Time for the US to say goodbye to NATO?

• majorspark

  

  In his final policy speech as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates rips NATO, saying its members penny pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of US support. He warns that US's patience with other member states not pulling their own weight is running out.
  
  I could not agree more. Its about time a high ranking member of the US government voiced our displeasure with the Europussies. I for one am tired of our military equipment, manpower, and dollars going to subsize their social spending.
  
  I for one would not loose any sleep if NATO disbanded. The Europussies have leached off of the US for long enough. They will be the ones loosing sleep trying to figure out how to pay for their social programs and the military to protect themselves.
  
  An excerpt from the article:
  

  Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.
  
  Even so, Gates' assessment Friday that NATO is falling down on its obligations and foisting too much of the hard work on the U.S. was unusually harsh and unvarnished. He said both of NATO's main military operations now -- Afghanistan and Libya -- point up weaknesses and failures within the alliance.
  
  "The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress -- and in the American body politic writ large -- to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.
  
  Without naming names, he blasted allies who are "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."

  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/gates-blasts-nato-questions-future-alliance/
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  This just stirs up the debate form the early 1990s, what is the purpose of NATO?
  Am I in favor of disbanding NATO? No. There is no other organization on earth that can extend force more quickly as a group than NATO. If there is a conflict, there is already a unified command structure to use and deploy force and logistical support.
  
  Now, that said, NATO has problems. The consensus to do anything worked in the Cold War, but not now. There are too many states involved that getting consensus is nearly impossible. So, maybe moving toward a 3/4 or 2/3 voting structure would help ease that problem that Gates largely speaks about.
  
  I fully again with Gates on the Euros giving more to support the cause. But, that said, the Eastern states are huge allies in force and should be exploited even more.
• majorspark

  

  It seemed to me that Gates was calling out the NATO members that possess more resources to defend themselves yet are not pulling their own weight. Those that have the most to loose may feel compelled to contribute more. He did credit the Netherlands and Belgium among others for doing just that. Gates is talking France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Turkey, and to a lesser extent Great Britain.
  
  I think with the Libya operation the nations he was referring to were called to the carpet. They wanted it and expected our military lead and resources. Compelled by treaty but the US limited its involvement in their pet operation. A little taste of their own medicine so to speak.
• Belly35

  

  WTF LJ I created a Thread on Weiner within the hour the story was released and the same for NATO sending you comments and articles for references and you post someone’s Thread
  Why?
  
  LJ runs a tight ship here. Stick to the rules.... Really! What the rule on Post a New Thread? Can you present the criteria that states who Thread get posted and Why ...Tight Ship
• BGFalcons82

  

  We're in Libya doing the dirty work for the countries that refuse to pay for services rendered. Sounds to me like Gates hit the nail on the head. Time for the socialists to pay for their protection or get the hell out of Dodge.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;799905 wrote:We're in Libya doing the dirty work for the countries that refuse to pay for services rendered. Sounds to me like Gates hit the nail on the head. Time for the socialists to pay for their protection or get the hell out of Dodge.

  More accurately it's time for us to tell the Europeans to kiss our ass.
  
  NATO had a clear purpose during the Cold War. Now it's a disjointed organization attempting to redefine its purpose and full of free-loading members whose governments are nearly bankrupt after decades of failed socialist policies.
  
  Meantime the United States - after decades of financing the majority of NATO & anti-American United Nations activities - is also facing the consequences of our insane trillion dollar deficit spending.
  
  I'm not suggesting that getting out of NATO (and the UN for that matter) will cure our economic ills, but it makes no sense to continue spending billions of taxpayer dollars where one would be hard pushed to quantify any clear-cut benefit in it.
  
  We need to withdraw our military presence from Europe including NATO membership and severely scale back our UN "contributions."
  
  I'm not advocating becoming isolationist. It's clear we must be directly involved in world affairs.
  
  But why tie our own hands by being obligated to organizations where its members refuse to pull their own weight and who are not particularly friendly to American interests? We have better things to spend our money on....like our national debt.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  believer;800427 wrote:More accurately it's time for us to tell the Europeans to kiss our ass.
  
  NATO had a clear purpose during the Cold War. Now it's a disjointed organization attempting to redefine its purpose and full of free-loading members whose governments are nearly bankrupt after decades of failed socialist policies.
  
  Meantime the United States - after decades of financing the majority of NATO & anti-American United Nations activities - is also facing the consequences of our insane trillion dollar deficit spending.
  
  I'm not suggesting that getting out of NATO (and the UN for that matter) will cure our economic ills, but it makes no sense to continue spending billions of taxpayer dollars where one would be hard pushed to quantify any clear-cut benefit in it.
  
  We need to withdraw our military presence from Europe including NATO membership and severely scale back our UN "contributions."
  
  I'm not advocating becoming isolationist. It's clear we must be directly involved in world affairs.
  
  But why tie our own hands by being obligated to organizations where its members refuse to pull their own weight and who are not particularly friendly to American interests? We have better things to spend our money on....like our national debt.

  
  I would agree with most of this.
  
  Unless the old European countries start ponying up their share of costs for their own defense, I think it's time to start paring down bases and bringing troops home. Let our role in world defense issues be more like our warfare tactics: keep elite strike forces positioned strategically around the world, and available via subs or warships.
  
  The only place I can see keeping more of a presence would be S. Korea...and I'd hope the S. Koreans would be able and willing to pay for our help in the DMZ if they already aren't doing so.
  
  Bring most troops home from Iraq, and maintain whatever troops are needed near the border of Pakistan in Afghanistan to help there. Otherwise, trim numbers everywhere in the world; close bases where feasible.
  
  Troops that are coming home and still in the service can be used to patrol the Southern border of the US, and assist with things like port security, and any other known weaknesses in our infrastructure and security efforts. The numbers of active military can be reduced significantly over the years as needed via attrition and retirements.
  
  I'm also not advocating isolationism, but probably the next thing to it. We need to turn our focus inward on security issues and the two biggest security threats to the US right now are : the deficit and lack of energy independence.
• stlouiedipalma

  It makes no sense to me for us to be allocating money and manpower around the world when we have pressing matters at home. If we scale back our military presence I think two things could be accomplished. First, we have more money available to either rebuild our failing infrastructure or help pay down the debt. Second, those countries who rely on our money/military will have to fend for themselves for a while. If we work out a future deal with some of these countries it will have to be on our terms, or at least terms which directly favor our interests.
• Footwedge

  The Europeans don't give a s1it about endless wars. They had their countries' mainlands blown to scraps too many times to count....something our country has never experienced. They have seen first hand the futilityof these needless bloodbaths.
  
  Hell, last week 5 GI's were killed in Iraq. I bet nobody on this board even knows that. And if they did....they don't care.
  
  That's right.....Iraq....the place where Barry "pulled out all of our troops". What a fvcking joke the whole thing is.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:The Europeans don't give a s1it about endless wars. They had their countries' mainlands blown to scraps too many times to count....something our country has never experienced. They have seen first hand the futilityof these needless bloodbaths.

  Eh, the 225,000 Americans who died in the Civil War or the 50,000 Americans who died in the Revolutionary War might disagree.
  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:Hell, last week 5 GI's were killed in Iraq. I bet nobody on this board even knows that. And if they did....they don't care.

  STFU I doubt there is even ONE person here who doesn't care. Why would you even post something this inane?
• LJ

  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote: And if they did....they don't care.
  
  .

  Why would you imply something so ridiculous?
• LJ

  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:The Europeans don't give a s1it about endless wars. They had their countries' mainlands blown to scraps too many times to count....something our country has never experienced. They have seen first hand the futilityof these needless bloodbaths.
  

  
  I bet the White House has never been burned down either right?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Foot can join a few in the media who have recently displayed a notable lack of knowledge where history is concerned.
• Thread Bomber

  

  Both NATO and unions have pretty much outlived their usefulness....
• Footwedge

  LJ;802049 wrote:Why would you imply something so ridiculous?

  Because the inplication is clear....and accurate. If people cared, they would speak out about it. But look at the board you police here. Nary a word about dying soldiers. Why is that? It's called apathy....or plain old ignorance.
• LJ

  

  Footwedge;802435 wrote:Because the inplication is clear....and accurate. If people cared, they would speak out about it. But look at the board you police here. Nary a word about dying soldiers. Why is that? It's called apathy....or plain old ignorance.

  
  Just because people aren't making threads about it doesn't mean they don't care.
  
  How much time and money have you donated to the Ohio Fallen Heroes project? CFSRF? Wounded Warriors?
• believer

  

  LJ;802439 wrote:Just because people aren't making threads about it doesn't mean they don't care.
  
  How much time and money have you donated to the Ohio Fallen Heroes project? CFSRF? Wounded Warriors?

  
  I cannot remember if Footie ever served in the Armed Forces. For those of us who have served, rest assured we care.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye;800697 wrote:I would agree with most of this.
  
  Unless the old European countries start ponying up their share of costs for their own defense, I think it's time to start paring down bases and bringing troops home. Let our role in world defense issues be more like our warfare tactics: keep elite strike forces positioned strategically around the world, and available via subs or warships.
  
  The only place I can see keeping more of a presence would be S. Korea...and I'd hope the S. Koreans would be able and willing to pay for our help in the DMZ if they already aren't doing so.
  
  Bring most troops home from Iraq, and maintain whatever troops are needed near the border of Pakistan in Afghanistan to help there. Otherwise, trim numbers everywhere in the world; close bases where feasible.
  
  Troops that are coming home and still in the service can be used to patrol the Southern border of the US, and assist with things like port security, and any other known weaknesses in our infrastructure and security efforts. The numbers of active military can be reduced significantly over the years as needed via attrition and retirements.
  
  I'm also not advocating isolationism, but probably the next thing to it. We need to turn our focus inward on security issues and the two biggest security threats to the US right now are : the deficit and lack of energy independence.

  
  Your comment goes to a larger one, what is America's role in the world? Can the world live with a U.S. that draws down its commitments worldwide and can other fill the void? Will China and then India replace the U.S. in some areas of influence?
  I think it is those grand questions that need at least attempted to be answered before we dramatically draw down in some areas. It may seem like a good idea now to draw down, but the ripple affect could be worse than expected and hurt the U.S. in the long run.
  
  I'm for drawing down in areas as well. Outside of Japan, S. Korea, Af/Pak, Yemen, Bahrain and Ramsteim, I see little or no bases for the U.S.
  Although, the comments for the Southern border are interesting. Would those be active troops as in, active military troops stationed inside the U.S.?
  I'd be ok with that if we establish clear rules of engagement and full openness with those deployments.
  
  Back to NATO, I still say keep it, as again, no other organization exists that can rapidly deploy a unified ally force. Given a crisis, that is a good card to have in the deck.
  It just needs some fixing.
  
  Finally, the U.S. is slowly moving in this overall direction, by increasing foreign military sales. Those are where foreign countries by our weapons (that are deemed legal to sell by Congress) to allies, like Italy, UK, France, Saudi, Taiwan, S. Korea, etc.
  Those sales are increasing each year and will increase as the U.S. withdraws from areas. The sales allow other countries to use U.S. weapons to defend themselves without the need for U.S. troops and allows the U.S. to remove bases. We are really seeing this in the Middle East with the Saudis.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:T
  
  Hell, last week 5 GI's were killed in Iraq. I bet nobody on this board even knows that. And if they did....they don't care.
  
  That's right.....Iraq....the place where Barry "pulled out all of our troops". What a fvcking joke the whole thing is.

  
  I knew and know why too. As the U.S. withdraws under the SOFA agreement, the insurgents are taking all the shots they can. But, it is a balancing act, as the U.S. cannot dramatically withdraw as it would upset the delicate political balance and throwing the country back into chaos.
  The timetable for withdraw is still set, but there are murmurs that the Iraqis, once the U.S. leaves in Dec., that they will ask for some, small amounts back to ensure stability in the country. The recent string of attacks, including on U.S. troops, show that the country is still incredibly fragile and could fall apart at any moment.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  P-town: Yes, those would be active troops. I think the rules of engagement would be pretty simple...if you're dealing with illegal immigrants trying to enter the U.S. you apprehend them and send them back.
  
  If they encounter problems from drug cartels, it would all out warfare because I have no reason to believe the cartels will use discretion, whether facing military personnel or not. I'd even be in favor of using drones to locate drug cartel activities, even if inside Mexico, in some instances where they've displayed extreme violence.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Oh and Foot: Just because we don't post about every military death on this board doesn't mean we aren't very much aware of each and every one of them.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:The Europeans don't give a s1it about endless wars..

  Not as long as we are pulling the weight in the fight. After 9/11 NATO invoked article 5 of the NATO charter. Our NATO allies were weak under the charter in aiding us in our fight. Nevertheless they gave peace meal support in order to appear be true to their obligations. The US has some blame in this in that we lacked focus and leadership. Our unwillingness to lead an overwhelming force to unconditional victory in Afghanistan has understandably led some of our allies to wane in their support.
  
  Lets not forget NATO ended a new impending bloodbath in Europe. One the Europussies could not have handled on their own. Case in point the break up of the former Yugoslavia. Our air and naval power brought a negotiated settlement to the Bosnian war. Then Kosovo. It was our air superiority and military power that forced Slobodan Milosevic to pull back.
  
  The Russians are traditional Slavic allies of the Serbs. The Russians were humiliated by loosing the Cold War. They were itching to show they still possessed power and were still a player in Eastern Europe. No way Western European nations stand up to the Russians on their own. They would not risk a larger war with Russia to stop Slobo's scourge of Albanian muslims from Kosovo. Lets not shit too hard on the American Empire.
  
  The Russians did what little they could to show power in the face of US dominance. Boris Yeltsin hit the vodka a little hard hard and rushed a column of Russian armor and infantry into Pristina ahead of NATO troops.
  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:They had their countries' mainlands blown to scraps too many times to count....something our country has never experienced.

  
  
  Foot you have said some things I disagree with but this one is down right ignorant of history. First off the North American continent was no stranger to the scourge of war before the first European settler arrived. The native North Americans were killing each other for centuries over the same shit the Europeans were before they arrived on the continent.
  
  Second a majority of the population of the continent of North American is of European decent. Those that possess the history of centuries Europe's countless wars and know them quite well.
  
  Thirdly the North American continent was nearly in a constant state of war when the first settlers boots hit the ground until the late 19th century. Since then North American has enjoyed a century of temporary direct peace. Not that our nation has been at total peace during this time, we have fought in several foreign wars, but the North American continent has been at relative peace. Save 9/11 which was an isolated attack on the mainland.
  
  The perpetual wars with the native Americans, the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, and the Civil War. As mentioned above during the war of 1812 our capitol was burned. During the Civil War the southern part of our nation was destroyed.
  
  I count all dead attributed to war. Those that suffered and died of disease in an unsanitary army camp, prisoner of war camp, or KIA instantly with a musket ball in the head. All equal.
  
  Major wars fought on the continent proportionate to Americas current population (310 million). A glimpse at the pain our fore fathers endured. Indian Wars are impossible to extrapolate in today's numbers. But 10's of thousands died.
  Revolutionary War - 3,100,000 dead today
  War of 1812 - 861,000 dead today
  Civil War - 6,250,000 dead today
  
  Our country is no stranger to war and its price.
  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:They have seen first hand the futilityof these needless bloodbaths.

  Have they? You think they are done with war? As mentioned above our empire prevented another great Euro-bloodbath. They thirst for war in Libya and want us to lead the way. Are they truly done with endless wars? What is the endgame in Libya? It does not appear they are done with them yet.
  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:Hell, last week 5 GI's were killed in Iraq. I bet nobody on this board even knows that. And if they did....they don't care.

  You have been called on the carpet for this idiotic statement. I think you know what you posted is not true. I and many others may disagree with your take on how our nation projects its power, but you are not going to win anyone over by falsely claiming they do not care about lost American lives.
• majorspark

  

  believer;801921 wrote:Eh, the 225,000 Americans who died in the Civil War or the 50,000 Americans who died in the Revolutionary War might disagree.

  Not sure where you got your numbers. The 225,000 figure for the Civil War is closer to troops KIA and DOW. ~625,000 is the figure history records as deaths directly attributed to the Civil War. 50,000 during the Revolutionary war is a total casualty figure. Dead and wounded. ~25,000 American total deaths is a figure recorded as attributed to the cause of the Revolution. ~8,000 would be closer to the KIA and DOW. Not that I regard a revolutionary solder that took a musket ball in the skull any greater that one that froze to death a Valley Forge. Personally I would choose the musket ball. Their deaths though are equal. Thats why I focus on the total deaths attributed to these wars. There are few and inaccurate numbers to show the many thousands who were maimed for life.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;801405 wrote:The Europeans don't give a s1it about endless wars. They had their countries' mainlands blown to scraps too many times to count....something our country has never experienced.

  Thought some pictures might help you. Of course pictures only go back a 150yrs.
  
  Southern American cities devastation during the Civil War:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.anglonautes.com/hist_us_19_civil_war
  
  Foot I guess you are right after all we have never been blown to scraps. At least those of us north of the Mason Dixon.
• believer

  

  majorspark;802944 wrote:Not sure where you got your numbers. The 225,000 figure for the Civil War is closer to troops KIA and DOW.

  Correct....I only included troops directly killed in action. I did not include civilian deaths, deaths caused by diseases, etc. You are correct that if you include ALL deaths, it would be 625,000.
  
  I simply wanted to point out to Footwedge (as others have as well) that he's absolutely incorrect that we haven't experienced the carnage of war on our on soil.
  
  By the way....Europussies? lol I love it!