Gates Blasts NATO, European Members' Military Preparedness

[PanzerJaeger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfI0dtgXu0A


Gates Rebukes European Allies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gates-rebukes-european-allies-in-farewell-speech/2011/06/10/AG9tKeOH_story.html)


BERLIN — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates rebuked some of America’s staunchest allies Friday, saying the United States has a “dwindling appetite” to serve as the heavyweight partner in the military order that has underpinned the U.S. relationship with Europe since the end of World War II.

In an unusually stinging speech, made on his valedictory visit to Europe before he retires at the end of the month, Gates condemned European defense cuts and said the United States is tired of engaging in combat missions for those who “don’t want to share the risks and the costs.”

“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 ... to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” he said in an address to a think tank in Brussels.

The speech comes as the United States prepares to begin withdrawing some of its forces from Afghanistan this summer and as it and other NATO powers engage in an air campaign against the forces of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. In both cases, Gates said, budget cuts and sheer reluctance among European partners to fight have made the missions significantly more difficult and shifted the burden onto the United States.

The challenges facing the Libyan campaign were underscored just hours after Gates spoke, as Norway announced it would pull its forces out of operations by the beginning of August because of the burdens on its small military.

The country’s F-16 jets have carried out about 10 percent of the airstrikes on Libyan soil since the NATO operations began at the end of March, according to Norway’s air force.

This week, NATO carried out the most intensive bombardment of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, to date. But the airstrikes are depleting NATO munitions, forcing the United States to supply more, Gates said.

U.S. officials have been unhappy with Germany in the months since it refused to support a U.N. Security Council resolution to intervene in Libya, but President Obama feted German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday at the White House, presenting her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

In response to Gates’s speech, the German Foreign Ministry dismissed the notion that it was not sufficiently contributing to NATO and noted the celebrations earlier this week in Washington.

“Germany makes a considerable contribution to NATO and NATO-led operations,” said a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, speaking anonymously under diplomatic ground rules. “Germany’s engagement is very emphatically valued,” as evidenced by Merkel’s new medal, she said.

Official reaction in other European capitals appeared muted Friday. The French Defense Ministry had no immediate comment.

But NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen shares Gates’s concerns about European willingness to contribute to its own defense, an alliance spokeswoman said. “There is clearly a long-standing concern about the transatlantic gap in defense spending,” Oana Lungescu told reporters in Brussels.

Text of the full speech here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-security-and-defense-agenda-as-delivered-by-secretary-of-defense-robert-gates-brussels-belgium-june-10-2011/2011/06/10/AGqlZhOH_story.html).


Wow. While none of what Gates said is new to anyone who follows European military planning, it is quite stunning to see such a top level US official, and particularly one known for his restrained, diplomatic nature, use such strong words and truly challenge the European defense non-budgets.

The defense secretary's comments are particularly relevant in relation to the Libya mission, which was conceived and pushed by the British and French but is being paid for and supplied largely by the United States.


In Libya, Gates said, “the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.”

Gates and other U.S. officials have criticized Europe in the past, saying it is failing to hold up its end of the bargain. But his harsh language Friday in the speech to the Security and Defense Agenda think tank — delivered after a NATO defense ministers’ summit in which NATO and American top brass tried but largely failed to secure additional resources for the Libyan campaign — was a sign of just how tenuous the military relationships have become.

“Future U.S. political leaders, those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me, may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost,” he said.




A few months ago Vuk started a thread about European military competence. His comments became so jingoistic, word removed and quite frankly ridiculous that even I felt the need to chime in in Europe's defense. My intention in starting this topic is to question European defense budgets, not European fighting abilities.

Are those budgets big enough to honor Europe's alliance agreements and help contribute to global stability? If not, should European nations have the ability to entangle NATO in new regime change operations that they cannot support? Finally, should NATO continue to exist, given European willingness to use it to achieve its geopolitical goals combined with its unwillingness to contribute its fair share to its costs?

[Shibumi]

I thought the US was a SUPERpower, hence supposed to do things superior to other states.

Kind of a crack in the wall, would you not say?

As to the questions raised by the OP, it has long been EU strategy to have the US do the job. See, there is muscle and there is brain - play dot to dot between that and the question at large.

The EU has very good defensive capabilities, and an elite diplomatic corpse. What else would we need?

[Samurai Waki]

More well armed meat shields when the Huns arrive. ;)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Understandably, the USA wants to have its cake and eat it, too. But here is a sign on the wall: France joined the NATO. They definitely didn't do this because they felt the urge to enter into a military marriage with the USA. I'd say that to Europe the NATO is really a feel-good forum for Western powers to pool resources in “peace keeping missions” and what not, rather than a joint army.

And part of the reason is that the USA has steadily gone its own way ever since this alliance was created, side stepping it whenever convenient dragging it in when it wants to. The reality is however that Europe at large has little if any need for much of a military for reasons of national security or pride or empire building. So why keep funding the follies of America, particularly in a time when Europe is doing some cleaning of balance sheets of its own?

[Xiahou]

I think I read on one of the articles about this that 1 nation, the US, pays for about 25% of NATO. Why? What do we get from it? Why are we continuing to subsidize the defense of other NATO countries? With our budget in shambles, it's probably a good time to start asking ourselves these questions. :shrug:

[Jolt]

More well armed meat shields when the Huns arrive. ;)

The Huns have already settled from Germany through Hungary up to Ukraine. Most of the Huns are part of NATO.

Mongols will take a while to reach Europe. Arabs are taking a beating just from Israel. Turks are also part of NATO. Vikings are part of NATO.

Does that cover everyone who invaded Europe in the last 2000 years?

[PanzerJaeger]

As to the questions raised by the OP, it has long been EU strategy to have the US do the job. See, there is muscle and there is brain - play dot to dot between that and the question at large.

That is an interesting version of history.


The EU has very good defensive capabilities, and an elite diplomatic corpse. What else would we need?

Apparently it doesn't if it is already running out of munitions and can barely muster the resources needed in the very limited Libyan campaign.


And part of the reason is that the USA has steadily gone its own way ever since this alliance was created, side stepping it whenever convenient dragging it in when it wants to. The reality is however that Europe at large has little if any need for much of a military for reasons of national security or pride or empire building. So why keep funding the follies of America, particularly in a time when Europe is doing some cleaning of balance sheets of its own?

Gates' primary frustration centers around the Libyan campaign, which was conceived, planned, and pushed from the capitals of Europe. It is difficult to characterize Europe as one entity (sometimes they want to be and sometimes they don't), but it can at least be said that Libya was a French and British folly - not an American one. President Obama had to be dragged into it.

And I think that's his point. When America is paying the bills, then American foreign policy follies aren't really such a big deal for other members of the alliance, but if European members are going to start engaging in regime change, they need to have the military resources to back those actions up. Or, NATO needs to go away.




I think I read on one of the articles about this that 1 nation, the US, pays for about 25% of NATO. Why? What do we get from it? Why are we continuing to subsidize the defense of other NATO countries? With our budget in shambles, it's probably a good time to start asking ourselves these questions. :shrug:

According to this (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/10/news/world-news/gates-shaky-libya-campaign-shows-nato%E2%80%99s-weakness/?ref=latest), the US share comprises 75% of NATO military spending.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Gates' primary frustration centers around the Libyan campaign, which was conceived, planned, and pushed from the capitals of Europe. It is difficult to characterize Europe as one entity (sometimes they want to be and sometimes they don't), but it can at least be said that Libya was a French and British folly - not an American one. President Obama had to be dragged into it.

Sure. But you did read between the lines did you not? The USA wants to divert funding from military into debt reduction and it would be rather more convenient if NATO looks like a viable alliance to the American public when that happens. European members engaging in similar budget cuts at the same time throws a spanner in the works there. (EDIT: not to say that it is imperative the NATO is seen to be rock solid, rather that it will be a harder sell if NATO is seen to be unreliable.)


And I think that's his point. When America is paying the bills, then American foreign policy follies aren't really such a big deal for other members of the alliance,
Except that the USA doesn't cover all of the bills, never has done and never will: NATO missions US projects are not exactly free of charge for those who participate alongside the USA. That is before you consider costs in loss of life or PR. While this is to be expected, I mean it is an alliance not a force for hire, it does mean that yes, follies on the part of the USA do matter rather a lot.

The bit about politicians not raised in the cold war cuts both ways. As Europe looks less towards the USA it will focus more on alternatives. This is healthy for Europe, but it undermines the USA and the US is not happy about it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sure. But you did read between the lines did you not? The USA wants to divert funding from military into debt reduction and it would be rather more convenient if NATO looks like a viable alliance to the American public when that happens. European members engaging in similar budget cuts at the same time throws a spanner in the works there. (EDIT: not to say that it is imperative the NATO is seen to be rock solid, rather that it will be a harder sell if NATO is seen to be unreliable.)

I'm not sure I agree with your reading. That language might play across the pond, but not in America. NATO has never been seen as particularly viable to the American public based on European performance during the Second World War. I've yet to hear any US politician use NATO's strength to excuse budget cuts, and I doubt that line would play well here. Americans are very committed to an independent defense, and certainly would never look to Europe to play the kind of actual defense role that America has played for Europe for the last half century.

Not surprisingly (~;)), I think my interpretation is more accurate. He was essentially telling European leaders that if they want to play the White Knight on the world stage, they need to have the capabilities to support their follies or remain second-tier players.


Except that the USA doesn't cover all of the bills, never has done and never will: NATO missions US projects are not exactly free of charge for those who participate alongside the USA. That is before you consider costs in loss of life or PR. While this is to be expected, I mean it is an alliance not a force for hire, it does mean that yes, follies on the part of the USA do matter rather a lot.


US projects? The major NATO operations since the end of the Cold War have been Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Libya. I think only one of those can really be described as a US project, and the European contribution to it, apart from Britain, has not been particularly costly.


The bit about politicians not raised in the cold war cuts both ways. As Europe looks less towards the USA it will focus more on alternatives. This is healthy for Europe, but it undermines the USA and the US is not happy about it.

I'm not sure how much it undermines the US at this point as Russia does not look to be rebounding from the Cold War; and as, at least from the US viewpoint, the country is being pushed into regime change operations by other members who are not capable of pulling their own weight. I think the US may also be looking abroad for more productive alliances, which indeed is probably healthy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Personally, I think America spends far too much on defense. I also think French and British levels are too high. I prefer the German level of spending. Less boots and steel, and the money saved can be spend on keeping up technologically.

Of course, every budget should come with an appropriate ambition level. This is no problem for most countries in Europe, who are fine with merely maintaining defensive capabilities. The exceptions are the easily excitable countries on Europe's southeastern flank, those NATO members with hugely bloated defense budgets and armies facing each other. And it is a problem for the two countries with a will two power, France and Britain. These have a greater difference between ambition and budget than the rest of Europe.

So unlike Gates, I'm fine with, Norway and Germany having low defense budgets, fine with their running out of ammunition four days after a minor operation. They have no will to power, and I do not think Europe enjoys the famous 'free ride' - against whom would that free defense ride be enjoyed? Europe enjoys a free ride from America no more than it enjoys a free ride on Australia's defense budget to protect against New Guinea. Global security this century will change in the mid to long term future, but in the short term none of the volatile regions surrounding Europe pose a threat, nor does China.

I do think France and Britain have a problem. Their budgets are strained. Overstretched. Both are too small to fund their global ambition. Something has to give. Sarkozy's design - well a much longer running project - has been to increase cooperation with the UK, to seek efficiency of scale. Cameron however is reluctant. Entirely predictably, when push came to shove over the command in the Libya campaign, for the 50921st time in the past century Britain in the end opted to go with America, instead of with France. And for the 50921st time this past century Washington had to sort out a campaign that France and Britain had started. :beam:

The Yanks will get over it. They always do. We've got Hugh Grant and Harry Potter and Marion Cotillard and Louis Vuitton so they'll fawn over us no matter what. I say let Washington sort out the miserably failing Libya mission, so France and Britain can play knights in shiny armour and start their campaign in Syria. :yes:



I thought the US was a SUPERpower, hence supposed to do things superior to other states.

Kind of a crack in the wall, would you not say?Amazing.

With one leap of logic, you manage to twist a déconfiture of Europe into a criticism of America. I bow before your awesome powers.

[CBR]

Are those budgets big enough to honor Europe's alliance agreements and help contribute to global stability? If not, should European nations have the ability to entangle NATO in new regime change operations that they cannot support? Finally, should NATO continue to exist, given European willingness to use it to achieve its geopolitical goals combined with its unwillingness to contribute its fair share to its costs?
NATO has never been about global security but European security. When it comes to Libya then I don't think it is the budgets per se (although a lack of high tech bombs could be an issue) but that several countries did not want to get involved, and that is the consequences of NATO being an organisation of many countries. And we can hardly force everyone to participate in something that NATO was not meant to do in the first place.

If the USA does not have the political will, money or military capacity to help with all it could do in Libya, then that is IMO the consequences of getting involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. None of the NATO countries had much to say about that, although several of them have been helping out in both places. It is rather ironic that in the last 10 years the conflict that was closest to Europe is the one that USA seemingly is least willing to participate in. If entangle is the right word then USA entangled NATO with the Afghanistan mission only to not finish it and start with Iraq instead.

Not that I'm gonna blame USA for it, but if they only intended to be part of the Libya mission for a couple of weeks and then pull out while knowing that several NATO partners stayed out, then that is more to do with wishful thinking than proper planning. Did they just hope it will be all over by then or that the rest of NATO would jump in anyway?

IMO there are some NATO members who could do more than what they are doing now, but USA should not expect NATO to make up for its own follies. So maybe it is time to part ways so Europe is not dragged into unfinished military adventures.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No, this is a build up towards less USA involvement in NATO operations which in turn allows the USA to shift resources currently going into these operations into other directions. Effectively it would play out similar to a budget cut, except not as crude. But at the same time for the American public to have much faith in Afghanistan (or, indeed, Iraq) under the NATO banner with less USA involvement you don't want European allies to decide that what they really should do right about now is slash funds.

[Motep]

Patriotism, criticism, opinions, lazy facts, woes over past failures, concern about debt, concern about pathetic military display, somewhat educated opinion that could stand more base, clever wording, mild attack, NATO foible, etc.

[Tellos Athenaios]

NATO has never been about global security but European security.

Well, NATO prior to about 1991. After that it sort of had to find the meaning of life, which is where the USA and (parts of) Europe differ on in opinion -- most notably Germany (which inconveniently is probably the only ally that the USA could realistically turn to for long term solutions).


When it comes to Libya then I don't think it is the budgets per se (although a lack of high tech bombs could be an issue) but that several countries did not want to get involved, and that is the consequences of NATO being an organisation of many countries. And we can hardly force everyone to participate in something that NATO was not meant to do in the first place.

If the USA does not have the political will, money or military capacity to help with all it could do in Libya, then that is IMO the consequences of getting involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. None of the NATO countries had much to say about that, although several of them have been helping out in both places. It is rather ironic that in the last 10 years the conflict that was closest to Europe is the one that USA seemingly is least willing to participate in. If entangle is the right word then USA entangled NATO with the Afghanistan mission only to not finish it and start with Iraq instead.

Bingo. You just summed up how this speech was read by the various foreign ministries throughout Europe, and what is quite likely to be steadily more important thrust in European politics.


IMO there are some NATO members who could do more than what they are doing now, but USA should not expect NATO to make up for its own follies. So maybe it is time to part ways so Europe is not dragged into unfinished military adventures.

Agreed. NATO is “useful” but when push comes to shove nobody really wants to go in as deep anymore as they did in the aftermath of WW2 -- and NATO was built around this expectation of unquestionable support.

[Motep]

NATO has never been about global security but European security. When it comes to Libya then I don't think it is the budgets per se (although a lack of high tech bombs could be an issue) but that several countries did not want to get involved, and that is the consequences of NATO being an organisation of many countries. And we can hardly force everyone to participate in something that NATO was not meant to do in the first place.

If the USA does not have the political will, money or military capacity to help with all it could do in Libya, then that is IMO the consequences of getting involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. None of the NATO countries had much to say about that, although several of them have been helping out in both places. It is rather ironic that in the last 10 years the conflict that was closest to Europe is the one that USA seemingly is least willing to participate in. If entangle is the right word then USA entangled NATO with the Afghanistan mission only to not finish it and start with Iraq instead.

Not that I'm gonna blame USA for it, but if they only intended to be part of the Libya mission for a couple of weeks and then pull out while knowing that several NATO partners stayed out, then that is more to do with wishful thinking than proper planning. Did they just hope it will be all over by then or that the rest of NATO would jump in anyway?

IMO there are some NATO members who could do more than what they are doing now, but USA should not expect NATO to make up for its own follies. So maybe it is time to part ways so Europe is not dragged into unfinished military adventures.

We've our own issues, got support for them, but made the brunt. You've your issues, got more support, and then bail on them halfway through. America is a mop now? <------- exaggeration, of course

[Strike For The South]

NATO is anachorism, the last gasp of the superalliances that were spawned after the Franco-Prussian war (LOL@FrenchDefeat amirite?) NATO was always meant to fight the USSR, that's what it is geared for. It should come as no surprise that the alliance would run into problems when it switched from fighting a superpower to swarthylooking blokes whom are just a bit to close to Viennas doortstep

Scrap it and spend the money on drugs or infrastructure. Whichever you like

[PanzerJaeger]

If the USA does not have the political will, money or military capacity to help with all it could do in Libya, then that is IMO the consequences of getting involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. None of the NATO countries had much to say about that, although several of them have been helping out in both places. It is rather ironic that in the last 10 years the conflict that was closest to Europe is the one that USA seemingly is least willing to participate in. If entangle is the right word then USA entangled NATO with the Afghanistan mission only to not finish it and start with Iraq instead.


And that is the fundamental difference here which I believe is angering Washington. America used NATO for political cover in Afghanistan, but it was always understood that it was an American operation, and American troop levels and resources devoted to the mission reflect that. As more and more European NATO members have decided to pull out, the US has remained and is able to execute combat operations with or without its European allies.

In the case of Libya, certain European members used NATO as cover in much the same way, but just 11 weeks into the operation are unable to carry out the base requirements of the mission due to a shortage of munitions and a lack of will, leaving the US to hold the bag. Those European nations should not have pushed for a war that they were not at all prepared to sustain, and if they want to play superpower-regime-changer like the US, they should be prepared to pay the price.

[Skullheadhq]

Let the US blow up NATO, they're the only one that care about it anyway.

[Fragony]

The man has a point, especially about Germany.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The man has a point, especially about Germany.

Why? Germany does not agree with the Libya mission and is not obliged to provide troops so why should it?

[Skullheadhq]

Why? Germany does not agree with the Libya mission and is not obliged to provide troops so why should it?

Plus, they do help in Afghanistan. And freedom fries anyone?

[Fragony]

Why? Germany does not agree with the Libya mission and is not obliged to provide troops so why should it?

I don't agree with it either, forget that for point being. The Nato has zero reason to exist if we are teethless, we are shipping billions to development aid and other leftist hobby's, and not cutting out the fat but the vital organs out of our own militaries. I can absolutely understand the USA's frustration we are freeriding on the USA in a world we most arrogantly take for granted and all they get back is egg in their face. He is right Europe isn't worth saving like this

edit: for the Netherlands, we have a highly specialised attack force, but no defence whatsoever, mercenaries really. We have no real army

[Viking]

So unlike Gates, I'm fine with, Norway and Germany having low defense budgets, fine with their running out of ammunition four days after a minor operation.

Norway has not run out of ammunition. Ammunition is not the problem in Libya, it is the lack of commitment. Germany and several other countries do nothing. Countries like Spain and the Netherlands preferes to just pollute the Libyan skies without dropping any bombs. That small countries like Norway and Denmark account for about 20% of the airstrikes in the campaign speaks volumes about the lack commitment.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't agree with it either, forget that for point being. The Nato has zero reason to exist if we are teethless,

Eh? But that is precisely the point: the decision to go to war or not with Libya, Afghanistan or anything really does not fall within NATO's remit. It's a vehicle to steer various armies towards a common goal, but it is not an obligation to come running whenever someone calls. Such obligations only apply if a) NATO (member) is actively targeted first, and only then if it happens in a particular part of the world.


we are shipping billions to development aid and other leftist hobby's, and not cutting out the fat but the vital organs out of our own militaries.

Like? Billions of mostly bilateral aid means we're effectively pumping billions from tax back into our own economy, minus the sizable chunk which “sticks”. Effectively, development aid means a cheap buy in from the local political elite (until the new guys take over). PJ said as much when he extolled the reliability of the Egyptian regime prior to the Arab spring: a few $bn a year to spend on US arms and equipment (i.e. subsidy for the US arms and equipment manufacturers) and the USA had a reliable ally that does what they want when push comes to shove (unlike Israel).


I can absolutely understand the USA's frustration we are freeriding on the USA in a world we most arrogantly take for granted and all they get back is egg in their face. He is right Europe isn't worth saving like this We're not, or rather read what Louis wrote. It's a bit like the cup of tea you're offered when you go to get a hair cut: how nice of you, but if it weren't offered you wouldn't notice.

[Fragony]

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dumpert.nl%2Fmediabase%2F867491%2F2745d1bf%2Fteleurgesteld_poesje.html&ei=s1XzTYjOBs_u-gae_tX6Bg&usg=AFQjCNFYnsxDjWurmgWZOz0JaO259lTlYQ&sig2=QHJWxIMlPMxo0qREjQ_B0Q

#really cares

[Tellos Athenaios]

Norway has not run out of ammunition. Ammunition is not the problem in Libya, it is the lack of commitment. Germany and several other countries do nothing. Countries like Spain and the Netherlands preferes to just pollute the Libyan skies without dropping any bombs. That small countries like Norway and Denmark account for about 20% of the airstrikes in the campaign speaks volumes about the lack commitment.

Don't count on the Netherlands for a while yet. There's some shaving equipment waiting to be used when the next ballot comes up, should the current cabinet get any mistaken ideas above its station about popular support for any such missions. It's a political minefield, compounded by some of the peculiarities in how the Dutch system/tradition of government works and the makeup of the current cabinet. There's a disconnect between what (some of) the politicians wanted and want and what the wider public wants. The former are quite staunch supporters of the USA and NATO, not unlike the sort you find in the UK and they don't even expect a special relationship. The latter is not nearly as amused by this nor nearly as keen on military adventures abroad even if it weren't for the fact that the way the previous missions came about left a bit of a bad taste, too.

[Husar]

I find it laughable that big European nations run out of ammunition in a campaign they pushed themselves.
I am glad we aren't involved with airplanes, on one hand because it may have saved us from the same embarassment, on the other because we're not anyone's puppet and we're contributing both to the mission in Afghanistan and to NATO leadership involved in the Libyan operation.
I don't think it's just about spending more money, it's also about spending it wisely.
The only reason we're still in Afghanistan is because we spent money to boost our soldiers' morale (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/15/germany-afghanistan-beer).

[Hosakawa Tito]

NATO is willing to fight till the last American. Libya is a European problem. The US shouldn't be spending a nickel on it. Let the Euro's pay the bill to stabilize their relationships with their southern neighbors.

NATO accomplished admirably exactly what it was created to accomplish. It faced down the very real military threat from the late and unlamented Soviet Union and its vassal states that pressed up against the eastern borders of free Europe. The USSR is no more, it imploded under its own failed ideology and corrupt leadership and a population that refused to live as slaves any longer.
If Mr Obama wants to create a new organization that will flex its military muscle against every Third World thug let him go to Congress and get authorization and funding for same. He will not do so because he knows full well that the American public will not support this new role for the United States military.

[Ronin]

The Nato has zero reason to exist if we are teethless, we are shipping billions to development aid and other leftist hobby's, and not cutting out the fat but the vital organs out of our own militaries.

NATO in it's inception is supposed to be a defensive military alliance......once it starts picking fights and using military force against countries that have not attacked us I´d say it's reason to exist is also in question.
you can´t expect european countries to put forward spending into wars that most of the european public are against and think we really should have nothing to do with.

[CBR]

We've our own issues, got support for them, but made the brunt. You've your issues, got more support, and then bail on them halfway through. America is a mop now? <------- exaggeration, of course
The fact is that USA is the one with the biggest amount of high tech gadgets and Libya is purely fought with such gadgets. I have no idea about the discussions that went on before the intervention started so maybe some countries were rather optimistic about the requirements for it. But they knew who was in and who was out and that it could take a long time.

I don't see Libya as a European issue. A quick look at the oil prices shows otherwise and USA has played a big role in the Middle East for quite some time now.

I might be stretching it but it is rather annoying to see that as soon as the word NATO is used it seems like a sideshow for USA: it scaled back in Afghanistan because Iraq was the next thing, and it did it again in Libya.

So IMO Gates cannot put all blame on (some) European countries.

[Furunculus]

nato comes with a committment to spend two percent of gdp on ones defence budget, pulling ones weight so to speak.

much of nato europe is flouting this tresty comittment, and that does not speak well for the character of those countries, or the confidence that the us should place in this military alliance.

[Beskar]

I think I read on one of the articles about this that 1 nation, the US, pays for about 25% of NATO. Why? What do we get from it? Why are we continuing to subsidize the defense of other NATO countries? With our budget in shambles, it's probably a good time to start asking ourselves these questions. :shrug:

Considering the size of the USA is equal to that of Europe combined. That is rather a small proportion being funded into nation by the USA. Should be closer to 40-45%.

[CBR]

The 25% is just about $ 800 million for 2011 and part of that is the NATO Security Investment Program: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/142718.pdf

p3

According to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the focus on new NATO missions and the resultant redirection of NSIP activities have been relatively advantageous for the United States. Among other benefits, a change made in May 1993 to the “program’s funding criteria for facilities construction and restoration all but eliminates NATO facility funding for the European allies but continues full support for U.S. requirements at European bases.” NSIP also helps fund U.S. storage facilities in Europe, as well as U.S.-based facilities for American reinforcement forces assigned to NATO. DOD has noted that the United States has benefitted from NATO infrastructure support for several military operations, including the 1986 air strike on Libya, Desert Storm, Provide Comfort, Deny Flight, peacekeeping activities in the Balkans, as well as military operations in Afghanistan and training in Iraq. Finally, the Pentagon notes that U.S. companies have been successful in bidding on NSIP contracts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

NATO was never an alliance. Just a banner to call the capitalistic countries of Europe during the Cold War. Same as the Warsaw Pact. Wasn't really a pact, it was the USSR telling the world "these guys follow us" and the US did the same with NATO. Then the Cold War ended and we had to find a purpose for it, so we picked out fights. Now not surprisingly that has shown to be not as fulfilling as the old mission of saving the world from Marx's brain. So now people are realizing how hollow it really is.

[TheLastDays]

you can´t expect european countries to put forward spending into wars that most of the european public are against and think we really should have nothing to do with.

Yes, you can, if it's a war that was pressed by european countries

[Ronin]

Yes, you can, if it's a war that was pressed by european countries

That is a late development....I was talking about europeans reactions to Nato's posture over the last 10 years or so.

and even when it comes to Libya....that intervention is far from being consensual and having support by the populace.
don´t confuse some saber rattling from elected officials with actual public support.

[TheLastDays]

It doesn't matter if the populace is behind it... if France and Britain pressed the war they'll have to carry it too... If the people there aren't happy with that... well, better elect someone else next time... The leaders of the country can't go "Well, yes, we wanted that war but now we suddenly realized, our huys aren't really into this so... could y'all please take over from here, kthxbye"

[Ronin]

It doesn't matter if the populace is behind it... if France and Britain pressed the war they'll have to carry it too... If the people there aren't happy with that... well, better elect someone else next time... The leaders of the country can't go "Well, yes, we wanted that war but now we suddenly realized, our huys aren't really into this so... could y'all please take over from here, kthxbye"

that might be true in a dictatorship....but you can only piss off the voters so much.
right now the average European doesn´t give a **** over Libya, but while it is just a sideshow on tv with "our boys" doing some bombing runs and such they won´t raise much of a stink about it.
that will change fast if the conflict escalates or it starts hurting on their pockets.

[HoreTore]

The Norwegian defense budget is 35 billion NOK. In other words, still 35 billion too high.

But as Gates says, we are, along with the rest of europe, heading in the right direction. At least that's something.

[Noncommunist]

The EU has very good defensive capabilities, and an elite diplomatic corpse. What else would we need?

Is the elite diplomatic corpse reanimated or is it just that good that it doesn't even need to move?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, quite a few mummies were “discovered” by the Europeans in the 19th century. This one does our bidding, and ...

[Centurion1]

that might be true in a dictatorship....but you can only piss off the voters so much.
right now the average European doesn´t give a **** over Libya, but while it is just a sideshow on tv with "our boys" doing some bombing runs and such they won´t raise much of a stink about it.
that will change fast if the conflict escalates or it starts hurting on their pockets.

You are being rather dense about this. Let me rephrase it.

You start = Your war = You can pay for it.

English and French politicians are certainly not chosen by the american voter so how exactly does that equate to us paying for it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are being rather dense about this. Let me rephrase it.

You start = Your war = You can pay for it.

English and French politicians are certainly not chosen by the american voter so how exactly does that equate to us paying for it.

I'll tell you how (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?136160-What-we-British-say-and-what-we-mean.&p=2053327038&viewfull=1#post2053327038).

[CBR]

USA is selling ammo to NATO countries and France and Britain has not pulled out. So USA is not paying for it?

[Ice]

I'm with Dr.Paul on this one: leave NATO

[Kagemusha]

Ok.So if EU would use 2% in defence, that would mean what 320 billion dollar defence spending, when for example China is using 114 billions and Russia 52 billions. Just because US is spending 687 billion with smaller GDP then EU area.I cant see any sense in following suite. I think 2% would be more then enough, if we were to really build atleast partial Pan European military.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It doesn't matter if the populace is behind it... if France and Britain pressed the war they'll have to carry it too... If the people there aren't happy with that... well, better elect someone else next time...

There's a slight technical hitch with that - for example, the British electorate chose to throw out a party of war-mongers that had ignored popular opinion loaded against idiot wars, in favour of people apparently devoted to addressing the budget deficit and reducing spending rather than patrolling the world.

And then that lot decided to go Rambo as well.

And may we please note that despite Louis' exhortations, Europe does not comprise of France, Britain and Germany. Some of us have spent a lot of money on a rowing boat, two fellows with pointy sticks and an attack dachshund called Colin. I hear Romania has a goat with fleas.

Tremble before our power.

[Husar]

English and French politicians are certainly not chosen by the american voter so how exactly does that equate to us paying for it.

They weren't the ones who decided that America would join, that was the American president, who the Americans voted for.
The same president who keeps asking Germany/Europe to spend more money in Afghanistan, an American war, over a terror attack in America that Germany had absolutely nothing to do with (except that the pilot studied here but why would that bother us?). In fact we almost paid in blood for it several times because of attempted terror attacks which only happened because we are helping in Afghanistan and spending a lot of money on it. So I don't really see what you are saying because America pays so much on all these wars because it, or it's elected president, wants to. Could've just let the French and British go ahead alone and embarass themselves.

[Ronin]

You are being rather dense about this. Let me rephrase it.

You start = Your war = You can pay for it.

English and French politicians are certainly not chosen by the american voter so how exactly does that equate to us paying for it.

you are also being rather dense....english and french politicians are not "me"....they are not even the average voter of those 2 countries.

and as to how to resolve the situation...simply pull out now....Libya is not our problem and never was.

[TheLastDays]

and as to how to resolve the situation...simply pull out now....Libya is not our problem and never was.

This is a very 1) selfish and 2) short sighted view of the whole story...

@BG:
Of course you are right the voters have a problem there... but that still doesn't allow the current leadership to engage in wars, then engage others in said wars and then pull themselves out.
That's the only thing I'm saying, I'm not discussing the functionality of modern democracy, that's a whole other topic as the system is flawed in itself anyway.

[Ronin]

This is a very 1) selfish and 2) short sighted view of the whole story...

@BG:
Of course you are right the voters have a problem there... but that still doesn't allow the current leadership to engage in wars, then engage others in said wars and then pull themselves out.
That's the only thing I'm saying, I'm not discussing the functionality of modern democracy, that's a whole other topic as the system is flawed in itself anyway.

what is going on in Libya is a civil war, there is no reasonable or justifiable reason for us to take sides in it and elect one of them as the "good guys"
as for being short sighted, the until now current libyan regime had as of late reasonable relations with Europe and the us, there is nothing to indicate that the regime that comes out of this mess will be any better.
if something is short sighted is to stick our thumb in one of the sides of the balance without fully understanding what the consequences will be.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't know who to side with here. The racist or the Nazi.

[Noncommunist]

what is going on in Libya is a civil war, there is no reasonable or justifiable reason for us to take sides in it and elect one of them as the "good guys"
as for being short sighted, the until now current libyan regime had as of late reasonable relations with Europe and the us, there is nothing to indicate that the regime that comes out of this mess will be any better.
if something is short sighted is to stick our thumb in one of the sides of the balance without fully understanding what the consequences will be.

Considering our tremendous help in saving them from Gadaffi, I don't see why the rebels wouldn't be any better than Gadaffi. Surely, they would have some gratitude and would be more of help in whatever future endeavors we wish to pursue.

[Ronin]

Considering our tremendous help in saving them from Gadaffi, I don't see why the rebels wouldn't be any better than Gadaffi. Surely, they would have some gratitude and would be more of help in whatever future endeavors we wish to pursue.

help at one point does not ensure gratitude or cooperation in the future....history is full of examples of this.

[Viking]

what is going on in Libya is a civil war, there is no reasonable or justifiable reason for us to take sides in it and elect one of them as the "good guys"
as for being short sighted, the until now current libyan regime had as of late reasonable relations with Europe and the us, there is nothing to indicate that the regime that comes out of this mess will be any better.
if something is short sighted is to stick our thumb in one of the sides of the balance without fully understanding what the consequences will be.

LOL! Making up your own world as you go?

[Fragony]

LOL! Making up your own world as you go?

He's right

[TheLastDays]

He's not

haven't we been fruitfully discussing today?

[Viking]

He's right

No, that is a completely and utterly deluded point of view - I find it strange that I have to argue against it.

1. It is not a traditional civil war, because traditional civil wars have factions. This civil war has only one real faction, and that is the Gaddafi regime. The opposition "army" consists of average civilians picking up weapons, loosely organised. The people is on one side, the dicator is on the other. It could not have been easier to pick sides in a civil war.

2. There are plenty of indications that a new regime is going to be better, Ronin is fooling himself to believe otherwise. The opposition promises a secular and democratic future Libya, and there are few reasons not to believe their honesty (after all, they have only been working together for a few months). There is never any guarantee, but that has not been asked for.

3. We do not fully understand what the consequences will be, and that is to be expected. To not expect it, is to be naive - it is the way the world works.

Now, if you could refute any of these points with specific reports, I'd be mightily impressed.

[TheLastDays]

Forget it, he's just going to continue saying "You're wrong"...

thanks for posting this though, so I don't really have to answer Ronin anymore.

I agree and want to add that the new regime doesn't have to necessarily be better for us (that's what I called out as selfish) but it's most likely going to be better for the Libyans. I say most likely because of course all the people analyzing the situation could be wrong. I doubt they are...

[Fragony]

lol gimme one rebel leader without googling

This is tribal warfare mia muca's and who gets what over helping who, welI I dunno either. Nor do you, do you

[Viking]

Forget it, he's just going to continue saying "You're wrong"...

thanks for posting this though, so I don't really have to answer Ronin anymore.

I agree and want to add that the new regime doesn't have to necessarily be better for us (that's what I called out as selfish) but it's most likely going to be better for the Libyans. I say most likely because of course all the people analyzing the situation could be wrong. I doubt they are...

I'd say that (within reasonable limits, of course) what's good for the Libyan people is also good for the West: a despot-free democratic country.


lol gimme one rebel leader without googling

This is tribal warfare mia muca's and who gets what over helping who, welI I dunno either. Nor do you, do you

I can give you more than one, but I'd need Google for their correct spelling: Jalil. This is not tribal warfare, I bet you cannot produce a single article indicating that this is the case (read: you have a job to do). Tribes do not matter much in Libya any more, it's a largely country with a largely urban population.

We are helping a chiefly united people against a despot, that's all.

EDIT: You will find that even the Berber minority use the same revolutionary flag as the Arab majority.

[Fragony]

Can find plenty an so can you. Question, don't you feel kinda studid for thinking we attack Libya to protect Libyan civilians

[Ronin]

No, that is a completely and utterly deluded point of view - I find it strange that I have to argue against it.

1. It is not a traditional civil war, because traditional civil wars have factions. This civil war has only one real faction, and that is the Gaddafi regime. The opposition "army" consists of average civilians picking up weapons, loosely organised. The people is on one side, the dicator is on the other. It could not have been easier to pick sides in a civil war.

so it isn´t a civil war....wait...it is....
getting confused here...
I´ll take your second comment as valid...it is a civil war and it's a Libyan issue.



2. There are plenty of indications that a new regime is going to be better, Ronin is fooling himself to believe otherwise. The opposition promises a secular and democratic future Libya, and there are few reasons not to believe their honesty (after all, they have only been working together for a few months). There is never any guarantee, but that has not been asked for.
when i said "better" I meant better for the Nato countries, which is what we were discussing, what you described denotes no improvement to Nato relations from status quo prior to this adventure, it might be better or worse for the Libyans themselves, but like I said above, that is their business.



3. We do not fully understand what the consequences will be, and that is to be expected. To not expect it, is to be naive - it is the way the world works.

I do not expect for consequences to be fully understand up front...but if you are going to take that step of initiating military action there should at least be a predictable picture of what the advantages are.

[TheLastDays]

when i said "better" I meant better for the Nato countries, which is what we were discussing, what you described denotes no improvement to Nato relations from status quo prior to this adventure, it might be better or worse for the Libyans themselves, but like I said above, that is their business.


That's exactly what I called selfish in the first place. Why again did you correct me?

[Fragony]

That's exactly what I called selfish in the first place. Why again did you correct me?

Of course it is selfish, why would it be anything different

[Ronin]

That's exactly what I called selfish in the first place. Why again did you correct me?

I was replying to Viking, so I wasn´t correcting you.
I think getting involved in internal Libyan power struggles are not in the interest of my country or the larger NATO community at this moment
if you want to label that as 'selfish' go right ahead, a simple word makes no real change in the situation.

[Viking]

Can find plenty an so can you. Question, don't you feel kinda studid for thinking we attack Libya to protect Libyan civilians

No, there are no such reports. You cannot give us any. I do not espouse the mandate of 'protecting civilians', the mandate should be to secure that the aspirations of the Libyan people are met.

We are, however, not attacking Libya, but the Gaddafi regime.


so it isn´t a civil war....wait...it is....
getting confused here...
I´ll take your second comment as valid...it is a civil war and it's a Libyan issue.

I said that it was a civil war, albeit not a traditional one. There is no problem with this being a civil war. Yes of course it is a Libyan issue, so thus we side with the Libyans rather than some random dictator.


when i said "better" I meant better for the Nato countries, which is what we were discussing, what you described denotes no improvement to Nato relations from status quo prior to this adventure, it might be better or worse for the Libyans themselves, but like I said above, that is their business.

It is in the world's interest to have democracies rather than dictators. In theory, Libya could become a reliable member of NATO later on.


I do not expect for consequences to be fully understand up front...but if you are going to take that step of initiating military action there should at least be a predictable picture of what the advantages are.

I agree. Something was though predictable, and that was what would happen if we did not intervene, which is victory for the dictator. If we get another dictator, then we're back to where we started, at worst. This scenario does, however, not look very likely at present.

[Ronin]

I said that it was a civil war, albeit not a traditional one. There is no problem with this being a civil war. Yes of course it is a Libyan issue, so thus we side with the Libyans rather than some random dictator.

there is nothing here obvious enough to simply say 'thus we do this'



It is in the world's interest to have democracies rather than dictators. In theory, Libya could become a reliable member of NATO later on.

we are the world now.....I though we were NATO for starts...
wait....were is Michael?
in theory I can also win the lottery next Friday..but I´m not holding my breath.



I agree. Something was though predictable, and that was what would happen if we did not intervene, which is victory for the dictator. If we get another dictator, then we're back to where we started, at worst. This scenario does, however, not look very likely at present.

we had a stable situation....at worse we get an unstable one.....and I see nothing to indicate this is unlikely at the moment.
At the very best it's a 50/50 and pick 'em situation.
what would happen if we did not intervene was status quo....and that was not a problem for NATO before..why is it now?

[Fragony]

But Viking I really can, but since you didn't look for them yourself I am simply not going to

[Viking]

there is nothing here obvious enough to simply say 'thus we do this'

If we do side with someone, it is a 'thus'. You said yourself that it is a Libyan issue, rather than an issue for Gaddafi.



we are the world now.....I though we were NATO for starts...
wait....were is Michael?
in theory I can also win the lottery next Friday..but I´m not holding my breath.

Libya is not much farther away from Europe than what Turkey is; in some senses, you could say that it is closer.

A potential new member for NATO is though not a reason for intervention, it serves to illustrate potential gains for NATO from it all.


we had a stable situation....at worse we get an unstable one.....and I see nothing to indicate this is unlikely at the moment.

Eastern Libya is total anarchy right now, is it not? Look around and stop dreaming [nightmares].



what would happen if we did not intervene was status quo....and that was not a problem for NATO before..why is it now?

Gaddafi has always been a problem. Dicators mean problems upon problems. Gaddafi was an active sponsor of terrorism and separatism throughout the world - he was a pain in the rear end.

You will generally find that dictatorships are doing very good when it comes to breeding extremism; I think only conflict zones do it better.



But Viking I really can, but since you didn't look for them yourself I am simply not going to

Explain yourself, you don't make any sense.

[Ronin]

Gaddafi has always been a problem. Dicators mean problems upon problems. Gaddafi was an active sponsor of terrorism and separatism throughout the world - he was a pain in the rear end.

Gaddafi had been a problem in the past....post 9-11 not really.
I can find you plenty of pictures of the leaders of the governments that are now bombing him shaking his hand and saying Libya was "back in the league of nations".
Hell...just 2 or 3 years ago he was received in a NATO conference right here in Portugal and was received with the highest honors..
a little consistency at the very least would be welcome...come on.



You will generally find that dictatorships are doing very good when it comes to breeding extremism; I think only conflict zones do it better.

the irony runs thick here.......Libya went from a dictatorship to a conflict zone.

[Viking]

Gaddafi had been a problem in the past....post 9-11 not really.
I can find you plenty of pictures of the leaders of the governments that are now bombing him shaking his hand and saying Libya was "back in the league of nations".
Hell...just 2 or 3 years ago he was received in a NATO conference right here in Portugal and was received with the highest honors..
a little consistency at the very least would be welcome...come on.

You cannot trust Gaddafi, he is described as highly irrational. Is it hypocritcal to shake hands with Gaddafi and later bomb his forces? I am not so sure about that, many considerations have to be taken; but I personally did never shake hands with him.


the irony runs thick here.......Libya went from a dictatorship to a conflict zone.

Of course, we have no intention of it staying that way (nor does it look particularly likely) - and any extremism here is now less likely than ever to be directed at NATO countries.

[TheLastDays]

But Viking I really can, but since you didn't look for them yourself I am simply not going to

Sorry, but this is nonsense... In a discussion you cannot expect your opponent to supply both his and your arguments. Your arguments are your job, sorry. If you don't like it, stop discussing things or get used to losing discussions.

What you're doing is like a prosecutor coming to court and demanding from the defense attorney to present the case on his suspect being guilty...



the irony runs thick here.......Libya went from a dictatorship to a conflict zone.

But it was a conflict zone before the NATO went in. With the mission it could very well go from conflict zone to democracy which is a step up from the first state...

And naming something selfish isn't changing anything, that's right. It's not supposed to, adjectives describe something, it requires verbs (action) to change anything. I was merely stating that your attitude was selfish and I don't think that is a good attitude to have, sorry. You might disagree on it being a good attitude but you cannot (you can, but you'd be wrong) argue that it's not selfish

[TheLastDays]

please delete, sorry for the double post

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Strike's earlier comment was a little harsh, but correct in it's implied intent. You could make an argument that NATO has outlived its usefulness and the powers should meet and negotiate an end-date for the treaty.

1. The primary purpose of the document -- de facto if not de jure -- was to defend against invasion by the Eastern Bloc. This is no longer a possibility and defense against same is moot. Europe and the USA would be better served by bilateral defense treaties tailored to each of the several relationships between the members.

2. Europe needs to reign in its defense budgets which are, for the most part, grossly over-large relevant to need and political inclination. Standing military formations, aside from Special Operations teams and the like, are little more than charming anachronisms. The Swiss, with their emphasis on a well-trained and equipped national militia, are far more in tune with their actual needs. Western Europe, for the most part, wants to insure that any real effort at aggression would be counter-productive in that no aggressor would be capable or willing to absorb the cost of attacking (even "successfully"). The bulk of the populations of most Western European nations see little to no reason whatsoever for force projection aside from the occasional SpecOp team waxing a particularly recalcitrant group of terrorists or pirates. Paying 1 or 2% of your GDP to a force projection style military in that context is silly.

3. Europe no longer wants or needs the USA as a shield. In fact, many view NATO efforts since 1989 (if not before) as the USA taking advantage of it's Euro partners and throwing its weight around. They would prefer any force projection (and blame attached thereunto) by the USA to be soley the USA's bailiwick.

4. Many in Europe are of the opinion that an EU military might even be a better choice than NATO for handling Europe's needs.

On this side of the pond, the USA would likely -- following a period of readjustment -- be better served by withdrawing from everywhere in Europe that does not specifically negotiate with us to stay and help. It would likely be less expensive and would encourage us to be more selective in our projection of military force. No German hospitals or European infrastructure servicing our supply tail. Have to do it alone from our own resources. This should up the reticence a notch.


What do you backroomers' think of this argument?

[Kagemusha]

I agree completely with you Seamus. I think it would better serve both Europeans and Americans.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, I myself am not certain of my own argument -- I put it out there for evaluation. I am not truly certain here. Thanks for the feedback.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That is the European side of the coin. But if it is accurate, then point 3 and 4 imply that the USA is diametrically opposed to such a development from a long term strategy point of view. For the USA it is neither practical nor feasible to just close its bases in Europe if their game is one of force projection anywhere in the world -- not to mention they particularly depend on the large logistical machinery built in Germany (and much of the rest of Europe) over the years.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm I wonder though has NATO outlived it's usefullness in reality?? if the USA want to project force in North Africa or the Mid East it's always nice to have the place surrounded is it not.

I suspect NATO no longer is about defending Europe and more about allowing the USA to project force in various parts of the world using the first world infrastructure of Western Europe.

Funnily enough one very important US transport hub is not even in NATO and despite anti NATO sentiment of the Left in Ireland no one in Clare is too worried.

[Ice]

Actually, I myself am not certain of my own argument -- I put it out there for evaluation. I am not truly certain here. Thanks for the feedback.

It's a good argument and one that I would agree with.

[Vladimir]

Strike's earlier comment was a little harsh, but correct in it's implied intent. You could make an argument that NATO has outlived its usefulness and the powers should meet and negotiate an end-date for the treaty.

1. The primary purpose of the document -- de facto if not de jure -- was to defend against invasion by the Eastern Bloc. This is no longer a possibility and defense against same is moot. Europe and the USA would be better served by bilateral defense treaties tailored to each of the several relationships between the members.

2. Europe needs to reign in its defense budgets which are, for the most part, grossly over-large relevant to need and political inclination. Standing military formations, aside from Special Operations teams and the like, are little more than charming anachronisms. The Swiss, with their emphasis on a well-trained and equipped national militia, are far more in tune with their actual needs. Western Europe, for the most part, wants to insure that any real effort at aggression would be counter-productive in that no aggressor would be capable or willing to absorb the cost of attacking (even "successfully"). The bulk of the populations of most Western European nations see little to no reason whatsoever for force projection aside from the occasional SpecOp team waxing a particularly recalcitrant group of terrorists or pirates. Paying 1 or 2% of your GDP to a force projection style military in that context is silly.

3. Europe no longer wants or needs the USA as a shield. In fact, many view NATO efforts since 1989 (if not before) as the USA taking advantage of it's Euro partners and throwing its weight around. They would prefer any force projection (and blame attached thereunto) by the USA to be soley the USA's bailiwick.

4. Many in Europe are of the opinion that an EU military might even be a better choice than NATO for handling Europe's needs.

On this side of the pond, the USA would likely -- following a period of readjustment -- be better served by withdrawing from everywhere in Europe that does not specifically negotiate with us to stay and help. It would likely be less expensive and would encourage us to be more selective in our projection of military force. No German hospitals or European infrastructure servicing our supply tail. Have to do it alone from our own resources. This should up the reticence a notch.


What do you backroomers' think of this argument?

Well then, this looks pretty. Time to tear it apart!

Well, actually, you are correct in some of it. I believe it best for the U.S. to reduce its military involvement in Europe. I’ve believed that for years. What should remain, however, is the NATO framework and, yes, the EU (for those of you who don’t know, the U.S. can claim responsibility for that as well). Thus providing Europe with an economic and military foundation to provide for and exert its own influence.

Where you are wrong, horribly, horribly wrong is that you believe Europe’s defense budgets are too high. In the global context, they are pathetic. As was said earlier in the thread, the opinion of the bulk of Europeans doesn’t matter. Their perceptions are more important, but more important are the perceptions of others. The ability to project power (or other’s perception of) is necessary for their countries/continent to be taken seriously. That affects their economy and security. Look at what China is doing against Japan in the Pacific.

Europe’s defense spending doesn’t even match their paltry economic growth. Europe would also need to raise their defense spending without the military aid of the U.S. Speaking of “Europe” like it’s a single entity bothers me too. Europe does want and need the U.S.; not as a shield, but as a supplement. The EU has no military might. It is an economic union.

Joint military cooperation between the U.S. and a non-U.S. NATO would be a good thing but Europeans need to learn how to maintain a standing army without trying to kill each other.

[Kagemusha]

Im sorry Vladimir but i have to disagree with this. Like i posted already a 2% EU wide defence budget would create akin to 320 billion dollars defense budget, which is almost three times what China is spending and more then five times what Russia is spending. Being about half what the US is spending. If used vicely, this would allow to create a very good European wide defesce and also enough over seas strike ability for Europe´s needs, akin to one carrier group. The problem with EU areas defense is that we have far too many overlapping organisations and military formations which we dont need.

[Vladimir]

Im sorry Vladimir but i have to disagree with this. Like i posted already a 2% EU wide defence budget would create akin to 320 billion dollars defense budget, which is almost three times what China is spending and more then five times what Russia is spending. Being about half what the US is spending. If used vicely, this would allow to create a very good European wide defesce and also enough over seas strike ability for Europe´s needs, akin to one carrier group. The problem with EU areas defense is that we have far too many overlapping organisations and military formations which we dont need.

Your numbers are solid but I think you're looking at the wrong ones. EU member countries are separate countries with more expensive equipment who take better care of their service members. The total number being spent isn't as important, especially when compared to individual countries like Russia and China. The overlap is a problem which will increase cost. That's why I would like to see Europe take advantage of existing structures. It's going to be imperfect and expensive and simple things like agreeing on a language will be a problem.

What EU countries are you referring to? All members?

Oh, and the pink is really hard to read. :laugh4:

[gaelic cowboy]

To be honest I cant see any EU/European defense integration any time soon it is too much of a red a line twill cause a :daisy: of a row.

[Vladimir]

Another bump in the road:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792075&c=FEA&s=CVS


ROME - Italy's defense industry has launched a fight against a France-U.K. deal on defense cooperation that it believes is weakening European industrial integration, and it has won backing from Germany's industrial association.

[Strike For The South]

Lemur how can you agree with Seamus? His entire arguement stems from the seed I planted on page 1

I feel like Adali Stevenson

[Furunculus]

Another bump in the road:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792075&c=FEA&s=CVS

The entente 2.0 is broadly a good thing.

The countries share a great number of complimentary & similar characteristics including GDP, Defence budgets, UNSC membership, nuclear deterrents, overseas dependencies & global foreign policy ambitions, but both have defined their ambitions though opposing reactions to the Suez crisis. In both instances to never find themselves marginalised in world affairs through opposition from the US, but on the one hand by by converging already complimentary ambitions, and on the other by creating a european framework through which independence of the US can be achieved.

What does this agreement tell us about how those ambitions have evolved since the Cold War?

The first question to ask is whether one party or the other has moved significantly in the direction of the other, the second is whether the detail provides any clues to the future trend of movement along the Gaulist/Atlanticist axis.

The logical focus for the first is the agreed position on NATO and the EU, for Britain has always worked to retain the engagement of the US, through NATO, in its european interests, and the latter has instead worked build a europe that is independent of American hegemony. Both have been edging closer together since the late nineties but significant differences persist.

For its part Britain has worked to fashion a europe that is capable of collective military action at the softer end of the conflict scale, such as peacekeeping, by working with France to create the St Malo accords on defence integration at the inter-governmental level.

France under Sarkozy has welcomed this defence integration, albeit wishing to have this occur at a supra-national EU level, but has demonstrated a commitment to the NATO collective defence organisation by rejoining it after decades of observer status.


“22. NATO remains the fundamental guarantor of Europe’s security. We share the same objectives for the forthcoming NATO Summit in Lisbon. We also want a new Strategic Concept that: makes clear NATO’s continuing commitment to collective territorial defence and to addressing threats to Allies’ security wherever they stem from; addresses new threats to Allies’ fundamental security interests; and underlines NATO’s desire to work with a wide range of partners.”

The result is unambiguous, european security has a core extra-european component via the capability and will of Canada and the US. In addition the two countries seek a new strategic concept that works to resolve threats to north american security as well as european, including threats to their ‘interests’.


“24. We continue to support the objectives and full implementation of decisions taken by the December 2008 European Council, under the French EU Presidency. In particular we encourage all European Union members to develop their military, civilian, and civilian-military capabilities, so that European countries can become more effective at delivering security and responding to crises.”

Here the result is a little more misty, but that December 2008 European Council decision includes agreement that the Treaty of Lisbon will not prejudice the security and defence policy of Member States. Further, that the EDSP will continue to develop in full complementarity with NATO in the agreed framework of the strategic partnership between the EU & NATO, with the goals of strengthening and optimising ‘european’ capabilities in the years ahead, and emphasising the ‘EU’s’ desire to work for peace and security. A clear demarcation between a europe of nations and the EU.

The result appears to be a bilateral affair characterised by inter-governmental cooperation and integration, so on balance the British government appears to have ‘won’ its preferences………

However, as with all matters european there is the potential for further integration, potentially to the point where force employable is no longer sovereign, which in this instance depends on two factors.

1. that strategic capability is so enmeshed with France that sovereign action is not possible without access to those joint assets.

2. that command and control of various joint assets gradually becomes subsumed into a supr-national EU defence entity.

This is termed a ‘downstream effect’ in Defence circles, but can any evidence of intent for such an effect be determined from the new Defence agreements?


“8. Combined Joint Expeditionary Force. It will involve all three Services: there will be a land component comprised of formations at national brigade level, maritime and air components with their associated Headquarters, and logistics and support functions. It will not involve standing forces but will be available at notice for bilateral, NATO, European Union, United Nations or other operations.”

The key point here is that this expeditionary force, presumably at division level due to the reference to “national brigade level”, will not involve standing forces. Rather, forces will be held available for joint operations so even if there were a supra-national EU command entity it would still require the ‘assent’ of the constituent nations.


“9. Aircraft carriers. This will create opportunities for UK and French aircraft to operate off carriers from both countries. Building primarily on maritime task group co-operation around the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, the UK and France will aim to have, by the early 2020s, the ability to deploy a UK-French integrated carrier strike group incorporating assets owned by both countries.”

This is admittedly worrying, for two nations each sharing a single carrier with integrated task-group elements represents a strategic capability that is no longer sovereign. It is much to be hoped that France makes use of its £100m purchase of the CVF design in order to procure PA2, and that Britain likewise uses the opportunity of a post Afghanistan SDSR in 2015 to bring the second QE class into full service. This would preserve the ability for sovereign action by both France and Britain, and would be in line with a broader european ambition for three to four fleet carriers. The combined task-group would still be an essential capability, providing both parties the guarantee of deploying naval power projection with strategic depth. We shall have to wait a further five years to hear answer to this question however.


“15. Air to air refuelling and passenger air transport. We are currently investigating the potential to use spare capacity that may be available in the UK’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme to meet the needs of France for air to air refuelling and military air transport, provided it is financially acceptable to both nations.”

This is no doubt why this massively expensive PFI survived the SDSR in October, and probably comes with similar clause providing access to French A400 fleet when it comes into service as well as their maritime patrol aircraft. The retirement of the Hercules and MRA4 fleets would make this arrangement highly beneficial to British Armed Forces, especially if it included access to French intra-theatre aircraft such as the C160 and Cn 235-200. Either way, it does not involve a complete dependence given that the RAF will possess a fleet of C17 strategic airlift and A400 tactical airlift planes.


“12. Submarine technologies and systems. We plan to develop jointly some of the equipment and technologies for the next generation of nuclear submarines. To that end, we will launch a joint study and agree arrangements in 2011.”

The Defence Industrial Strategy under the previous government rightly considered nuclear submarines as a strategic industry to be preserved, and the article above does not alter matters with its sensible discussion of joint equipment and technology programs.


“b) to collaborate in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, in full compliance with our international obligations, through unprecedented co-operation at a new joint facility at Valduc in France that will model performance of our nuclear warheads and materials to ensure long-term viability, security and safety – this will be supported by a joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston in the UK”

The matter of the nuclear deterrent is the most controversial area of cooperation if only because of our technology relationship with the US through shared facilities such as Aldermaston, but rumours in the news suggest this collaboration was agreed with the US beforehand therefore we must assume that sensitive areas will be thoroughly fire-walled on both sides. The lack of protest and outrage from the other side of the Atlantic indicates that the US is satisfied with the security arrangements surrounding sensitive technologies. It has been suggested that ‘downstream’ effects will result in a joint deterrent but given that the French deterrent costs nearly double our own, which is itself heavily subsided by sharing with the US, it is difficult to imagine that any putative French/UK deterrent would prove as effective or as cheap as that which is possessed now. It would in any case only swap one technology dependence for another and thus fail to answer the biggest objection which lies around its independence.


"16. Unmanned Air Systems have become essential to our armed forces. We have agreed to work together on the next generation of Medium Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Air Surveillance Systems."

This is an interesting element, for UAV’s represent the future of the defence-aerospace industry in europe, so we shall have to wait and see whether this is limited to ISTAR platforms, or whether it matures into full cooperation on deep-strike UCAV’s such are as emerging from the Taranis and Talarion demonstrator projects.

Significantly, one area that does not feature at all is intelligence gathering. There is specific mention of cooperation in the areas of satellite communications, cyber-security and counter-terrorism, but nothing on broader intelligence gathering apparatus. Agreement in this area would have signalled a disengagement of Britain from the US for the intelligence sharing agreements go beyond that shared by any other nations today in the depth and breadth of their integration, thus requiring a level of trust that utterly precludes the involvement of third parties.

To conclude, the agreement reiterates the primacy of intergovernmental treaties as the bedrock of european security, rather than supra-national bodies, and does so whilst preserving the US/UK intelligence relationship, and sovereign military capabilities in all areas with the possible exception of carriers, so with that proviso in mind this author is happy to endorse what is a very sensible and beneficial agreement. The failure to bring the second carrier into service would give lie to the conclusion above, and herald exactly the kind of ‘downstream’ peril that so many suspect.

Finally, it is interesting to speculate that Britain’s supposed lack of grand strategy is nought but a sham. To quote Churchill; “For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent”. If we consider a future federal europe as the dominant power on the continent, whilst agreeing that we are too polite to call it such and thus articulate the ambition, have we not worked to achieve exactly this by picking at the seams of the already frayed Franco-German axis? Why would France accept such a change? Perhaps it to is looking to bolster its leverage in europe, an end primarily achieved through Germany in times past, and now in need of a new fulcrum given Germany’s dalliance with Russia……

[Vladimir]

Wow. I agree. Thanks for taking so much time on that post. I don't know how to respond. :bow:

[Furunculus]

my pleasure.

i do like to waste my time studying geo-politics, so it seems only efficient to share my small 'wisdom' with the rest of you plebs. :D

[gaelic cowboy]

I cant believe no one posted this in answer to Strike


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSV9_J8Csts&feature=related

[Strike For The South]

See? The Irishman gets it

[Boohugh]

Apologies for coming to this thread so late, I've been away. One point that nobody has mentioned which I think has relevance is that there is a strong argument to be made that the Libya campaign is being fought the wrong way, which explains the high cost. There seems to be the assumption that air strikes alone can bring about regime change, albeit with some assistance from a group of untrained, ill-disciplined civilians on the ground. I find it incredible there still exists a belief that air power alone can achieve military success when this has been proved false on every occassion since the idea first surfaced in the inter-World War period. Air power has a vital role to play, but that role is to be part of a combined arms operation, not to be an operation on its own. Not to mention even the air campaign is being fought in an utterly uneconomic fashion (*cough* if only we had some aircraft carriers *cough*) so we aren't making best use of the limited forces available.

If Britain and France had seriously been committed to regime change from the start, they could have sent relatively small military land forces, supported by an air campaign, to take land from the regime's military, which the rebels could then have held. They would have reached Tripoli in a matter of weeks at most and this would all have been over. Europe's problem isn't the amount they spend on the military, it is how they spend it combined with weak political leadership on military affairs. It didn't require strong leadership to intervene in Libya, but it did to intervene properly and effectively, that is where Cameron and Sarkozy let themselves and their countries down.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If Britain and France had seriously been committed to regime change from the start, they could have sent relatively small military land forces, supported by an air campaign, to take land from the regime's military, which the rebels could then have held. They would have reached Tripoli in a matter of weeks at most and this would all have been over. Europe's problem isn't the amount they spend on the military, it is how they spend it combined with weak political leadership on military affairs. It didn't require strong leadership to intervene in Libya, but it did to intervene properly and effectively, that is where Cameron and Sarkozy let themselves and their countries down.

Except that even under the immensely creative interpretations of UN Resolution 1973 currently being knotted, this would be thoroughly illegal. Regime change is banned under international law, which why we get these tortuous justifications parading as protecting civilians (The Nice Ones We Like sub-section).