Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barney Frank: Cut NATO spending, it serves no strategic purpose

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Major Dad View Post
    Barney Frank: Cut NATO Spending, It 'Serves No Strategic Purpose'

    Never, ever thought I'd say this, but that low-life, bottom feeding @sshole might be right.
    Amen.

    NATO killed NATO. Too many chiefs and too many of the chiefs, too many caveats, too much back stabbing, far far too little reliability.

    NATO has become nothing more than a military version of international socialism.

    Comment


    • #17
      From where I stand, it seems that the end of the cold war took away one of the main reasons for NATO to exist. Although still probably one of the most powerful military alliances in existance, it feels like a big bureaucratic mess, strugling to redefine itself.

      Pax Americana will diminish as the world moves towards a multipolar geopolitical landscape. Perhaps NATO can be the military representation of power for the EU and USA in that new landscape. Instead of a single USSR that threathens to attack, NATO would be the counterbalance to upcoming nations and alliances such as the SCO, India, Brazil, etcetera.

      But, I'm not very well informed on the inner workings of NATO. Is there anyone that can enlighten me on that? How does NATO view itself? How many different commands, quick reaction forces, and actual integration is there? How far beyond "if they attack you, they attacked us and we'll fight with you" does it go? In total war, will NATO be a massive force under single command and the sum of all it's armies, or will it be a collection of national armies trying hard to align their efforts? I've recently read a comment somewhere saying "most of the nations in NATO are slowly turning their forces into auxiliaries to the US army". Does that have any truth in it?

      Yeah, lots of questions :)
      "Football is war."

      -Rinus Michels

      Comment


      • #18
        How can we talk effective joint command?

        I think of of two countries (Greece and France) with massive defense spendings (in total and per capita) and try to remember when I last saw their soldiers taking active participation in NATO mission.

        France is proud for engaging 2000 personnel in Kosovo and Greece 120. They also train Afghan forces and that would be it.

        IMHO in order to have joint command you need troops to command with.
        Last edited by Doktor; 30 Mar 11,, 06:32.
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #19
          People also forget that ESDP (european self defense policy) initiative and the structure that accompanies it is sort of dualistically imposed within NATO, they were sharing and my guess double managing the resources by creating a dual bureaucracy (while the people within the bureaucracy could have been the same I am certain they took the initiative to get paid twice within both ESDP and NATO structures bleeding budgets of each).
          Common Security and Defence Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          The Berlin Plus agrement allows ESDP to use NATO structures etc...

          http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Nato_Europe_Geipel.pdf
          Originally from Sochi, Russia.

          Comment


          • #20
            I know for a fact that there is no double dipping. While the European effort may seem to be a duplication, and in fact, an exaggeration of their capabilities (the NATO equivalent was much smaller and therefore, much easier to deploy, and therefore, much more effective), what it was was to answer the US's call for a greater European participation without US involvement.

            No European General got any extra pay wearing an extra hat and no country in NATO pay any extra for the new HQ. It came out of their existing budgets and in Europe's case, to create one single HQ that can replace American commands in the FRY. Most certainly, neither Canada nor the US pay anything into the European HQ.

            As for France, three largest force contributor to UNPROFOR were the UK, France, and Canada. France committed an entire armoured division to the Kuwait War. And the French was in Kosovo before the Americans. In fact, Canada was in Kosovo with an entire brigade group before the Americans.

            Whatever your feelings for the Paris government, French soldiers have fought and died proud.

            Comment


            • #21
              And let's not forget that little mission NATO is running in Afghanistan either, where France is something like the 4th- or 5th-largest contributor... they do a bit more than "train Afghan soldiers".

              Comment


              • #22
                My point was if you compare spendings and personnel, France and moreover Greece were the first to come to my mind as big spenders but few troops abroad.

                I have checked the ISAF map and am wrong about France contribution there. But still there is an image in my head that they are not contributing according to their respective capabilities.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  But still there is an image in my head that they are not contributing according to their respective capabilities.
                  This is sort of a mismatch many people make. NATO isn't about contributing according to your capability - it's about contributing whatever you want, even if it's nothing. This is the main difference in the NATO charter vs the WEU charter that forms the basis for ESDP. In the NATO charter, an Article V mutual defense declaration is just a paper tiger that doesn't force anyone to commit anything. And due to the absence of a consistent threat to all member nations, NATO has become a mere coordination tool for its members.
                  In the WEU charter, an Article V mutual defense declaration means that every single member state has to contribute every last man and bullet they can field to the effort. It's a rather underestimated capacity that it offers to its members - unlike NATO, which is rather often overestimated. And the Treaty of Lisbon has taken this statement and implemented it verbatim ("obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power") for the whole European Union (in Article 42.7) (see also [here]).

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X