You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
The European component of NATO a toothless fraud?
2004-06-27
Oxblog comments about the appalling lack of clothes on Emperor NATO.
the basic problem of alliance—which is cash. While the US contributes 3.3% of its GDP to national defence, 12 of the 19 pre-2004 Nato allies contribute less than 2% of theirs. To look at it another way, the US picks up the tab for 64% of Nato military expenditures ($348.5 million, 2002), while all other allies together contribute only 36% ($196.0 million).Not unlike the situation with the UN. For their part, European governments are facing budget shortfalls and budget pressure from ballooning pension costs.

What comes out of this is a capabilities gap. Of 1.4 million soldiers under Nato arms in October 2003, allies other than the US contributed all of 55,000. Nearly all allies lack forces which can be projected away from the European theatre. SACEUR General James Jones testified before Congress in March 2004 that only 3-4% of European forces were deployable for expeditions. Then there are the problems of interoperability: there is a recurring problem of coalition-wide secure communications which can be drawn on in operations. Allies other than the U.S. have next to no precision strike capabilities, although these are slowly improving. The US is generally the sole provider of electronic warfare (jamming and electronic intelligence) aircraft, as well as aircraft for surveillance and C3 (command, control, and communications). The US is also capable of much greater sortie rates than its allies.....

The result of this impecunity and general want of resolve is, something like a Horatio Alger novel adapted by a rather perverse naturalist, a litany of unfulfilled promises. Addressing the operational inadequacies of Nato was to be the subject of the Defence Capabilities Initiative launched at the April 1999 Washington Summit—but the DCI was widely regarded as too broad and unfocused. To remedy this shortfall, the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC) then grew out of the November 2002 Prague Summit and in an act of military humility instead suggested individual allies tailor their contributions by focusing on specific capabilities they might actually be able to handle (strategic lift for Germany, aerial tankers for Spain, unmanned aerial vehicles for a group of six other allies). As far as how well the PCC has performed—well, don’t expect too many presidents and prime ministers to be slapping each other on their backs in self-congratulation in Istanbul.
Posted by:RWV

#4  
The European component of NATO a toothless fraud?
Well, yeah. When did you notice?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-06-27 10:25:31 PM  

#3  Which is the answer to the question: When is an alliance not an alliance?
Posted by: Capt America   2004-06-27 10:02:53 PM  

#2  Nearly all allies lack forces which can be projected away from the European theatre.

Given the history of Europe, are we certain that this wasn't the intent?
Posted by: AzCat   2004-06-27 6:12:27 PM  

#1  Y'know, the term unilateral, which has been used pejoratively to describe US decisions regards use of force, rather loses its meaning... When so few nations can actually field forces - and the only other nations capable of significant expeditionary action are our allies, well, methinks the "charge" is laughable on its face.
Posted by: .com   2004-06-27 4:18:52 PM  

00:00