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

[The Minsky Moment]

HEY GI JOE, ME LUV YOU LONG TIME.

When you think about what must have been involved for the Vietnamese Communist Party to make what amounts to an official appeal to the US for aid, it says a hell of a lot about their likely assessment of the potential threat from China. 

[Ed Anger]

Everybody comes back to big daddy.

[Warspite]

Over the weekend, the Vietnamese foreign minister invited international intervention (including US) into the South China Sea disputes.  From a cold strategic perspective, it is likely that US attention is going to be oriented more toward the Pacific in the years to come.  Another priority is going to be the Indian Ocean and the axis of instability from the Horn of Africa through southern and eastern Arabia, Af-Paki-stan, and the central Asian republics.  At the same time resources are constrained so in order to enhance presence in one area, presence in other areas will have to be degraded.  It is obvious the Europe and the Med will have to one of those areas.  Libya is a trial run for the new reality: US interests there are zilch other than that the spice should flow.  The expectation was that this is in a European area of responsibility and is modest enough a problem that significant US support should not be necessary, but although UK & France have taken the lead and been effective, the operation has revealed the very serious shortcomings of resourcing and coordination.

From a lot of perspectives, I don't think busting up NATO makes a lot of sense, but as a gambit for Gates to get the attention of the politicians I get it.  The US can't be as involved in the European/Med area as it used to and either the European nations have to figure out a way to pick up the slack or start tolerating even higher levels of regional instability.  Popular opinion may oppose big military establishments and overseas adventures, but it also doesn't particularly care for being swamped by refugees.

For me, Gates's speech (which I welcomed) is just the latest play in the decades-old argument over burden sharing. He's right. One hopes it will give the UK and France some more political capital to spend at home securing defence budgets. I don't have much expectation that it will shift the Belgiums of Europe, however.

I think the biggest outcome so far of the Libyan intervention has actually been to kill even the fiction of "European defence". Now, it is unambiguously a Franco-British project. Perhaps a reshaped German military might provide a more significant contribution to out-of-area operations once it has completed its transition to a professional military, but I doubt it.

Given that this reorientation of US attention to the Pacific is most likely set to continue, then NATO serves a useful purpose in that it keeps, ticking over, a basic level of military interaction between the US and a number of potentially willing European partners. It's not quite as grand a project as the Soviets Out and Germans Down, but neverthless could offer a profitable outcome for a modest outlay.

[Ed Anger]

The Bracken briefing came a day after a top British military officer admitted that the bombing campaign was straining British resources.

"If we do it for longer than six months, then we have to reprioritize our forces," Admiral Mark Stanhope said Monday.

"That does not mean we won't be doing it," he added.

lolz.

[jamesww]

HEY GI JOE, ME LUV YOU LONG TIME.

When you think about what must have been involved for the Vietnamese Communist Party to make what amounts to an official appeal to the US for aid, it says a hell of a lot about their likely assessment of the potential threat from China.

They knew all about that by 1979.

[Jacob]

It is obvious the Europe and the Med will have to one of those areas.  Libya is a trial run for the new reality: US interests there are zilch other than that the spice should flow.

What would you say are the US' main interests in the Pacific, and how are they different from their interests in Europe?

I've seen it repeated fairly regularly that the US' attention ought to shift and is shifting away from Europe and towards the Pacific, but I don't recall too much about why that's the case. I mean, there's a lot that boils down to "keeping China from getting too uppity", but that's a means to an end, not an end in itself right?

[The Brain]

Dominoes.

[garbon]

Given that this reorientation of US attention to the Pacific is most likely set to continue, then NATO serves a useful purpose in that it keeps, ticking over, a basic level of military interaction between the US and a number of potentially willing European partners. It's not quite as grand a project as the Soviets Out and Germans Down, but neverthless could offer a profitable outcome for a modest outlay.

What role can Europe play in the pacific?

[Razgovory]

It is obvious the Europe and the Med will have to one of those areas.  Libya is a trial run for the new reality: US interests there are zilch other than that the spice should flow.

What would you say are the US' main interests in the Pacific, and how are they different from their interests in Europe?

I've seen it repeated fairly regularly that the US' attention ought to shift and is shifting away from Europe and towards the Pacific, but I don't recall too much about why that's the case. I mean, there's a lot that boils down to "keeping China from getting too uppity", but that's a means to an end, not an end in itself right?

US wants to maintain the status quo in the Pacific.  In particular it wants to keep the trade lanes open, maintain favorable trade agreements, and prevent an arms race.  The issue of China is somewhat tricky as the US hasn't fully decided what to do.  It seems to be going about trying to include China into the world system but at the same time align the surrounding powers into something resembling containment.

[Razgovory]

Given that this reorientation of US attention to the Pacific is most likely set to continue, then NATO serves a useful purpose in that it keeps, ticking over, a basic level of military interaction between the US and a number of potentially willing European partners. It's not quite as grand a project as the Soviets Out and Germans Down, but neverthless could offer a profitable outcome for a modest outlay.

What role can Europe play in the pacific?

They can lose Dien Bien Phu again.

[Zoupa]

Given that this reorientation of US attention to the Pacific is most likely set to continue, then NATO serves a useful purpose in that it keeps, ticking over, a basic level of military interaction between the US and a number of potentially willing European partners. It's not quite as grand a project as the Soviets Out and Germans Down, but neverthless could offer a profitable outcome for a modest outlay.

What role can Europe play in the pacific?

They can lose Dien Bien Phu again.

I'm sorry what?

[grumbler]

I'm sorry what?

He was just noting that the main effect of the many trees lining Paris boulevards is to allow the German Army to march in the shade.

[The Brain]

[Valmy]

He was just noting that the main effect of the many trees lining Paris boulevards is to allow the German Army to march in the shade.

Good because these days if the German Army discovers they have to march in the sun their government will pull them out.

[Zoupa]

I'm sorry what?

He was just noting that the main effect of the many trees lining Paris boulevards is to allow the German Army to march in the shade.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know, are we doing the "I'm posting totally unrelated pictures I think might rile up the poster I'm replying to"?

I'm hesitating between the dude jumping from the WTC on sept. 11th or the one where I defecate all over your Babylon 5 discset.