'Pacification' of Europe is threat to security, US tells Nato

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think NATO is starting to become irrelevant. The question now is what does the US do. Do we shoulder more responsibility as other countries drop the reigns? I think when some sort of "objective" is met in Afghanistan the US will need to look hard at its foreign policy even if it means pulling bases from Europe. We simply can not afford our military anymore and if Europe isn't wanting to contribute we should look to minimize our forces there first.

[Peikko 1,575]

Did you read the second article? I believe that's a more accurate picture of the relationship between US/Europe. Essentially, the US has refused to countenance any form of independent European peace keeping force.

As to what the US should do, in my opinion, it would be better for the US to go at this in a world vision way, as apposed to a isolationist one. I don't mean by that that the world should expect the US to always bear the burden of keeping the peace, but that the US should take a more conciliatory and consultational approach to managing world peace keeping/defence, perhaps even revisiting the UN and giving it more credence/scope than has been the inclination of late.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think NATO is starting to become irrelevant. The question now is what does the US do. Do we shoulder more responsibility as other countries drop the reigns? I think when some sort of "objective" is met in Afghanistan the US will need to look hard at its foreign policy even if it means pulling bases from Europe. We simply can not afford our military anymore and if Europe isn't wanting to contribute we should look to minimize our forces there first.

[mawilson 2,133]

the US should take a more conciliatory and consultational approach to managing world peace keeping/defence, perhaps even revisiting the UN and giving it more credence/scope than has been the inclination of late.

How's that been working out lately? Iran ready to give up nukes yet?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Did you read the second article? I believe that's a more accurate picture of the relationship between US/Europe. Essentially, the US has refused to countenance any form of independent European peace keeping force.

As to what the US should do, in my opinion, it would be better for the US to go at this in a world vision way, as apposed to a isolationist one. I don't mean by that that the world should expect the US to always bear the burden of keeping the peace, but that the US should take a more conciliatory and consultational approach to managing world peace keeping/defence, perhaps even revisiting the UN and giving it more credence/scope than has been the inclination of late.

Perhaps the US should just bring all the troops home, worry about securing it's own borders, and let the UN manage the rest of the world's problems without us. Maybe they could move their operation somewhere else competely, say, Palestine, and leave the US all together, Woodrow Wilson be damned!

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Peikko 1,575]

How's that been working out lately? Iran ready to give up nukes yet?

That's not the point I was addressing. This discussion is concerning the US's approach to security that has predominantly been self serving and to that end, the US has always wanted to be in control - hence why they are also paying the most.

[Peikko 1,575]

Perhaps the US should just bring all the troops home, worry about securing it's own borders, and let the UN manage the rest of the world's problems without us. Maybe they could move their operation somewhere else competely, say, Palestine, and leave the US all together, Woodrow Wilson be damned!

That's the point, the US does what it does because it is in the interests of the US. To pretend now that the US has simply gone to war in order to help out countries that were in need is preposterous. Enjoy the history revisionism though there Bill.

Pointless really, you believe the drivel of Pat Buchanan because it makes you feel better, not because it bears any semblance to reality.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Did you read the second article? I believe that's a more accurate picture of the relationship between US/Europe. Essentially, the US has refused to countenance any form of independent European peace keeping force.

As to what the US should do, in my opinion, it would be better for the US to go at this in a world vision way, as apposed to a isolationist one. I don't mean by that that the world should expect the US to always bear the burden of keeping the peace, but that the US should take a more conciliatory and consultational approach to managing world peace keeping/defence, perhaps even revisiting the UN and giving it more credence/scope than has been the inclination of late.

Yeah as it mentioned I think the US needs to change its stance in Europe and pull its bases. At the same time helping to strengthen European forces and basically develop a better European chain of command. I'm not saying the US should pull its partnership, but it does now need to let Europe lead in its own defense and if it means leaving US kit behind so be it. IE the EU should be the one installing missile radar etc. and running the show. Ironically the UK could be the leaders in this new chain of command as it arguably has the best trained personnel in the world, probably better then the US. But the UK doesn't really show any interest.

Do you think the US might be ready to do this?

[Peikko 1,575]

Yeah as it mentioned I think the US needs to change its stance in Europe and pull its bases. At the same time helping to strengthen European forces and basically develop a better European chain of command. I'm not saying the US should pull its partnership, but it does now need to let Europe lead in its own defense and if it means leaving US kit behind so be it. IE the EU should be the one installing missile radar etc. and running the show. Ironically the UK could be the leaders in this new chain of command as it arguably has the best trained personnel in the world, probably better then the US. But the UK doesn't really show any interest.

Do you think the US might be ready to do this?

I don't know, but it would probably be the right move, to allow the EU to take care of its own security (and the UK must recognize that it is closer to the EU than the US, no matter the 'special relationship' status which is largely symbolic these days) and let the US turn its face in other directions. Mind you, as I understand it, the US has pulled a large amount of troops and weaponry out of the EU as is - and I don't know in the big picture how much of a drain on resources what is left is on the US. The most expensive activity that the US is currently engaged in is probably Iraq/Afghanistan, and both areas were US initiatives so to my mind it is somewhat disingenuous to blame the amount spent by the US on the defence budget on outside forces.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Darnell 8,478]

What?

Europe not pacified yet?

G*D D@MN IT !!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't know, but it would probably be the right move, to allow the EU to take care of its own security (and the UK must recognize that it is closer to the EU than the US, no matter the 'special relationship' status which is largely symbolic these days) and let the US turn its face in other directions. Mind you, as I understand it, the US has pulled a large amount of troops and weaponry out of the EU as is - and I don't know in the big picture how much of a drain on resources what is left is on the US. The most expensive activity that the US is currently engaged in is probably Iraq/Afghanistan, and both areas were US initiatives so to my mind it is somewhat disingenuous to blame the amount spent by the US on the defence budget on outside forces.

Yes, Clinton closed a few bases in the early 90's basically right after the Cold War. I've been to RAF Upper Heyford a few years ago for instance. It used to be a US base. They are attempting to redevelopment at the moment, I've lost track of where it is in the planning process.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's the point, the US does what it does because it is in the interests of the US. To pretend now that the US has simply gone to war in order to help out countries that were in need is preposterous. Enjoy the history revisionism though there Bill.

Pointless really, you believe the drivel of Pat Buchanan because it makes you feel better, not because it bears any semblance to reality.

No, the US purely acts out of selfish interests. You are right. Time for the Yanks to grow up, stay at home, and let the more refined nations return to their place in controlling world affairs.

[Pooky 3,784]

The Obama administration accused Europe's leaders of endangering peace today because of their growing ­pacifism and reluctance to foot the bill for adequate defence.

In a withering attack on what Washington sees as European complacency in the face of new security threats, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, demanded root-and-branch reform of the transatlantic alliance, voiced exasperation with Nato bureaucracy and said it was becoming increasingly difficult for the US and Europe "to operate and fight together".

Gates told a Washington meeting of Nato officials and security experts "the pacification of Europe" had gone too far.

"The demilitarisation of Europe, where large swaths of the general public and political class 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. "Not only can real or perceived weakness be a temptation to miscalculation and aggression, but … the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to operate and fight together to confront shared threats."

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, joined in what was a concerted warning to the Europeans, calling for an "honest discussion" of European defence spending and complaining that the alliance was at risk of turning into a talking shop.

Gates's criticism came days after the Dutch government collapsed over a dispute about Afghanistan and announced it would start withdrawing some 2,000 troops from August. The pull-out has spurred worries that other Europeans could follow suit.

Away from the immediate priorities of the Afghan war, Gates indicated that the Nato and European predicaments were "part of a larger cultural and political trend affecting the alliance … [which] faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems".

While the Obama administration has just asked Congress for a defence budget of more than $700bn (£454bn) – almost 5% of GDP – for next year, Gates complained that only four of the 26 Nato allies in Europe spent more than 2% of GDP on defence. A recent meeting of Nato ministers in Istanbul heard that the alliance had a €640m (£561m) hole in its budget for this year.

Gates voiced impatience with years of unredeemed European pledges to procure more cargo aircraft and helicopters. "Their absence is directly impacting operations in Afghanistan ... Nato needs serious, far-reaching, and immediate reforms to address a crisis that has been years in the making," he said.

The 28 Nato countries are embroiled in an attempt to come up with a new mission statement, and there are divisions both transatlantic and within Europe over the wording. The warnings from Washington appeared to be an attempt to dictate the key components of the new doctrine.

Link

Now, Robert Gates may have been trying to make a broad point about European security, but the bit I bolded in red is very telling about an ulterior motive, on the part of selling American equipment in Europe.

Right now, the signatory nations to the Airbus A400M airlifter programme are in serious discussions with Airbus about whether to provide more funding for the programme, which, as with all military spending it seems, is way late (3 years) and way over budget (about 7m Euros, I think). One option seriously being considered is for the prospective purchasers to say "no more" and walk away, forcing Airbus to cancel the programme, even though they finally managed to get one into the air last December 11th.

So what? Well, cancel the Grizzly and you're left with 3 alternatives. The Antonov An-70, is Ukrainian, and very unlikely to form the backbone of a NATO airlift capability. The other two, the Lockheed-Martin C130J and the Boeing C-17, are both American. The C130J is basically the newest version of a plane that first flew in 1954. And the Boeing C-17 has just been purchased by NATO to form a small, rapid response airlift core. Cancel the Grizzly, and the most likely alternative is the larger C-17, for which an order of the size likely would keep Boeing going on that production line for another 10 years, just when they were thinking of closing it.

Was Robert Gates making a point about NATO? Probably, yes. Was he dropping a not-so-veiled hint? Again, probably yes.

Will the European members of NATO take note? Who knows?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Will the European members of NATO take note? Who knows?

Other than to complain and whine? Not hardly. Not when the US is as much a competitor in all things as the USSR ever was! Time to dissolve NATO, and make a deal with the Ruskies for their oil.

As far as North America, our focus should be more southward, than to the east, or to the west.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, the US purely acts out of selfish interests. You are right. Time for the Yanks to grow up, stay at home, and let the more refined nations return to their place in controlling world affairs.

You sound like a spoiled child.