Article

2011-03-06 Europe

NATO allies warn against too much US defense scrimping

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2011-03-06 10:27|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 NATO is dead. Time to pay for your own defenses, EU.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-03-06 10:45|| 2011-03-06 10:45|| Front Page Top

#2 Hey, NATO "allies". The gravy train has derailed. I suggest you pay your own fair share.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2011-03-06 10:54|| 2011-03-06 10:54|| Front Page Top

#3 The echos of the union mobs in Madison. Hey, guys, the bank is broke. Running off the American military welfare support of the last thirty years is about to end. Maybe you too can hire some professional protesters to march outside the White House [doing the jobs Euros won't].

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-06 11:04|| 2011-03-06 11:04|| Front Page Top

#4 ...Before 2012, we're going to see in the open something I've been saying since the mid 90s: THERE IS NO NATO. The NATO nations (with the exception of the UK, which is now busily catching up) destroyed their militaries in the mid 1990s and have literally nothing but a few token units, certainly nothing they could actually hope to survive a war with. We've been paying for and providing easily 85% of the effort of defending Europe for 16 years now.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2011-03-06 13:36|| 2011-03-06 13:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Its pretty simple NATO "allies" (other than the Tommies and Diggers):

ISAF means "I See Americans Fighting" (and not much anyone else other than the aforementioned Anglo allies).

Your troops will fight if you let them, but your politicians can governments have held back - so you can kiss our asses. We are the ones bleeding, and until you put some fight into the war, you should just shut up and stay out of the way.

You do not pull your weight in Afghanistan, and until you do, screw you.

Posted by OldSpook 2011-03-06 14:22|| 2011-03-06 14:22|| Front Page Top

#6 "We've been paying for and providing easily 85% of the effort of defending Europe for 16 years now"

Having lived in Europe, Mike, and having seen all the treasures of the Western world that are there, I used to think our sacrifice was worth it.

I've changed my mind. >:-(

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2011-03-06 14:29|| 2011-03-06 14:29|| Front Page Top

#7 I can't think of a better reason for cutting the military budget.

That said, I think that's that last thing that should be cut, and I include all the 'entitlements' on the chopping block, and I can retire in four years.

Posted by Bobby 2011-03-06 15:00|| 2011-03-06 15:00|| Front Page Top

#8 we spend 100's of billions on defense, time too disband NATO and let them pay their own way

Posted by chris 2011-03-06 15:57|| 2011-03-06 15:57|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm not entirely sure that backing out of NATO is a wise move for us, and I say that as someone who in the past has advocated precisely that.

Think of the possibilities:

1) Europe re-arms and causes trouble. That's what Winston Churchill used to refer to by noting that Germans would be either at your feet or at your throat. We've had them at our feet these past 60 years (well the French have been sulking in a corner); do we really want Europe to decide to return to its old ways?

2) Europe DOESN'T rearm. Sub-possibilities --

a) Russia takes over.
b) Islam takes over.
c) Lichtenstein takes over.

You can see the problems.

Without NATO, within a generation the US and Europe would be back to the usual pre-WWII hates and mistrusts. I'm not sure that's good for the world. I'm re-evaluating.

Posted by Steve White 2011-03-06 16:07|| 2011-03-06 16:07|| Front Page Top

#10 There just needs to be a way to make Nato :

a) effective and on demand
b) each country to pull its weight

Its a good buffer zone and dumping ground for you on the other side of the pond and has been far more effective over the years than the UN , not that that amounts to much. (facepalm)

Posted by Oscar 2011-03-06 16:13|| 2011-03-06 16:13|| Front Page Top

#11 do we really want Europe to decide to return to its old ways?

This assumes the Euros want to return to their old ways and actually can. Both assumptions are questionable, particularly the later. They certainly aren't a threat to us and I'm not sure we wouldn't benefit if they became a threat to some others, especially those to the east and south of them. Frankly, I think Mexico is a much greater threat to us than Europe.

Nato was was created for a purpose, to prevent a military invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union. It was the most successful military alliance in world history because it achieved its goal with out ever engaging in organized combat. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the need for Nato disappeared. Rather than dissolve an unnecessary alliance we maintained our security umbrella over the EUros. The results have been as disastrous as the effect of the Great Society on the black family.

Rather than maintain the fictional alliance to protect a client population from a fictional enemy, we should dissolve Nato and create a real alliance between threatened parties to deal with the real enemy that threatens us, radical Islam. This threat is very different from the Soviet Union and will require an international response that is very different from Nato. That we have failed to do so is an indictment of the imagination and creativity of our leadership.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-06 16:34|| 2011-03-06 16:34|| Front Page Top

#12 You can see the problems.

I see the historical replay that after the Goths et al had their way with the Western Roman Empire, Justinian exhausted financially and militarily the Eastern Empire trying to resurrect something that was already dead and past its time, leaving the remaining portion open to collapse when the first muzzies streamed out of the Arabian peninsula on their great conquest. It left the Eastern Empire a rump of what it once was and for what? There's a reason it's called the Dark Ages.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-06 16:44|| 2011-03-06 16:44|| Front Page Top

#13 I think what the Euros should be worried about is not so much a future reduction-in-force as the actual reduction-in-balls that occurred in January 2009. The Red Army would be in Paris by the time The One decided to fight them on the Vistula. (Assuming of course that their tanks didn't break down, which is a big if.)

Posted by Matt 2011-03-06 18:17|| 2011-03-06 18:17|| Front Page Top

#14 With a few exceptions, the era of large, standing armies is drawing to a close. They are just too expensive.

So the alternative will be to go back to what existed before, after a fashion. Mercenary armies, or really, corporate armies.

Importantly, not as the main battle organization, but to perform the low intensity operations that both erode a fighting force, and are enormously expensive.

A company like Xe could save the US billions, and go to many places we as a nation abhor sending our military, read "Africa".

Europe can afford to do the same for its purposes.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-03-06 18:26|| 2011-03-06 18:26|| Front Page Top

#15 The problem with private armed forces (ex: Xe)is that they are for profit by nature and not sworn by honor/duty/history to protect the Constitution of the United States of America.

Maybe I've read too much Sci Fi and sech, but I do not want mercs as my first line of defense. And especially not as my last line of defense.

Posted by Pollyandrew 2011-03-06 19:13|| 2011-03-06 19:13|| Front Page Top

#16 OldSpook wrote:
Its pretty simple NATO "allies" (other than the Tommies and Diggers):

ISAF means "I See Americans Fighting" (and not much anyone else other than the aforementioned Anglo allies).

Canadians too. Please don't forget our soldiers' sacrifices.

Posted by Chemist 2011-03-06 20:29|| 2011-03-06 20:29|| Front Page Top

#17 With a few exceptions, the era of large, standing armies is drawing to a close. They are just too expensive.

Actually, they're cheaper per soldier than the professional armies. That's why they became the norm, starting with the Levee en Masse of the French Revolution. The mass was able to stop and then beat the professional armies of the monarchies. Of course when human life is considered cheap, then you can overwhelm the few with the many. What has happen is that technology and the leverage of powering down [read pushing authority and initiative to the lowest level] has provided a counter to the mass. However, it is very expensive and hard to sustain over the long run without being subject to historical patterns of rot and neglect by opportunistic politicians.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-06 20:50|| 2011-03-06 20:50|| Front Page Top

#18 200 UK Troops for humanitarian, etc. purposes as per Libya.

versus

* 4000 US Troops [Marines] + USN Warships in CRETE, for whatever Pol/MilOption POTUS BAMMER + NCA decide on, again as per Libya.

versus

CHECHNYAN LEADER DOKU UMAROV'S call for RUSSIAN, WORLDWIDE JIHAD.

Russia + Asian Nukes.

versus

* TOPIX > EXPERTS: US ROLE IN SOUTH CAUCASUS BECOM TOO/MORE PASSIVE | US WON'T CHALLENGE RUSSIA DIRECTLY IN CAUCASUS.

* SAME/FREEREPUBLIC > FARRAKHAN PROMISES ISLAMIC UPRISING IN US.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-03-06 23:18|| 2011-03-06 23:18|| Front Page Top

#19 PEOPLE'S DAILY FORUM > {Daily Mail.UK] UK WORRYS-HOW LONG BEFORE A CHINESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER SAILS UP THE THAMES?

[Spanish = BAMBOO ARMADA here].

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-03-06 23:56|| 2011-03-06 23:56|| Front Page Top

23:56 JosephMendiola
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:41 Bill Clinton
23:40 Bill Clinton
23:38 Bill Clinton
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:04 Nimble Spemble
22:46 Hupose Barnsmell6744
22:25 Herman Clineck6144
22:18 anonymous2u
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:05 JT
21:50 phil_b
21:29 Frank G
21:28 Frank G
21:25 Skidmark
20:56 CrazyFool
20:52 CrazyFool
20:50 Procopius2k
20:48 CrazyFool
20:43 Nimble Spemble