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

[Strix]

The responses (so far) are basically translatable into:

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight anymore".

[Valmy]

The responses (so far) are basically translatable into:

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight anymore".

And really why should they?  They are not facing any danger anymore.  It is a hard sell to the Euro voter.

[Berkut]

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO except its lapdog the UK - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight any more".

FYP

Fair enough - but I think that speaks to Gates point as well. NATO is an attempt at a "one size fits all" military organization, but the reality is that it is really just a few countries actually willing to contribute meaningfully - so perhaps that US should replace (for example) their commitment to NATO with a commitment to a smaller set of like minded powers that are actually willing to put in the work, rather than just put in the words.

NATO made sense when its primary goal was protecting Europe from the USSR. You are less concerned about the "free rider" problem when you need to defend the entire continent anyway.

Now that NATO has morphed into a poltical/military alliance of presumably like minded nations who potentially engage in missions well beyond the scope of simply protecting Europe from the Russian hordes, what is the benefit to the US of giving a voice to countries that refuse to carry any of the burden?

[crazy canuck]

NATO has been searching for a raison d'etre for a while now.  The main reason it still exists is the political and trade ties among the member nations.  The military rationale for its continued existence is hard to identify.

I think Brazen is correct about future conflicts involving loose groupings of coalition partners.  That is effectively what we had and have in Afghanistan since not all treaty partners participated and among those that did only some of those put their troops in harms way.

Same thing with Libya. 

[Brazen]

Aside from armed conflicts, the European members of NATO are rather dependant on the US for leading the missile defence shield against what we shall euphemistically dub current and emerging threats.

[Ed Anger]

Also, I'm still annoyed about the Black Watch being amalgamated.

[Valmy]

Also, I'm still annoyed about the Black Watch being amalgamated.

Holy shit WHAT?!  That is it Britain out of NATO!

[Strix]

The responses (so far) are basically translatable into:

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight anymore".

And really why should they?  They are not facing any danger anymore.  It is a hard sell to the Euro voter.

Actually I agree. This is a prime time for the US to remove itself from NATO. Though, I wonder how easily the Europeans would let us go.

[Ed Anger]

Also, I'm still annoyed about the Black Watch being amalgamated.

Holy shit WHAT?! 

The fuckers merged 5 Scot regiments into one. Royal Highland regiment my ass.

[Razgovory]

"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half  have participated, and fewer than a third have been willing to  participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those  allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to  participate, but simply because they can't. The military capabilities  simply aren't there."

What is he referring to here?  I thought the Germans abstained in the UN vote.


Anyway, this isn't really something new.  American military and political leaders have long complained about the commitment of our NATO allies.  Even during the Cold War.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is horrible that we live in an era where european countries prefer to spend their money on CAP payments to the Duke of Westminster, subsidizing commercial aircraft production, and distributing structural funds to the Neapolitan mafia, rather than than basic national security

Fixed

[Berkut]

The responses (so far) are basically translatable into:

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight anymore".

And really why should they?  They are not facing any danger anymore.  It is a hard sell to the Euro voter.

No question, it is a hard sell. It is a hard sell made harder by the fact that the US has been willing to do all the heavy lifting, hence most countries don't even really understand that they need defense spending - after all, there isn't any threat!

Of course there are plenty of threats. Gates point (and it is one I agree with) is that if these countries do not wish to participate, then that is fine, but they need to make that choice clearly. If they want to be militarily irrelevant, then so be it.

But claiming to have a say while at the same time not being willing to make the sacrifices necessary can no longer work. It worked for a long time, but the US historical attachment to NATO is no longer relevant in the manner it was, and I think going forward that US politicians are not going to be willing to tolerate it as much. Certainly US voters are not - we have plenty of the same economic problems, and cutting defense spending is going to become a very big political issue over the next decade, I suspect.

[MadImmortalMan]

NATO is a welfare program.

[Berkut]

It is horrible that we live in an era where european countries prefer to spend their money on CAP payments to the Duke of Westminster, subsidizing commercial aircraft production, and distributing structural funds to the Neapolitan mafia, rather than than basic national security

Fixed

You are a good man to have on the right side MM.

[Valmy]

Certainly US voters are not - we have plenty of the same economic problems, and cutting defense spending is going to become a very big political issue over the next decade, I suspect.

God I hope so.  So many of our international commitments are Cold War relics and so many of our strategic and defense programs are as well.  I hope for big reforms both of our foreign policy and military structures to cut costs and focus on the needs of the 21st century not the 20th.