You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Discussed this on here for years and said the alliance would eventually be fractured and the EU would have to fend for itself. Not many were fond of my stance on NATO. The first step to that prediction has now been taken, and for reasons I've previously stated.
BRUSSELS – In a stern rebuke, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Friday that the future of the historic NATO military alliance is at risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for front-line combat. The United States won't carry the alliance as a charity case, the outgoing Pentagon chief said.
Some NATO countries bristled, but Britain quickly and heartily agreed.
Gates' assessment that NATO could face "a dim if not dismal" future echoes long-standing concern of U.S. policymakers about European defense spending. But rarely, if ever, has it been stated so directly by such a powerful American figure, widely respected in the United States and internationally.
The remarks, at the close of Gates' final overseas trip, reflect a new reality of constrained American finances and a smaller global reach.
Earlier in the week Gates played "bad cop" to U.S. President Barack Obama's good, criticizing Germany's abstention from the air campaign in Libya two days after Obama lavished an award and fancy White House dinner on visiting Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But Gates spoke for the Obama administration, and his warning Friday was aimed squarely at Europe's priorities.
"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.
That assessment may cause Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the United States, on whom they have counted for a large measure of their security for six decades.
It comes on the heels of the withdrawal of one American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction of U.S. troops in Europe.
The U.S. has been the brawn behind NATO since its birth in 1949. But the disparity between strength and allies' investment has only grown wider.
In a question-and-answer session after his speech, Gates, 67, said his generation's "emotional and historical attachment" to NATO is "aging out." He noted that he is about 20 years older than Obama, his boss.
For many Americans, NATO is a vague idea tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's reason for being came into question. It has remained intact — and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today — but European reluctance to expand defense budgets has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.
Gates said this presents a problem that could spell the demise of the alliance.
"What I've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance," Gates said. "Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO — individually and collectively — have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future."
Without naming names, Gates blasted "nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."
A German foreign ministry spokeswoman defended that nation's contribution and noted Obama's recent praise.
However, defense spending is uneven within Europe.
Liam Fox, defense secretary in Britain, a strong U.S. ally, told NATO Thursday that European governments were undermining military co-operation with the U.S. by failing to spend enough on defense. He also said other European nations should be more willing to send their forces to NATO operations such as Afghanistan.
He praised Gates as a champion of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
"Unless Europe carries more of the share of its own defense, we should not assume his successors will do the same," Fox said.
Over the past two years, military spending by NATO's European members has shrunk by about $45 billion — the equivalent of the entire annual defense budget of Germany, one of the alliance's top-spending members.
As a result, the U.S. defense budget of nearly $700 billion accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending by NATO members. The combined military spending of all 26 European members is just above $220 billion.
The White House stood by Gates' comments Friday, though officials emphasized that the outgoing defense secretary was not guaranteeing a dim future for NATO, only saying that the possibility existed if allies cannot provide the resources needed. "I don't think anyone would argue with that," said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council.
Gates has criticized the Europeans before. He bruised feelings at NATO by publicly calling for larger troop contributions in Afghanistan. He has also criticized the heavy restrictions many European governments set for their soldiers, including bans on night patrols that mean many of them rarely leave their bases.
In February 2010 at the National Defense University in Washington he said NATO was in danger of becoming a paper tiger.
"The demilitarization of Europe, where large swaths of the general public and political classes are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st," he said then.
To illustrate his concerns about Europe's lack of appetite for defense, Gates pointed to Libya, where France and other NATO nations pushed hard for NATO intervention and where the U.S. insisted on a back seat role.
"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate but simply because they can't."
Such inequality is unacceptable, Gates said, and so is the poor follow-through that occurred once the mission began.
"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," he said.
During his first two years on the job, Gates alternately coaxed and complained, often loudly pressing allies to send more forces and funding to Afghanistan and to lessen their restriction on the troops they had there.
After a while he scaled back his constant hounding, acknowledging that it wasn't paying off much. And he frequently joked that NATO colleagues weren't shy about mentioning his "megaphone diplomacy."
NATO did send more forces over the past two years, and Dutch, British and other European forces have taken heavy losses. But as the Afghan war approaches its 10th anniversary, the U.S. has more than twice as many forces in Afghanistan as all other nations combined. Several NATO nations have withdrawn forces or have announced plans to do so. The U.S. shares the NATO goal of ending combat there by 2015.
Gates offered praise and sympathy along with his chiding, noting that more than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have died in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were their first military casualties since World War II.
Gates spoke at the Defense and Security Agenda think tank in Brussels, where earlier in the week he attended a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
It's no longer in the US's interest to prop up these other nations while thye make token gestures to their own longevity. This current model has allowed Europe to become a collection of nanny states that provide a respectable quality of life to the laziest and most unwilling of its citizens, ultimately under the shield of US protection.
I'm not advocating the US follow suit and abandon its military strength, but name me one country that embraces the social programs of Europe and has a fearsome military? You can't do it. It's a tradeoff that people have to make, and in my opinon, without the US being the biggest kid on the block to have their back, it wouldn't be an option. Outside of England, NATO is a joke, and quite frankly, even the English aren't all that badass.
In my opinion, it's time the US removes itself from assistsing these other nations in almost all aspects. If nothing happens and wealthy countries with no standing army continue to prosper, more power to them. But if shit starts to go south, and they come pleading for assistance, it's time they start paying the emperor tribute instead of openly mocking him.
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Was hoping Flagg would jump into this thread. Pretty much agree with everything you said.
It's no longer in the US's interest to prop up these other nations while thye make token gestures to their own longevity.
Yeah, NATO has always been more favorable to Europe. The US got practically nothing out of it. Only thing really was having bases, troops, nukes,etc. in strategic locations during the Cold War. They even used to resist certain US policies meant to counteract Soviet measures(Reagan's missile deployment a major example). Kinda hard to defend countries that resist it, and that also adds weight to my theory that had the alliance ever had to deal with a major crisis, many would not have contributed. The "an attack against one is an attack against all" mantra that was the backbone of the alliance is probably the biggest bluff in history and we(Europe in particular) are lucky the Soviets never attempted to call that bluff.
While I do believe a US-Soviet war may have been winnable(I'm not talking all out nuclear war) as we certainly had the advantage, I highly doubt the conflict would have transpired how it did during "war games".
I'm not advocating the US follow suit and abandon its military strength
While I believe the US does need to cut defense spending to a degree, I agree that we can never allow ourselves to lose our spot as the greatest military on the planet.
Outside of England, NATO is a joke, and quite frankly, even the English aren't all that badass.
I consider Canada a key ally in the alliance, but other than that I agree. If/when NATO is disbanded, I would like to see a new defensive pact with key allies such as England, Canada, Australia, SK, Japan,etc. I know we have various pacts with those countries already, but placing them all in one alliance might be more favorable. I've said this before and I know its a minority opinion, but I believe the US should start getting closer to Russia. Regardless of any other alliances or hostile countries, a pact between the US and Russia would literally change the world. In the absence of NATO, the EU will also try to establish even closer ties with Russia.
In my opinion, it's time the US removes itself from assistsing these other nations in almost all aspects. If nothing happens and wealthy countries with no standing army continue to prosper, more power to them. But if shit starts to go south, and they come pleading for assistance, it's time they start paying the emperor tribute instead of openly mocking him.
Agreed 100000000000000%.
What do you see the role of the US as in a post NATO world?
I'd like to see them turn tail on the U.S., and kiss up to China for that kind of protection.
The Chinese would give them an epic "fuck off".
China can barely protect itself. Other than its nuke arsenal, they're pretty much a joke. They have some missiles capable of taking out aircraft carriers, but the chances of that occurring aren't high. People give China way too much credit. While they have a booming economy, they are in no shape to walk into Europe and protect them, even if they wanted to. Their military is not designed to walk into global hot spots and protect everyone. While I am no expert on China, they are probably decades away from having that sort of capability. There is only one country that comes close to our capability and that is Russia.
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Oh no no no, I wasn't saying China is of any real military strength.
But Europe are such pussies (no offense), they are convinced they need a big brother to have their back on the playground.
Bottom line is there's only one country to do that. Yet Europe is convinced they have the ability to take their ball and go home.
But it still doesn't stop China from having a HUGE attitude, and thinking someone actually gives a shit about them. They remind me of 1991 Russia.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
China has a lot of people though.
If everyone in the usa killed 5 chinese people each, without loosing one person, there would still be enough people in china to make up the whole population of the usa.
Surely one day the technology will be equal and then it could come down to pure manpower?
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
I don't think it's about manpower, I think it's more about disorganization. The U.S. is finding how more and more disorganized and fractured the Chinese military is.
China's military right now is kind of like the old saying - "if they had a brain, they'd be dangerous"
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
China has a lot of people though.
If everyone in the usa killed 5 chinese people each, without loosing one person, there would still be enough people in china to make up the whole population of the usa.
Surely one day the technology will be equal and then it could come down to pure manpower?
Technology will never be equal though. The US will continue to build and develop better systems, as will the Chinese, but the distinct advantage that America has will continue to develop further.
However, there comes a point where you ask when is this enough? A Hydrogen bomb from 1959 is just as deadly as one made in 2011. Sure the guidance systems and accuracy and raw power are improved, but a direct hit to a major city won't be any less tramatic.
While China may outnumber us, there is no way they could move an army of that size without us noticing. Every aspect of our military is world best, and a fleet of chinese ships loaded with soldiers headed towards America would be sunk by our subs before they were 1000 miles out to sea.
Now that's not to say that the US can't be harmed, of course we can. But I'm simply stating that our technology still gives us the advantage over China even when they outnumber us greatly. You also forget that in the event of a war against China, the draft would be started and within a few months, hundreds of thousands of young Americans would be in uniform.
I don't see China as a military threat. If nothign else, they're a deterent from the US getting to involved in N. Korea. China's threat is almost entirely economic. While Americans argue for union wages at 30$ an hour with 5 weeks of paid vacatation, the chinese are working for 25 cents an hours with no time off. An exageration of the true numbers, but the point is made. The American people have become lazy and feel entitled to the quality fo life they spend hours watching on reality TV. There used to be a time when owning a small home and having a small family was the mark of a successful man. I don't know if that qualifies as enough anymore.
And finally, with regard to James' comment on Canada being a strong ally of the US; I respectfully disagree. Canada more than any other nation gets the perks of US protection. They can spend all their GDP on social things and brag about how much superior they are, but they really don't do shit. They have a population a 10th of the US, and could be wiped out by any nominal military power with half a brain. The reality that anyone dicking with Canada would result in immediate US retaliation is what keeps Canada protected.
I'm not dismissing Canadian people. They're no different than your average america. People are people. I'm simply talking in the abstract notion of nations. What has Canada contributed to the world? What great inventions or military aide have they brought. Sure, some token amount was a Normandy, but their contribution was nill. Outside of some actors and musicians, I just don't see them being as great as many want to portray them as. They certainly don't assist the US to any great degree. And the same can be said about virtually every other nation on the planet.
And before people get offended, and list off something great their respective country did, don't. Again, I'm not making a swipe against you or your friends. You're no different than me or anyone else. I personally have done shit. I just happen to have been born in America.
When it comes to nations that need to be pulled from the US tit, Canada ranks near the top of nations that should start fending for themself. When all these other nations start pulling their own weight and not relying on the US, then we can start having serious talks about quality of life comparisons and who takes better care of their people.
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
Great points on China. Those comments should be implanted into every Americans brain.
While you're correct that Canada greatly benefits from the US, any country that is willing to stand side by side with us during a conflict without hesitation I consider to be a close ally. Regardless of how much money we give them or whether or not they are under our "nuclear umbrella".
While the US has many allies, only a few can be counted on in the event of a major crisis....
England
Canada
Australia
Japan
I'm sure a few more could be added to that list but those are the virtual "locks".
Re: Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal'
What has Canada contributed to the world? What great inventions or military aide have they brought.
excuse me? do some fucking research before you say stupid shit
Insulin and the telephone immediately spring to mind
how about walkie talkies and tracer bulelts for military
kerocene, alkaline batteries, the blackberry, wireless radio, the TV, bone marrow combatibility test, the fucking pushup bra? lol the list goes on
canada has contributed lots "to the world" on top of that we supply the USA with lots of materials every damn day, forestry wood, fruits and veggies, ELECTRICITY! to name a few
and we played our part in every major war that the USA has fought except Vietnam ... nearly a 10th of our population fought in both WWI and WW2
granted i will give you that our most military activity has been limited to peacekeeping since WW2 but itsd not like we do NOTHING
