formal alliance reduces the chance of long term drift into strategic rivalry.
• Maintaining a common command structure framework, procurement standards and so on makes co-operative operations of various sorts easier to pull off in the future.
• It's a good forum for coralling political and diplomatic support.
• While the US military is obviously the most advanced, NATO allows the US to maintain contacts with and influence several of the closest runners up.
• Sharing tech and intel is much easier, I expect, within an alliance structure than outside of it. Once in a while, Europeans do develop things you might want to have a look at and I'm pretty sure that European intel comes in handy once in a while.

[Jacob]

...we might come and help out or we might not, depending on what mood we're in.

What do you lose by saying you *will* come help, if the risk of needing to is low?

[Admiral Yi]

What do you lose by saying you *will* come help, if the risk of needing to is low?

Free riders.

[CountDeMoney]

How about this scenario then:

It seems that the sentiment is that there is that the threat to Europe has receded significantly.

Couldn't the pulling out of American resources be done more along the lines of "well, it looks like things are pretty chill here, so we'll take our crew and go home or maybe go hang out in Asia where there may be trouble brewing. We're still best pals and if the shit hits the fan, we'll be back, of course, but it'll probably take longer now than if we kept our guys here. But that shouldn't be a problem, because we agree that things look pretty chill, right?"

Pull out the resources, save a bunch of money but maintain the alliance. While you agree to help Europe in case someone attacks it, nothing says you'll have to be able to solve the problem immediately. Maybe, just like WWII you'll have to spend some time arming up and getting your shit together before you show up, but that's okay because we don't expect WWII (or III) to happen in this neighbourhood for the next little while.

You get to save your money, you still get the same amount of help with various interventions (not too great in military terms, but political and logistical support is still useful) and Europe and the US can still remain really good friends.

That, to me, seems much better for both parties than a "screw you, you're not pulling your weight so we're going home" American withdrawal from NATO. I mean, personally I'd prefer it if other NATO members pulled their socks up a bit, but that doesn't seem like it will happen in the foreseeable future.

Because the political theme since the end of the Cold War has been proactive collective security predicated upon humanitarian concerns, and that there is a political premium placed on using military muscle to supplement and enforce humanitarian efforts.  That is what the liberal western democracies want to accomplish with this alliance;  it's in alignment with their overall political aims, as well as that of the United Nations.  That's the new hotness.

With rare exception, Euros that have wanted to talk the talk, but simply have not been able to walk the walk.

[Jacob]

And I would argue that the parameters driving Korean and Taiwanese defense expeditures are directly in relation to a still-active state of war and 50 years of direct threats to sovereignty respectively.

Fair enough.

But since it seems that there's no still-active state of war or direct threat to European sovereignty, can't the US just scale back the costs and level of preparedness for the European theatre without pulling out of the alliance?

I mean, can't we still be best pals even if we don't think we might get in a scrap every night?

[Admiral Yi]

FYI Jake, the US does not have a formal defense treaty with Taiwan, and is most definitely not the guarantor of Israel.

[Jacob]

Free riders.

But what does that matter if it's not costing you any extra cash (since what's being proposed is that you scale back spending money on European defence, because it seems there's not much of a threat)?

If you're not there much physically, by the time a credible threat materializes the Euros will start spending money on their own defence and thus they won't be free riding anymore.

[Jacob]

FYI Jake, the US does not have a formal defense treaty with Taiwan, and is most definitely not the guarantor of Israel.

Ah okay. Though functionally, you pretty much are their guarantors, no?

... I gotta go drink beer and eat meat cooked over an open fire. Hopefully this discussion continues to develop

[CountDeMoney]

But since it seems that there's no still-active state of war or direct threat to European sovereignty, can't the US just scale back the costs and level of preparedness for the European theatre without pulling out of the alliance?

I mean, can't we still be best pals even if we don't think we might get in a scrap every night?

I don't see why not.  The argument could be made that the nuclear deterrents possessed by the UK and France in essence eliminates the need for a conventional presence in Europe.

But NATO is more than a nuclear umbrella.  And it does more than "protect against teh Russia".  It provides anti-terrorism support along the periphery of the alliance.  It conducts anti-piracy actions in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia.  It projects conventional power beyond Europe to ensure European security.  All these missions and capabilities are still in line with the explicit mission statement of NATO "on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law."

Unfortunately, it has a split record on stopping genocide in Europe without outright American assistance.  Bosnia was and should be a fucking embarrassment to all of Europe.

[Admiral Yi]

But what does that matter if it's not costing you any extra cash (since what's being proposed is that you scale back spending money on European defence, because it seems there's not much of a threat)?

If you're not there much physically, by the time a credible threat materializes the Euros will start spending money on their own defence and thus they won't be free riding anymore.

Well, if you can just assume away that when a threat materializes that the Yuros start arming like mad men, then you could assume the same about the US without the need for any guarantees.

The thing about standing forces pre-committed to a unified command is that a) they act as a deterrent, and b) the amount of assistance each member of the organization provides doesn't have to be negotiated at the state level and debated through the domestic political system after a crisis has emerged.  Let's say in 20 years time everyone's army has been reduced to a palace guard (Belgium will have a 50,000 strong marching band of people waiting for their pensions to kick in).  Then Putin's son sends his troops into Estonia in hot pursuit of Estonian terrorists.  How many troops are each NATO member supposed to contribute?  As much as their national self interest tells them to.  In other words exactly the same amount they would supply without a treaty obligation.