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.
And then you woke up.
really Chris B?
enjoy your circle jerk boys. i don’t need this nonsense.
revel in your imagined superiority…cause its really just an illusion. the only thing you can do is HOPE that the US stumbles while we’re watching your precious EU crumble and fray.
i will shout to the roof tops on my blog that Europe is a drag militarily and will watch on this blog and others how you attempt to make news of the only thing left for your forces…reorganization after reorganization to cover the facts. your welfare state and your liberalism has led to your being a non player on the world stage. you use reorganization to hide that fact from your people but those in your military know the facts. you’re a shadow of your former self.
its really telling in how people that have served and people that haven’t talk about military matters. i don’t know TD from adam but i would bet money he hasn’t served. same for Sven.
but they think they can talk about military matters? yeah and they can talk about brain surgery too. i wonder how many of the ‘commenters’ here have served…probably very few but you want to act as if you have when you have the experience level of a chimp.
eat dung and die.
I think you will find TD has “served.”
Solomon isn’t displaying much wisdom.
@solomon
And you do – on your blog – delete comments that attempt to inform ill-informed visitors who expressed their misunderstanding in earlier replies.
Such as the fact that the U.S. did not pull most of the weight of Central European defence during the Cold War. 12 of 26 Central European NATO divisions were German, and both the Scandinavian and Italian flanks were guarded without any U.S. ground forces.
Facts? No thanks on SNAFU blog. Milporn worthy of Clancy? Oh Yeah!
Historically incorrect myths about the significance of U.S. contribution to the defence of Europe during the Cold War (or to WW2 in Europe) are a big part of the current transatlantic dissonances.
It remains that the U.S. is more interested in small wars and crashing of developing countries while Continental Europe (save for probably France) is mostly interested in actual defence.
The latter doesn’t require bigger budgets; both the Southern and the Eastern frontier would be safe even without U.S. contributions.
It’s noteworthy that the U.S. bemoans European military shortcomings in the area of power projection. Or as most Germans would call it; “Angriffskrieg”.
i don’t give a damn what most Germans call it. i don’t care about the cold war.
if thats how you feel SVEN then fine (did you serve boy?) we agree.
you want the US out of Europe and so do i.
want a cookie. oh and if we’re talking about blogs then lets talk about the intellectual circle jerk that you promote. i can see you smoking dope with a bunch of your friends thinking that you’re being insightful when you’re actually being silly.
i wonder how many hard places you’ve been in your sheltered life. have you ever watched a man die, stuff a body in a body bag. have to write a letter home?
no?
then this is all theory to you boy. and your theory is wrong.
oh and go eat a sprout.
Aha, ad hominem. What took you so long this time, solomon?
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/12/comment-reply-and-discussion-culture.html
And yes, I served. It’s actually more common that a man of my age has served in the military in Germany than in the U.S..
Btw, the secret how experience in handling body bags is a requirement for skilful political discussions about budgeting will likely be very safe in your head. I guess nobody else will ever learn about it.
Besides; most actual veterans who have seen the horrors of actual wars are not especially keen on military adventures. Writing about those who don’t would lead into ad hominem terrain, so I’ll skip that one.
you didn’t ask my opinion on the wars son. i want the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
NOW!
its a waste of time and resources. i didn’t want the US to become involved with the Libya nonsense. i don’t want us to get involved in Syria…Yemen…or any other spot in the middle east.
i do want us ready to confront China. that war is coming and it will be over resources.
but back to the real issue. you want to talk about personal attacks after that tripe you wrote? you are a little punk aren’t you.
Ok, place your bets please!
Guess the age of Solomon.
- 3/4 for under 14,
- 2/4 for under 15-16,
- 2/1 for 17-18,
- 100/1 for over 18,
I jest of course. But so far Solomon your arguments have consisted of “punk” and erm, “eat a sprout” (quite innovative I thought), or “eat dung and die”.
When you have an actual argument to bring to the table, a well thought out and reasoned one, which doesn’t require you to simply bash people into submission, maybe someone will actually listen to you.
@ X
“Solomon isn’t displaying much wisdom” – You wouldn’t believe how long it took me to get this.
i really don’t care Chris. the argument has already been made. you all don’t want to hear it.
it was made by our SecDef.
you and others on this board have attacked me personally and get your back up when i return the favor. what you should be asking yourselves is where is the pushback from your countries Defense Chiefs/Prime Ministers and Presidents.
i’ve been looking but can’t find one response.
that should chill your bones more than anything. silence on their part is an acknowledgement of the critique.
Lol, no. That’s twisted logic.
Silence means that (a) a leaving SecDef of a foreign country probably ain’t that relevant any more and (b) they’re probably diplomatic enough to not enter an unproductive pissing contest with supposedly allied nations.
Besides, German media have barely taken notice anyway, and our politicians tend to care more about national than foreign media.
Oh, and we don’t care much about security policy anyway. There’s no Red Army next door any more.
not twisted at all. if an American SecDef is going to make a statement like that…whether leaving office or not…thats an indication of US policy and thinking.
perhaps you’re right and the discussions and comments were made behind closed doors but i would think that some European SecDef (or whatever you call them) somewhere would respond.
the response has been…vigorous here…why not even a blurb somewhere publicly by a government official—its obviously a point of some consternation to at least a segment of the European population but nothing….!?
Hey Fat Man…
We learned from the English… put the Irish, and the Scots out front…
Sorry, you folks bore the brunt of the casualties in WW2.. See we took a lesson in WW1.
Guess what, we like to keep our enemies at arms length… Got Carriers… Lot’s of em… and smaller carriers… lots of em… four battleships in reserve… (seriously)
Europe a bunch of pacifists? Soon that gap will be filled… always does… and remember, the next loser of the war in Europe, has to keep france!
Us North Americans will be here, for those of you who decide to carry your weight, and fore go the socialism, that I agree we have allowed you to afford, by not paying for your own defense… times change folks…. just saying.
It had to happen in the end,Sol showing his true colours losing his temper and reverting to his petulant normal self.
Mind you his language was very restrained from that which he normaly uses so I suppose we should be thankfull for small mercy’s.
Was going to keep out of this, but personally I quite like the UK’s “socialism”, sure it sucks that we do not rate defence as highly as we should but I am glad that if I get a serious illness, and loose my job for being on long term sick I live in country where the Government provides universal health care and I am not going to end up spending all my savings once I lose my healthcare from my job trying to stay alive. Also glad I do not live in a country where HMO’s can pick and choose which illness they treat, or that if I loose my job I could end up forced to choose between starvation or crime (like some of the manual workers in Detroit faced recently). So all in all if we have to put up with name calling from our American cousins, go for it, we will listen to your valid points and ignore the rest of abuse, because fundamentally we think that large parts of the way you live your lives are wrong, and you think the same way about us.
Comments such as Sols are quite common on American blogs and they reinforce my belief that we should decouple from the USA. By all means co-operate when it suits us, but stop being dragged along by them. And I also think we should take the same attitude to the French. Perhaps then we might avoid future wars such as the ones in Libya and Afghanistan.
China sees the promotion of growth, and increasingly independent military and foreign policy, of regions beyond North America as a method of increasing it’s relative world power rank.
The Chinese would like to see the EU in particular following a more independent line. Divide and conquer, but with a softly-softly approach.
(not saying you’re all commies)
What a truly spectacular festival of considered and collegiate debate this one turned out to be
I am going to go away now, put my fingers in my ears and shout la la la la until those nasty people stop calling me names, you know, because us never served eaters of small round vegetables haven’t a clue
Okaaay
@Chris from VA
“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!”
The most stupid account I ever read.
The point for Britain having an Empire was India. With the Soviet Union or – after a german Barbarossa-victory – Germany happily supplying Indian independence movements, there is zero chance the UK would have secured India beyond 1955.
The whole other lot comprised of the dominions, the lesser crown colonies and precarious african possessions, hold to guard the possession of India.
Also, Germany in 1933 was not part of the (democratic) West.
The major fault was not giving India full Dominion status, instead being forced to rush out in 1947.
“Us North Americans will be here, for those of you who decide to carry your weight, and fore go the socialism, that I agree we have allowed you to afford, by not paying for your own defense… times change folks…. just saying.”
You, the North Americans (why do you include Canada? their armed forces are much leaner than ours?) aka the US of A, have far more debts than most of Europes countries, including the UK. While Europe has begun to eat it’s sometimes bitter medicine, you are still not.
You (the US) are paying far more tax money per capita into an evidently inefficient and broken social care system, against which the ‘socialist’ NHS looks like a pattern of good management. And all this BEFORE Obamas reform stepped into the room.
@Solomon
“i do want us ready to confront China. that war is coming and it will be over resources.”
Forget about BRIC, China is encircled from all directions. If the Chinese would provoke a “resource war”, the Russians will certainly have a second look at their ‘friend’, after the chinese are starting to copy russian equipment without russian involvement. Chinas primary adversary in vain for resources is India. And Brazil is pacifist in it’s genes.
Having a democracy in Indonesia is a helluva lot more important to the Wests security than pulling a few billions more into the armed forces.
I can understand your willingness to accept socialism in the UK, you are really not that far removed from an actual monarchy.
I suggest this link
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Rapid-Fire-2011-06-12-06918/#more-6918
and watching the video at the bottom. You guys will get your wish soon enough to be rid of us Yanks, except when you need us.. again. You know to take out the air defenses of a third rate power, so the UK & France can come in and bomb with relative impunity.
Here I thought I was being generous in offering up the USS JFK, with E/F-18′s so you and the French could do your own heavy lifting, yet all some persons want is socialized health care?
Sol
Ref: “you son of a dog”
Ahh, a tad thin skinned there old chap, but you met my father then ? The 76 year old Korean war veteran tanker who got wounded in action while coming to the aid of the USMC…… yes he truly is an old dog.
I want to say “sticks and stones” but instead I will lower myself to your level and retort with a quote from an unknown French man-at-arms from the early middle ages:
Your mother was a hampster and your father smelled of Elderberries !
They do say the UK and USA are two nations divided by a common language but this has really drawn that into sharp focus hasn’t it
Putting aside the petulance, there is a deep seated difference of perspective that I think is worthy of some debate.
What causes US commenters to see the world in a different way, I keep coming back to the deep seated aversion to war in Europe despite several thousand years of getting rather good at it. This might also explain the subtle differences between the UK and mainlaind Europe as well because obviously the UK did not suffer in the same way as for example Poland, Latvia, germany or Italy.
The USA has never experienced these things and just sees things differently perhaps
solomon and Chris in V
and others…in general
Jesus christ, all voices of people who’ve never been in uniform, or if they have….in a relatively low rank… and especially not from someone with experiance… Its like a ruddy childish rants – all that is the impression I have on here… a pub argument is intellectual in comparison.
I can’t belive the stuff I am reading, and here people think the carrier debate is the hot-potatoe/hornets nest!
Since when have American hawks come on here? Solomon, your hawkish in your own blog, please dont bring the brown stuff here… breathe and think, man.
Where are the level headed ones I know from in Lakenheath, lads I know, worked with and have seen face to face… and here some alias like solomon and Chris V is telling me what they ‘really’ feel when I have talked to them about similar and the result is vastly and epically different…
I kinda feel disgusted at how some of these comments have gone, from both sides of the pond, hardly sqweaks the opinions of many American serviceman I have worked with and know… these commentns mostly sound like the feckless politicians who lead them (and our own who lead us) they hardly know what the lad on the tub, aircraft or on the ground knows or thinks about their fellow allies when they’ve worked with them, sweated and bled with them.
Its often simply ‘I want out/home/this to end’ not ‘we can do without’ or ‘lets start debating if this english squaddy is worth us helping’ – any help is appreciated and every soldier is the same (Quote there from an eagle driver).
I find it funny how people call a national healthcare system ‘socialisim’ – but apart from the usual light hearted piss taking alla sh!ts n’ giggles I’ve never seen/heard or read any of the brown stuff I’ve read here, maybe from green or rather low ranking pongos, but after a tour in the usual theatres, theres nothing but mutal respect between us, that and sympathy from the harsh cuts we get…
Its sometimes rather hard when I read such comments on forums to keep in mind what experiance from real men and work has told me…
Its often vastly at odds with this ‘information’ such as that displayed above.
This surely must ring a few bells on here!!!
I’m rather angry at the moment, TD has turned into another forum where people who dont speak for the rest of their country, or men+women in their country’s uniform think or say… just a place full of ‘trolls’ and sh!t slinging…
Deffo not what TD was about when I came to it.
How sad.
How sad people think a country can go it alone… that time is well and truely over my freinds, interconnected world (or halves of worlds) for better or wosre, you can rant, insult and argue till your blue if you want, but thats the fact now. And I think the USA’s and Europes chances of keeping their chins above water is closer co-operation and integration. Dont like it? Suck on a Lemon, like everyone else.
I dont want any argument, thats my opinion. I think how things have gone is grand, keep it that way, why trash a good thing.
Anyway, NATO.
I agree, it needs a HUGE shake-down and re-structure. The same goes with EVERY military in its structure; including ours and the US – in the modern world, the US cant operate the number of carriers it has now, just as much as we cant operate the number of fast-jets we did.
As much as it tastes foul to think of it, it need to happen, or sadly something big/long-lasting and bloody will force it to change.
As per history tells us.
What a ruddy mess this post is!
PS;
lol General impression is that Gates was rather dissliked in general inside the US military, especially for the cuts and dithering over the USAF.
Rant over – time for a pint!
Too many things are different
# no wars at home for 150 years
# came always late in world wars and happened to be on the “winning” team in both
# pundit culture
# media culture
# military-industrial complex
# veteran and military service glorification since 80′s
# sheer size (not necessarily ‘greatness’)
# two-party system without a significant pro-peace voice in the political landscape (no greens etc)
# little reason to travel abroad due to size of own country
# little knowledge of foreign languages because own language is useful almost everywhere -> little absorption of foreign ideas
# inertia as a society (that even carried over perceptions from the Cold War)
# a tendency to deride those who disagree in order to close the own ranks (see whole French-bashing since OIF)
# an adversarial culture in politics that made deriding other opinions and groups perfectly normal
# an entertainment sector that feeds clichés
# lobbying organisations (even foreign ones) that create an inflated sense of alarm and threat for special interest groups
# never been thoroughly defeated, thus never forced to consider own faults
@ S O
Have you taken a good look at the UK lately.
A lot of what you list could easily apply here.
Hi Solomon,
As you are getting ready to charge “i do want us ready to confront China. that war is coming and it will be over resources.”
- have you read the Kissinger book (On China) yet?
@ Chris B
““eat a sprout” (quite innovative I thought)”
- wrong, he actually reads a paper
- tried to insult Germans, specifically
I have to say I agree and disagree with Gates and TD. I think the US have got feed up with ALL (including the UK) european countries deployments and strategic performances in Iraq and Afghan and libya. Now while the argument of their not in UKs interest is valid prior to committing forces it goes out the window when forces are committed. We did preach to the US how great we were at counter insurgency then failed strategically in Iraq and Afghan requiring significant additional US forces to be deployed. So I can see why their getting feed up.
The problem I have with it is, its more the politcal leadership than actual military performance thats lacking as tactically we were never defeated in a battle and been effective when are area of interests have reduced to an appropriate size.
I hope this is being listened to in london because I fear we are losing far too many high end strategic capabilities as a consequence of last years review that have yet to be implemented but are the capabilities the US most looks for and enables independent operations. By this I mean things like the airborne strategic intelligence gathers and martime patrol capability, the significant reduction in AAR and transport a/c and indeed the size of naval forces that we can deploy for carrier and amphib ops. And the TBMD capability which is close to non-existent in europe. These are not cheap but are required to held to allow the US to disengage from europe and move east. We cant develop all of these ourselves but can be held in sufficient size if all european nations agree common platforms and systems in each air, land and sea forces allowing the development to be spread across more countries. It will require a huge effort to achieve it but if theres a will theres a way.
One story that made me chuckle a while back was a survey carried out but a newspaper in the Mid-west at the time of the Kosovo crisis. When asked 80% of people agreed to the bombing of Kosovo and Serbia but when asked if they knew where these countries were only 25% answered correctly! Mind you many people in the UK do not know who Winston Churhill was so we both have ignorant people in common.
Back to Europe and NATO I think NATO should be disolved and a European defence pact created to protect countries like the Baltic States form over friendly neighbours. The US should feel free to disengage or stay in Europe and I am sure that some european nations will support Coalition operation in other countries in future as we share many mutural interests. NATO has become a bit like a cross between an old boys network and a street gang where smaller people join to stop th elocal bully from having a go at them. IT has done its job and it is time to move on.
THe US is going to concentrate on the Far East and Probably Iran over the next 10-20 years. Will we get involved? Quite likely but in a very limited way. The US is already trying to forge new and strongeer alliances in these regions but I fear they are using the same old play book and will have the same old results. THeir different attitudes to nations in the middle east regarding the civilian uprisings is clear eveidence of this and in fact shows most western countries in a bad light.
Bored now.
People might enjoy this paper from an advisor to the Slovakian government : http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/rp_981.pdf It’s got some useful stats on where we are with European defence budgets, and is thinking about how Europe should organise itself to cope with shrinking budgets and things like the upcoming Defence Procurement Directive. It also gets brownie points for the nice pic on the cover of Wave Knight RASing ?Ark !!
This is a nice graphic of relative contributions to Libyan ops : http://feb17.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Libya_Coalition_Sorties1200.jpg
(France + UK) had generated 2500 sorties from 57 aircraft in theatre, the US had generated 2000 sorties from 153 aircraft. Fair play to the crabs, that graphic has them doing more sorties per plane than anyone else – and kudos to the Danes too, who are also up there as they are in Afghanistan, where from memory they’ve got more soliders in theatre than anyone else, and have had more killed, than any other country including the US on a per-population basis. Why can’t the US participate in NATO as strongly as European countries like Denmark?
I’ll just throw in the thought that the biggest strategic threat to Western governments is not a lack of aircraft carriers or cruise missiles – but their budget deficits. Our real defence budgets are zero – plus a variable amount of yuan borrowed from Beijing.
@TD – I’d look more to WWI for creating the scars that led to modern European outlooks, at least in Western Europe. A lot of countries saw 2-4% of their population killed, and maybe 10% total casualties in 1914-1918. (apologies to our US readers if some of these dates are unfamiliar). That was mebbe 20x what the US experienced in that war. 1939-1945 (apologies ditto) was interesting because things were much more variable, the UK and France “only” had about 1% killed (still 3-4x the US death rate) whereas much of Central Europe was literally decimated, plus many more wounded, starving or raped. I think Belarus holds the “record” for modern-day states, with 25% dead.
Adjust for modern populations, and the US had the equivalent of Tulsa killed in WWI, and San Jose in WWII. If they’d had a more European experience of WWI, Tulsa would have been replaced by New York. If they’d got off as “lightly” as the British or French in WWII, San Jose would have been replaced by LA, but if the US had been in Central/Eastern Europe they’d have lost the equivalent of the top 20 cities, from New York down to El Paso and Memphis. Imagine Stalingrad in Dallas, gateway to the southern oilfields, or the Hongerwinter in New Jersey. These are not remote deaths happening in a corner of some foreign field, but right there amongst the populace – and hence in amongst the electorate.
Look at it another way – we can agree on the psychological effect of 9/11 on the US, 3000 dead from 4 airliners. Now imagine one of those airliners going down every hour of every day for 4-5 years, and you’ve got a similar %age of USians dying as many central/eastern European countries experienced in WWII. Now add on the fact that these losses were a direct result of one’s politicians starting a war – are German political parties going to stand on a platform of foreign military adventures?
I guess there’s probably an effect from conscription as well. Almost every German politician and political advisor (except Merkel of course, which is an interesting thought) has served in the army and almost all their sons of suitable age will be serving or liable to be called up if needed. The same is true of their electorate – either that or they’re the mothers/sisters/daughters of same – which brings the consequences of military action much closer to home even if conscripts don’t have to participate in action outside German borders.
@Chris in Virginia
The RAF would have been crushed, because the radar installations, airfields, aircraft, aircrews were stretched to their breaking points.
You keep saying this – but where is your evidence? The Luftwaffe had been bombing RAF airfields for weeks, but none of the major ones had been out of action for more than a few hours. They had already given up on bombing radar stations – they kinda took the view that they wanted the RAF warned and up in the air, to make it easier to kill them. Meanwhile production of fighters and pilots more than replaced our losses – the replacement pilots may not have been great quality, but they could have learnt their trade north of London, out of range of the 109′s. If things had got really bad, the whole of the RAF could have pulled back and abandoned Kent until the invasion came – the Germans were already running short of time before the weather window for invasion closed.
Even if they had launched Sea Lion, most models have them establishing a beachhead before the Home Fleet comes down and wipes out their supply lines. The RN takes losses, but still wreak havoc on the barges and supply ships, the Germans can’t defend the Straits of Dover sufficiently well.
The United States has always been an Ally of Britain when you have needed us most desperately
Hmm – we were just talking about 1940? I don’t remember seeing many US names on the Menin Gate or the Vimy Memorial either. And then there’s Suez of course, of course good allies threaten to bankrupt you. That’s not to take anything away from the USians who served and died in Europe once their politicians did get their act together, and the logistical support that came during that period of neutrality when given a choice between democracy and Nazism. But from a British perspective it’s hard not to view the US as second-class allies compared to the Canucks and ANZACs and others – the real friends – who were with us in the trenches and in the Spitfires in our truly darkest hours.
@Michael:
The UK is in between U.S. and continental Europe…
@ArmChairCivvie:
It certainly was a mean gesture with the sprouts, but it doesn’t work. I wouldn’t mind eating sprouts.
Actually the day after cucumbers were reported to be infected with EHEC, I bought one in the supermarket. It was hot and the cucumber was a delicious refreshment.
I’m not a fear-driven individual, and most fear triggers simply don’t work on me.
Hi LJ,
True “THe US is going to concentrate on the Far East and Probably Iran over the next 10-20 years. Will we get involved? Quite likely but in a very limited way.”
- BUT, unfortunately, in for a penny, in for a pound
- it does not work that way; The Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Malacca Straits… we are all in it
If Solomon (No, I am being more serious now; the USA) want to do their own thing, there is plenty of opportunity
- Taiwan Strait: an old story, won’t happen!No one is that crazy!
- Go & Fight in the South China Sea, lots of allies, don’t have to bother with the pacifist Europeans
… see how that sort of stuff sticks in the discussion!
I am talking to LJ and using Solomon type of language
- BTW, Solomon: Check out TD a year back from to-date, and you will not find one negative comment about the USMC from me… isn’t that what your blog is mainly about? And for the broader stuff: gloves off… here we go (I hope, not again)
*applause for El Sid
Well thought out, well presented, honest and true. You should write more articles for this play, maybe some of that history that the boss is keen to incorporate?
For those interested/sad enough there is a video of a recent defence select committee discussing this very thing
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8534
Amongst other notable things is the fact the MoD still have £4bn to find over 4 years.
@ Chris in Virginia.
Like El Sid I was also bemused by your:
‘The United States has always been an Ally of Britain when you have needed us most desperately’
I assume you are referring to the assistance given to the British during the desperate struggle of the Napoleonic Wars and to the defeat of the attempted invasion of Canada. Or was it when you stayed out of most of the World War I and benefited from huge (paid) orders from the UK and France for very second rate munitions? Come to think of it I suppose you must mean joining the Allies in 1917. Except of course you didn’t – the USA was an Associated Power, refused to join the Allies and failed to stabilise the post-1918 world by signing up to the League of Nations. And I seem to recall that you only joined in at all because the Germans were stupid enough to send the Zimmermann Telegram, which was broken by the fiendishly astute US intelligence services.
Sorry, of course you meant World War II, the one in which you gave us, gratis, all your aviation, jet, radar, medical (penicillin) and nuclear technology, not to mention stealing the Enigma codes for us from U-571 in 1941. Without the USAAC and its pilots we would clearly have lost the Battle of Britain. That Merlin engine you designed for the P-51 made a huge difference when we re-engined the Spitfire.
We were really grateful for Lend-Lease (or Lease-Lend as it was more accurately called at the time, since we had to pay to lease an awful lot of equipment). I am sure the granting of worldwide bases to the US, the liquidation of our entire gold reserve in payment and the forced sale of virtually all British investments in North America were purely coincidental, a merely friendly and generous gesture on our part.
It was fortunate that US forces were available to win the war in North Africa for the British after our failure to win a single battle against Rommel. And we applaud the American D-Day plan that led to the successful landing of large US forces in France with some minor British, Canadian, Polish, French and Dutch assistance (Saving Private Ryan really tells it as it was). Not to mention the US sinking of the Bismarck, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst.
The British failure to respond in kind is shameful. Why didn’t the Commonwealth deploy a division to fight with you in the Korean War? Why didn’t the British spend more than 10% of their GDP in the 1950s helping the US defend Europe against the Soviet threat? It is fortunate though that the USA did not renege on its nuclear sharing agreement with the UK in 1946. That made it much easier for the British to develop and deploy nuclear weapons to help your defence.
And you always stood by us, even when times were bad, sticking up for us at Suez, refusing to sell arms to Indonesia when we were involved in Confrontation operations. Why, you even took extraordinary steps to stop NORAID providing cash and arms to the Provisional IRA when they were conducting terrorist outrages against British cities. Thank you Senator Kennedy.
You stuck by us when we bombed Libya in 1986 and then backed us when we felt obliged to send forces to attack Iraq and deal with the terrorist threat in Afghanistan. It is just as well you baled us out of our military adventures there – heaven knows how we became entangled when there was so little in it for us.
And now you and Solomon are telling us that we are too much trouble, too used to being rescued by the USA, that the future lies in the Pacific and we are to be cast aside like an unwanted old girlfriend. I really don’t know how we will manage now that there is such a massive and immediate military threat to the European continent.
But I am sure you will bone up on some history of the Pacific region before you get too drawn in. Have you told the Chinese that they owe you a moral and financial debt for your support of Chiang Kai-shek during the local difficulties of 1937-1949? I am sure Beijing will be delighted to recompense you. Just like we did when we repaid all our US war loans. Because although we know that you always offer help without strings as a result of your generous nature, we do feel that a reciprocal gesture is the least we can do in exchange.
The P51 was designed to a meet a British requirement. But initially was less than successful because the original American engine was a bit poor. It only became a success when it was re-engined with Merlin. The Mustang is my favourite British fighter of WW2.
We are own worst enemies. Surely the lesson of WW2 was Britain could rely on the White Commonwealth. Instead of investing in those relationships we stab them in the back, first by throwing our whole weight behind the US, and then by trying to get with Europe.
FAT MAN
You forgot the bang up support we’ve been getting over the Falklands for the last 10 years.
‘You forgot the bang up support we’ve been getting over the Falklands for the last 10 years.’
Yes, the land of the free apparently does not believe in the right of self determination. Shouldn’t just blame the US here though, several commonwealth countries were just as guilty not least Canada.
If the UK government is really serious about using aid as ‘soft power’ then it would not be a bad time to remind some of them who pumps a lot of money into their national bank accounts.
Don’t want to turn the debate into a, You Tube comments page, style Yank bashing exercise, but Chris you did ask for it.
At the outbreak of war in 1939 (not 1942) Roosevelt’s policy was to sell arms to all sides plus the Soviets as a remedy for the great depression. For 3 years Churchill was strung along with vague assurances of US solidarity while Roosevelt had no intention of choosing sides and every intention of profiting from the war. Even after Pearl Harbour the US did not declare war on Germany, only Japan, and it took Hitler’s foolish declaration to force America’s hand.
When America entered the European theatre it committed fewer troops to the D-Day invasion than Britain and it’s commonwealth, refused to listen to British appeals to use specialist equipment to storm the beaches, which contributed to Omaha beach, and why the British didn’t suffer the same problems on the same scale. After Normandy Eisenhower,with no field experience, but an eye on a future in politics, removed Montgomery as operational commander, effectively giving himself Operational and Supreme commander roles. This action resulted in the allies consistently choosing the wrong strategies and axis of advance, lengthening the war, and handing the initiative to the Russians.
During the Cold War much of Europe owed a lot to American aid and military protection, but this has to be tempered by the disgraceful practice of funding terrorist organisations across the continent for the same reasons the Pakistani ISI is funding the various insurgents on it’s Afghan border. Not to mention the utterly disgraceful, and frankly criminal, funding of the IRA during the troubles. Forgive us if we aren’t eternally grateful!
Hi AG,
It is a real shame that this debate flared up under the “Bob” banner, but it is a real one, anyway:
RE “After Normandy Eisenhower,with no field experience, but an eye on a future in politics, removed Montgomery as operational commander, effectively giving himself Operational and Supreme commander roles. This action resulted in the allies consistently choosing the wrong strategies and axis of advance, lengthening the war, and handing the initiative to the Russians”
- not to mention at least 100.000 Americans needlessly dead (and many others, too)
- not big then (a million GIs estimated before getting Japan under control through invasion; but compare with Korea and Vietnam (which have a place in history, and turning it) – the 100.000 is a BIG number
During the Cold War much of Europe owed a lot to American aid and military protection
- this is true (and I don’t subscribe to your postscript)
@ACC
this is true (and I don’t subscribe to your postscript).
You should. several terrorist atrocities in Germany and Italy in the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s were directly attributed to “stay behind forces” dreamt up by the CIA using techniques learned from SOE in WWII. After the war Churchill disbanded SOE saying; secret armies were a threat to democracy in peacetime. Meanwhile the land of the free dramatically increased it’s use of them.
Also, the funding of the IRA is well known this side of the Atlantic. God bless America!
As a side note, a friend of mine was in the US when the IRA blew up Manchester. Fox News, I believe it was, was reporting the images as Belfast after attack by the British Army! Forgive me if I don’t take the view of America as my saviour.
You are forgiven, even though the view is quite extreme
- have you not read what the other side did, often with great success, in those same decades
- not to mention “dealing with internal opposition” methods
The Soviet Union, as well as other players, obviously did things (and still does) every bit as bad as the US during the Cold War. However, the Soviets weren’t constrained by international law, democratic principles and processes or obligations to allies in the countries they were operating in, and never pretended they were. And despite decades of authoritarian rule, and state media, modern Russians have a firm grip of world history unlike the distorted view of far too many, otherwise affable, modern Americans.
Ok I think we’ve repudiated Chris from Virginia’s American history enough, I’ll wind my neck in.
Yeah, time to leave it… but
I’ll have to add a question mark here:
” the Soviets weren’t constrained by international law”??
- the principle is that all are subject to it, and it is getting a bit better as to what one can get away with under the banners
– sovereignty, and
– internal affairs
and that goes everywhere, not just in the old, bipolar world where the Jesuit principles of higher good, and no matter what it takes to achieve it, were the norm
International Law prohibits things like:-
Invasions of Czechoslovakia
Invasions of foreign airspace
State sponsored terrorism
Wars of aggression
Torture
Political prisoners
Didn’t stop the Russians
Torture
State sponsored terrorism
Wars of aggression
Detention without trial
Illegal funding of dictators
Doesn’t stop the Americans
Sorry couldn’t resist.