NATO has been a most successful military defence alliance but in seeking to move away from old fashioned territorial defence to defence at arms length its very clear mission has become blurred. Instead of a military alliance with a very clear purpose and significant support it has now become synonymous with dubious overseas military adventurism.
In his parting shot the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, delivered a stinging rebuke to NATO about pulling their weight.
Its not the first time Robert Gates has been critical of NATO nations and I am sure as he moves on to pastures new it won’t be his last and in many ways there is substance to his claims of European nations fighting to the last American. The spectacle of European nations running our of bombs whilst conducting what in reality is a low intensity operation over Libya is both embarrassing and indicative of the post cold war levels of defence spending in Europe.
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience 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 defence. If current trends in the decline of European defence capabilities are not halted and reversed, future US 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.
In 2009 I looked at who was pulling their weight in Afghanistan, it’s an old article but worth having a read if you get a few minutes.
I am always very reticent about measuring commitment by how many body bags you can fill but the notion that all European nations are not carrying their weight, sucking on the US defence teat or hiding under a US security blanket is blatantly nonsense and insulting to those who contribute.
What Mr Gates has to realise, and this is something that most US politicians just don’t get, is that the nations of Europe have experienced first hand the consequences of war. Between 1939 and 1945 the calorific intake, GDP and general standard of living in the USA increased, whilst in Europe it plummeted. Several million civilians died and whole areas laid to waste the scars of which are still evident today. Wartime Europe had to invent radar, jet fighters and cruise missiles and whilst not wanting to diminish the huge technology progress made by the US during the period, in the same few years the Slinky and the electric guitar came forth from the USA!
These are enduring collective memories for European nations and individuals, politicians will self evidently reflect the mood and national character of their electorate. Most Europeans see Iraq and Afghanistan as American wars that have actually increased security threats so why exactly should they join in. This is the mindset of most Europeans, with pretty much everyone in Europe having first hand family experience of war and the devastation it brings there is a natural tendency to move in the opposite direction.
But that should not mean we become a continent of pacifists.
The US needs to look East so moving its resources and attention that way should not be seen as anything other than self interest, the US looking after itself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, its what all nations should do.
If he is saying that Libya is Europe’s back yard and it is not for the US to step in then he is absolutely correct, Europe as a whole does not invest properly in defence and as a wake up call this is as good as any, for that I absolutely applaud him and wholeheartedly agree.
There is no point spending money on defence you can’t afford and true security comes at the point of a cheque book, not gun. This means spending money on defence and security where it makes the most difference.
Perhaps European nations should consider the cost of maintaining operations in Afghanistan and realise that Libya is a strategic interest and Afghanistan is not.
Perhaps the UK right wing, whilst it is shitting its pants about being told off by the US because we are not doing enough might consider US support for Argentina in its ongoing claims over the Falkland Islands.
The UK and Europe definitely need to spend more money on security but maybe NATO has had its day and its time to move on, look back with good memories, thank the US for their undoubted support and realise that the world is a different place.
TD
I’ve already commented about this Gates /NATO situation on the Libya post but will make the following comments.
I don’t think Gates or the US includes the UK in their views of European weaknesses and they also note the work of Norway and Denmark among others. But the problem for the UK is we will be torn between more bilateral action with the US and trying to more independently manage European issues without adequate support from other European NATO nations.
I think we need to align ourselves outside the NATO framework especially with the Nordic countries, in order to develop co-ordination between what one would call the European “coalition of the willing”. It seems sensible to plan for levels of involvement from others that are realistic and to train with those we are actually likely to be deploying with.
There is a serious point for SDSR plans in that we must expect to have less resource from BOTH the US and NATO in some key future situations (especially in the European back yard) and need to develop capabilities that we expected from the likes of Germany but should not now rely on.
The point Gates makes that I find most worrying is that post the cold war the US spend in NATO has RISEN till it now equals 75%, so other nations are increasingly unwilling to contribute. I don’t believe the UK can rely on NATO and should consider whether we feel we want to end up like the US paying with our taxation for the Defence of other nations who happily spend those funds on other things.
I don’t feel that this is a criticism of those nations who do not feel inclined to military capability that’s their right and we all benefit from reduced conflict, but the balance of this is that those countries cannot expect a say in the development of forces that they do not adequately contribute to. With the Dutch we are seeing a drift, as has happened in Belgium to a point where they can no longer defend their own territory from even a moderate military force.
Those countries that are effectively out of the business of armed conflict need to acknowledge this and develop other sources of security, equally nations such as ourselves who do feel there is a need for armed intervention need to align ourselves with those who share these thoughts.
NATO as a mutual defence pact makes little sense, a few years ago Russia almost had to call up its reserves to bloody Georgia nose.
Most of us would be impressed if they could get past the first few Polish pubs without selling their weapons and claiming asylum.
However NATO didnt only accomplish Ivan bashing.
It created a common standard system, a common language almost.
It would be a damned shame if a decade from now, A French MPA cant transfer targetting data to a Polish Fighter.
Without the Soviet threat, it may well be in the USA’s interests to disolve NATO and create another treaty organization that reflects today’s strategic landscape.
I think from an American perspective, they still have a need for something like NATO; just not necessarily NATO itself.
From a European perspective, while we may not be facing the same cold-war threats, we still need American firepower. And if we want the US to become involved in European wars, like Yugoslavia or Libya, then we need something to offer in return.
I commented on this Gates speech elsewhere like this:
“It’s amazing. Americans assume that their overspending on the military is of any benefit to European countries, which it isn’t. I doubt that any European country would feel compelled to increase military spending if Pentagon budget was slashed by half.
The opposite is more likely, as some European modernisation projects are being justified only with “interoperability” concerns.
The Eastern European NATO countries most at risk – the Baltic countries – were pressured by NATO (especially Americans) to turn their forces into specialised military adventure auxiliary troops – unfit for national defence.
Right now, the U.S. with its thirst for military adventures looks more like a security policy burden to its allies than the other way around.”
Sven demonstrating the point “Willing to fight to the last American” perfectly….
Organisations such as NATO only work if it has a purpose, the members have a common objective and it makes a difference. Sadly, for most it does not anymore.
There seems to be a growing swell of people now in lots of different countries that agree on at least one fundamental point; America is the biggest threat to their national security.
- American wars,
- Anti-American, anti-semetic sentiment in the middle east being projected into allied nations
- The hosting of US forces,
All of these things are not boding well for an America that is seeking to rebuild its reputation after Afghan and Iraq.
P.S. Guess who is trying to rebuild their reputation after getting dragged into said conflicts above.
Well said, Robert Gates and well said again! Many people could see this happening only too clearly. America has simply got fed up with playing the role of world policeman and getting bugger all thanks for it. Its expenditure is out of all proportion to that of other nations who simply sit on the sidelines and snipe. I wouldn’t blame the USA if it became truly isolationist and simply safeguarded its own trade routes.
TD
“What Mr Gates has to realise, and this is something that most US politicians just don’t get, is that the nations of Europe have experienced first hand the consequences of war.”
Yes, they have and that is precisely why we should ensure that such consequences are never experienced again. Just to give you two quotations from Churchill: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!” and “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile in the hope it will eat him last!”
SO says, “Right now, the U.S. with its thirst for military adventures looks more like a security policy burden to its allies than the other way around.” Well, try managing without them. Where does all this anti-Americanism come from?
I quite like the sensible ideas put forward by Brian Black.
i doubt gates’ comments were directed at the uk, but it reinforces my conviction that if the uk drops below the two percent threshold it will be the final straw, and rightly so.
i am sympathetic to sven’s view of things, but the fat remains that there are both tangible and intangible comittments that nato nations have agreed to meet. the two percent defence minimum is one of the easily indentifiable tangible ones.
Mike, Churchill was full of great quotes, like better to jaw jaw than war war.
Your view of the USA being a policeman or robber baron surely depends on your perspectives. I think it would be good for the world and the USA if they moved their attention East, it would force cooperation and realism in other areas.
The percent of GDP figure is a bit illusory though Jedi because of buying power and in reality, doesn’t actually mean anything. I want the percent of GDP spent on defence and security to be relevant to reality, not an arbitrary made up figure from a land that time forgot.
accepted admin.
however, if we can accept that defence spending is already too low, and as ever a tempting target for further cuts at a time when defence spending already sits at two percent, then surely we can be glad the nato floor exists.
it also doesn’t change the fact that many nations are flouting treaty comittments, not exactly a trust-building act in a military alliance.
You guys are starting too seem way too negative about the establishment and the top pros. I support the learned professionals way more than any of you do here. You seem like, as people say about a lot the people frequents on blogs that your using this mostly as just a forum for your negativity.
Everything is so extremely complicated and to judge the actions of someone in the middle of an extremely complicated universe, which you are not an experienced professional in can always be construed as really subjective critique. I know the mechanism of unhappiness is there to create change of a situation and you clearly all here want huge enormous change and so therefore you’re desire that not to be happy with the situation is very commendable.
But maybe you should be more understanding and sympathetic of the current situation. Whether anything is good or bad in a clear objective black and white way, can only be judged using only a small no. of paremeters.
Sorry, just you don’t seem to be sympathetic or understanding many of you, of the situation that has resulted today.
I’m sorry I’m just being a bit abstract, don’t be annoyed. I don’t know…..
I seem to have a different mind from most people who blog.
@ Joe88
A couple of things. Some of us just post because of a passing interest. I think we all appreciate that the world is very complicated place. Many of us have been around the block more than once. And though it could be interpreted that our view of the world is jaded it could also be interpreted that is view of the experienced.
You can carry on being abstract; nowt wrong with a radical or novel view point.
Joe88
Not having a dig matey, but some of us are, or have been miltary professionals for varying lengths of service, that of course does not make us “learned” nor does it make us right about everything (or anything!) But it does make us experienced to some degree, and if we are commenting here or witing content for TD to publish, then it obviusly means we are interested, and in my case often highly opinionated !
@Joe88
And the MoD isn’t all bad. Without the MoD I would never come across the phenomenon of jam in tubes.
DefSec Gates is right about somethings, and way off the mark about others, not that odd for someone who started out under the Bush neocon Whirehouse!
For NATO nations to be involved in Afghanistan seems fine on the basis of the attack against a member nation, whichbresulted in casualties from many member nations. However the US govt, particularly the State Dept has wanted to be “in charge” so they need to take responsibility for strategies that have cost lots in terms of blood and treasure, and not whine about about allies not pullingbtheir weight.
TD might be right in that if we had not wasted a shed load of money in Afghanistan and Iraq then we might be better equpped to be taking a leading role in Libya.
However, what, may I ask does internal political strife and unrest in Libya have to do with the security of the UK ? Or for that matter, what does it have to do with NATO ?
Sarkozyband Cameron decided to take the so called moral high ground, and to get involved in someone else’s civil war for allegedly humanitarian reasons. Much has been written on Sarkosy’s alleged political motivation, who knows what Cameron was thinking, but lots of European NATO members said up front that they wanted nothing to do with it. Obama made noises about humanitarian aspects but when it comes down to it the US is pretty much just another NATO member state that does not want to be involved – ufortunately it still has decent stock piles of munitions compared to its friends. But I thought the UK and France were the lead nations in this particular “coalition of the willing”? Are we running out of bombs? ?
As to Belgium running down its armed forces until it can longer protect its own territory, what exactly is the current military threat of invasion to Belgium? A politically dysfunctional state which could split itself along ethnic and linguistic lines – oh oh another long term deployment for peace keeping………….
If we want to protect our own borders we can withdraw from NATO, reduce to a gendarmerie and coast guard, spend more money on security services and anti-terrorist police units, or as I don’t see any politicians signing up for that, perhaps we should look to the Japanese model of independant foreign policy, bilateral alliances and getting a lot more decent kit for a similar sized budget (whatever percent of GDP that is).
So to conclude, I agree that we need to be able to defend ourselves, but that does not mean all Euro-NATO members will agree, but Mr Gates is
Oops don’t know what happened there – what I was attemping to say was that Bob is part of the problem, and should watch where he is chucking stones in his posh glass house………
TD says:
[q]the Slinky and the electric guitar came forth from the USA![/q] (gonna see if that code works)
TD… When did the UK land a man on the moon? How many satellites does the UK have, and how did they get there?
You think Gates isn’t talking to the UK.. A nation that just surrendered it’s fixed wing carriers, and Naval Aircraft? For goodness sakes the french haven’t even done that!
I’ve been saying this since I came on here… Rep. Ron Paul is going to be a political force to be reckoned with in the GOP nomination process. The neoConservatives are the source of this military adventurism. The traditional GOP was dragged kicking and screaming into WW1, and WW2. GOP Presidents ran on getting us out of Korea, and Vietnam.. i.e. Nixon.
When the Falkland’s was attacked we weren’t exactly bending over backwards for you with Reagan in office. Ya’ll better get it together in short order. You can’t even get rid of Gadaffy, because you lack the political will for the casualties, and between you and france possibly the combined forces to even occupy the nation as peacekeepers, without begging the USA for help!
I would suggest you give this book a read http://www.amazon.ca/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X
Pat Buchanan isn’t 100% right, but ya’ll pissed away an empire!
Chris, you have missed the point completely. I meant that the nations of Europe were touched by total war in the way which the US wasn’t and this colours the political landscape.
Furthermore… Had it not been for an errant German Bomber run that hit London, and the resulting shift in Lufwaffe tactics….
The RAF would have been crushed, because the radar installations, airfields, aircraft, aircrews were stretched to their breaking points.
Operation Sea Lion may well have been a reality with German air superiority. They certainly pulled it off in Norway, albeit on a smaller scale, but it was accomplished.
Refresh my memories, was one of the 50 Lend/Lease destroyers named ‘USS Slinky’ and renamed the HMS Arrogance?
Chris, seriously, go and read some history about lend lease, the run up to it and the aftermath. Lets not be deluding ourselves that it was anything but an exploitative arrangement.
Like I said, you have missed the point
This is to your point. Donald Rumsfeld (a neo Conservative) referred to ‘Old Europe’. That also encompasses the UK, although he wasn’t directing that comment at the UK (Iraq invasion). It now holds true with recent developments in UK military decisions… and to ignore the fact that the HMS Ark Royal wouldn’t be a major contributor to your Libyan efforts flies in the face of reality.
Gates isn’t exactly a Neo Con, and Leo Pannetta is in the wings as Sec of Defense.
The United States has always been an Ally of Britain when you have needed us most desperately, and to say that we have become fat and lazy (caloric intake), just because we haven’t had a major bloodletting on our soil in over 150 years; might have some thing to do with our ability to keep the enemy, (and foreign entanglements) at arms length.
The Monroe Doctrine comes to mind.. Teddy Roosevelt and the Venezuela Crisis also springs to mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_Crisis_of_1902–1903
Chris, aircraft carriers don’t equal defence. They equal military adventures. Europe can easily project its land-based air power everywhere where it’s needed for actual defence.
NATO is a defensive alliance, not a military adventure club and no auxiliary troops pool.
The whole military spending discussion across the Atlantic is misunderstanding the reality that Europe can defend itself even without the U.S.. There’s no sane reason for spending more on this public service.
The slinky and electric guitar, seriously? You forget the B-29 and the Manhattan Project. How’s that for game changing innovation?
I do agree to U.S. overreach in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in our half-hearted Libya strategy. In this rare case, I agree with the president’s desire for a rapid troop pullout, but for different reasons. Obama didn’t get elected to fight the war on terror, but wants defense dollars for entitlement programs to ensure Democratic political majorities. He’s also proposing another $400 billion in defense cuts in the next decade. The better justification for a refocus in priorities is to stop useless nation building and give our ground forces a break. As mentioned, there are plenty other challenges on the horizon, particularly in the Pacific.
With a few notable exceptions, the U.K. being one, most European nations are pacifist, certainly a direct manifestation of the horrors of WWII and unfortunately, the collective security umbrella provided by the U.S. The sheltered adolescent rarely grows to mature adulthood.
NATO is over but the bureaucracy lives on, however. The titanic struggle with Gadhafi, dictator of a fourth rate power, proves its fecklessness. Without U.S. involvement, the 28 NATO member nations will never unite in the common defense simply because there isn’t one. And as long as progressives like Hillary Clinton talk to the Russians about a common missile shield, the very nation the shield is designed to protect against, the contradictions ensure NATO’s certain collapse.
The U.K. has always punched above its weight in foreign affairs. But you face the same threat as we in the U.S.; a creeping multi-culturalism and political correctness that destroys the national will to fight for a common cultural heritage. One of the first, and most symbolic acts, was when Obama removed from the Oval Office the bust of Churchill. And although the Queen was good natured about it, I would have considered receiving an Ipod of Obama’s speeches, an act of war.
Cheerio.
Chris, I did not say you had become fat and lazy but in living memory the US in WWII improved their standard of living and many in Europe were eating wallpaper and grass to stay alive. Many of those very same people are still alive and this forms part of the collective psyche, this is the fundamental point that sees Europe and the US see things differently.
You also have to factor in many European nations draw down from empire
S O:
I agree that a carrier is an offensive weapon. Yet had Luftwaffe denied the RAF access to their airfields during the Battle of Britain, would they not have become essential defensive weapons?
If we were to adopt your philosophy and save a bunch of money by disposing of our CVN’s how fast would you be incorporating them into the RN?
We can project a lot of defense from American Airbases…
Roger:
You are absolutely ‘spot on’, as I believe ya’ll say!
Our Carriers keep the enemy at oceans length, and our supply lines open, especially in Asia.
Are you saying the USA is insane for having carriers? Surely we do not need them, and can cut our deficits immediately without them.
The only nations who do not need carriers, are land locked nations… Don’t even the Spanish, Italians, India, Brazil have carriers?
Insane or not – the carrier fleet is hardly necessary for defence.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers-2011.gif
Can we also please stop calling the Libya jaunt a “war”. We’re not exactly falling over ourselves to throw everything we have at him.
S O:
Had the Luftwaffe denied the RAF their airfields, it would have become a defensive weapon. Kinda like a stool has three legs?
Had the Japanese sank our two carriers at Pearl Harbor; the entire western seaboard would have been open to their navy.
Maybe the problem is that ‘The Blitz’ was too far gone in Britain’s memory?
If the USA didn’t have carriers, you would build them.
Carriers were entirely useless during the BoB. The RN and an expeditionary mindset had drained the previously powerful army to a force that was small and fine, but small and ultimately useless in Belgium.
Maybe there are some real lessons? Don’t neglect land power, prioritize the real continental warfare scenarios instead of overseas adventurism or clinging to an empire that’s rarely worth more than it does cost you?
Hi TD,
RE “would be good for the world and the USA if they moved their attention East”
- well, that is sure to happen
- S. China sea bubbling; China extending access denial out to 1600 mls
- I expect the future overlap of interests to chrystallise in “new NATOs” in: the Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Malacca Straits. I can’t think of any non-European OECD member countries that would not have a direct interest to participate
S O:
If I may be so bold.. The Vikings raided Britain at will, because I would suppose that Britain’s tribal elders put all their resources into ‘land forces’.
The Romans marched onto your island, in the same manner…cept with real staying power.
That Armada though… regardless of the weather, didn’t fare so well.
Diamonds, Gold, fruits, wheat, iron ore, tobacco, barley & hops, and for goodness sakes, Tea was nice to have from that empire…
You guys spend too much time savaging each other, and trying to snake each others resources… You have to have an equal balance on Air, Land, and Sea.
Is the myth of the RAF in WWII being almost destroyed still doing the rounds ? I thought that this had been debunked to a point of non debate.
Most European nations have no appetite for spending money on defence as we have no real enemy. We are not going to be invaded from the North, South or East and we have a rather large body of water to our West. Who exactly are we paying to protect ourselves from. Spending on special forces, Police and intelligence gives more bang for your buck.
@Roger. Try checking out Birmingham University’s physics department in 1940. Try looking up “Tube Alloys”. Try looking up a certain Admiralty Patent of 1936. The US has a history of being very good at exploiting new ideas somewhat less good at coming up with them in the first place.
Reading some of the comments, one really has to wonder is people is so deluded to believe that UK, or European as a whole, interests do end on the door threshold…?
The unlikely event of an invasion at home is not the only scenario which requires military answer. In a globalized world, the interests of the country, any country, reach well far away from home, as evident when one looks at the post II world-war and sees nothing but Expeditionary warfare.
But sure. American aircraft carrier groups keeping the world’s hot spots under control are “evil american imperialism”, and all that nonsense.
Gods, the Guardian did some real serious damage to the UK and its people…
An useful quote can explain much of my train of thought:
“War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”
Carl von Clausewitz, On War
You can’t say there will never again be a war to fight. It is utopia, pure and simple, as war is a part of politics.
@Chris; I’m German, not British.
The Vikings were coming from the high seas and it was excessively difficult to deter or intercept them completely. That was an economic and technical problem. And in fact, they raided preferably coastal regions that were not properly fortified and armed.
The Romans are hardly a still relevant example, and the fact that neither land nor sea power stopped them should suffice to show that the English Celts of the time were not prepared in any way against such an unusual threat.
The Armada would have been moot if the crown of England had had an army of usual size. it did not, thus the troops that could be transported on a few hundred ships were a lethal threat.
Today’s Britain is surrounded by friends, not by potential invaders. Its national security rests on the security of the distant frontiers of the alliance. Those frontiers require land and air power. Most importantly, an aircraft carrier is 100% useless in a great war in Europe because of the abundance of suitable air bases and the ability to set up makeshift air bases at will.
Gabriele
I agree with every single word. “Deluded” is the precise word. What planet do these people inhabit? Are they all liberals/trendies/progressives from a post-1960s era or what? Are they all “Guardian” readers, then? I dunno, but they don’t half spout a lot of naive claptrap.
Since 1945 the British has been in action over in 60 campaigns, roughly one per year, starting with Trieste,Java/Sumatra, Greece,CanalZone/Egypt, India, Palestine, going through Malaya, Korea, Suez,MuscatandOman,Belize,Malaysia/Borneo,Cyprus/Kenya, Radfan,Oman, Nothern Ireland, the Falklands,right down to Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. And those are just a few of the ones I can remember.
To quote your words:”You can’t say there will never again be a war to fight. It is utopia, pure and simple, as war is a part of politics.” How very true. Who knows where the next crisis will arise?
NATO has ceased to be an effective alliance it was when its whole reason for being was as a defence to the USSR.
Nowadays it seems the US sees it as an extension of US foreign policy, a way to beef up troops numbers on its foreign offensive expeditions.
‘Chris in Virginia’ you said ‘and you can’t even get rid of Gaddafi’. The United States took 10 years and a hell of a lot of money before it ‘got rid’ of Osama. And it had ground troops! Patience.
@Mike W:
None of these actions was of great importance or utility to Britain. Only the Cold War was of great importance.
@Andy;
more importantly, the U.S. didn’t get rid of Ghaddafi for almost 30 years of conflict with him and participates in the current air harassment campaign…
Europe as a whole has perhaps, had more war experience than the US. However, a lot of these lessons, have been forgotten or are just ignored. I don’t think Gates was referring to the UK, because we contribute a large amount of expenditure than other countries, in Europe. I believe he was referring to it, as a whole.
Special forces are a great area to invest in, but even these times, of insurgent warfare and uprisings, it has proven that conventional forces will always a part in the future. The US still boasts the best special forces, in the world(can be argued) and they have the best of conventional forces as well.
War is uncertain, anyone can start a fight for any reason, it could be as simple as not liking a country. In the near future, the chance of civil wars within countries will increase, since more of the world is fighting towards democracy.
In the far future, there is risk of more countries becoming a threat, because of the fact, there are newer 5th generation fighters being made by the Chinese and Russians, these countries will sell the planes to almost any countries that want them. 2020 the Russian plane is coming out, it might be close to the f35. The Chinese plane is probably going to be less effective.
The developing world is getting richer, particularly, nations which may become hostile in the future, e.g. China. War is again uncertain and the chance of war, is definitely going to increase, because of these factors.
^ Apparently Sandhurst, Cranwell and Dartmouth are still places of outright excellence though.
I have no problem with Gates point of view and on the simple basis of relative contributions to NATO the Europeans (UK included) should be embarrassed.
However, the problem arises with the US expectation that Europeans will turn out and expend blood and treasure to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for American mistakes. If the object in Iraq was to get rid of Sadam it wasn’t necessary to fight an eight year ground conflict and if the object in A’stan is to search for and destroy terrorists it’s not necessary to fight a regular land war there either.
Europeans fear being dragged into military misadventures started by the US. If the US were more judicious about how they used military means it is possible they may take more people with them. That said I don’t believe the Europeans want to spend money on defence full stop.
Roger Fortier,
“With a few notable exceptions, the U.K. being one, most European nations are pacifist, certainly a direct manifestation of the horrors of WWII and unfortunately, the collective security umbrella provided by the U.S. The sheltered adolescent rarely grows to mature adulthood.”
and
“The U.K. has always punched above its weight in foreign affairs. But you face the same threat as we in the U.S.; a creeping multi-culturalism and political correctness that destroys the national will to fight for a common cultural heritage.”
Brilliantly perceptive words! Spot on!
Russia cuts off the gas to Europe again…
Turkey becomes more even more hostile & aligned with Muslim Nations.
The USA finishes securing all of our oil needs from Canada, Mexico, crazy hugo, and Brazil.. American public says no more Middle East entanglements, beyond Israel being attacked.
There are a lot of things that can pop up where the USA will not give a rip about your direct interests.
As for us supposedly fighting Libya for thirty years. How fast did they puke up that nuke program when they thought George W. Bush was going to exact some regime change?
@SO The Vikings and Romans are examples of Englands neglect of defending the Sea Lanes. As a German I guess it is reflexive for you to fixate only on land and air arms… yet.. You fail to realize even what Churchill admitted was his greatest worry the U-boats…. Had Hitler given Doenitz another year, and he even just had 20 or so more on station for the beginning of the war…
don’t try and change the minds on this board Chris. let them rest easy in the belief that the USA will always ride to their rescue.
only politicians in America believe in subsidizing European defense and they’re about to get their behinds handed to them in the next election (along with the euro-elitist Obama)…things are changing and Gates was simply trying to warn them.
@ Chris & Solomon & anyone from off shore
Accepting that the US will do less the problem is what should the UK do about it, it’s also a problem to understand how much less the US will do?
Trying to foretell the workings of Congress is really difficult, at the moment they seem annoyed that the war powers act has not triggered their involvement in the Libya decision making but at the same time they would not insist on doing less but can’t see the security reason for doing more.
If one sees Libya as not a civil war but as the populace trying to rise above a dictator who uses rape and mercenaries as tools of domination then how do we understand the US position that it’s none of their business? The US is actually saying through UN resolutions that it deplores tyranny in Libya and Syria but it’s not sure it wants to be involved in intervention, which after so long in conflicts makes sense.
It still leaves the rest of the world and especially the UK with a headache, if the US is now less interventionist and less predictable how do we construct our forces? Also what does the US expect or hope from NATO. Most comments have ignored the end of Gates speech when he said that NATO has had many issues and disagreements in the past but was always able to resolve them.
If we accept that the US will do less and that NATO is becoming weaker do we just wait for a moment of complete failure for the alliance or do we move on to other structures.
In my earlier comment I made some suggestions, I’d like to hear from others not what the problem is or what its history is but what they think we should be doing today tomorrow and in the next few years.
From those in the US I would hope to have some steer about what the US will be doing in the future, what conflicts will the US choose to be involved in?
What is the new level (in terms of shooting or not shooting) of likely involvements?
If there is conflict in the South China Sea, do they expect NATO to respond?
Which will be more important, access to the North West passage or Canada as part of NATO?
From those in Europe, If American adventurism is not palatable and there is no threat of invasion why does continental Europe need a military at all, if European countries do have militaries what do they have them for? As Gates said all the NATO members voted to support the UN resolution, many thereafter seem unable to provide combat forces. Do Europeans feel that it’s OK to vote but not to participate? Or is it that they don’t want to participate this time or what?
The UK needs its various allies to give some clue about what they want to do in the future, or they may find we have aligned ourselves with new groups and new found friends because none of our old ones were talking or making sense.
without a strong naval force i recommend that the UK finds new groups and friends. with a realignment to the Pacific coming…with a strong distaste for further actions in the Middle East already taking hold and with the idea that NATO is an institution of bureaucrats and no longer a defensive organization then its time for it to go away.
and trust me on this. many in the US feel this way. a few misguided Senators feel like the US should continue to ‘aid’ the world but most Americans want to leave you to yourselves.
personally i can see a defense structure on an individual nation state basis. Obama has thrown carrots toward the UK…the setting up of advanced US tech to be shared with your nation…the sharing of intelligence…etc. i would negate that immediately. instead i would align more closely with Australia and Canada. certain southern European countries like Spain and Italy…and certain northern European countries like the Netherlands…former Soviet States would be a given but as far as old Europe is concerned…this marriage is over.
to take it a step further i would seek treaties and alliances with Singapore…further closeness with S. Korea and Korea as a whole when they’re reunited and totally ignore Europe unless necessary.
further along in my wishlist is to withdraw from the feckless UN, say good bye to the IMF and tell the G-20 to kiss my ass.
no more entanglements…that’s what our forefathers called useless alliances.
Hi Solomon,
As you seem to be getting ready to storm across the Pacific, a good prep for that is Kissinger’s new book On China:
“In this book, Chinese leaders never sound unreasonable, but always sensible and pragmatic, unlike the Americans, who make unreasonable demands and have confused ideas about democracy and human rights,” from a critic, not a direct quote from the book itself
who has confused ideals about democracy and human rights when Europe can start a war in Libya but ignore whats happening in Syria? can complain about the US in Iraq but ignore the foolishness in Yemen…can complain about the US playing policeman yet beg for assistance against a MINOR power. did i say minor? i meant a miniscule military power.
Europe has problems and not one of them start with USA.
You are right “Europe has problems and not one of them start with USA”
- the reverse also holds true?