Is NATO a military dinosaur?
- Thread starter Ozzy Blizzard
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
I think you have to remember what NATO was designed for and weather all of the NATO nations would or are willing to go beyoned those original considerations.I wouldn't bury NATO just yet, in this century we could simply re-structure NATO as we've already have and have able to deply anywhere in the world if needed.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
And, as sovereign nations, nor should they.The problem (If it is really a problem) remains that no NATO member is going to give up its right to decide were to go oversea and where not in favor of a centralized decisionmaker.
I totally agree.
Because of that NATO can only be a defensive alliance.
NATO may and should try (Like it already does) to look for future oversea missions as part of their potential mission profile.
I can think of no possible new NATO were the members do not decide on their own were to go and were not but this seems to be the ideal goal some people dream of.
Because of that NATO can only be a defensive alliance.
NATO may and should try (Like it already does) to look for future oversea missions as part of their potential mission profile.
I can think of no possible new NATO were the members do not decide on their own were to go and were not but this seems to be the ideal goal some people dream of.
So NATO bombs the Serbians without their cherished UN authorization, but wont enforce UN penalties in Iraq , or , provide meaningful troop deployments in Afghanistan?The problem (If it is really a problem) remains that no NATO member is going to give up its right to decide were to go oversea and where not in favor of a centralized decisionmaker.
Show me something in the NATO A Charter against "going oversea" or even into another country. If I remember right its "an attack on one one is an attack on all". And further, If I remember right, the clause is "force needed to secure the North Atlantic alliance", and its doesn't say anything about sending troops overseas. I dont think theres a question NATO is yesterdays news.
Yeah, actually, they do. Legally they do. We would have had to send hundreds of thousands "oversea" to defend NATO, and we always maintained a huge Euro-NATO deployment even during peacetime "oversea". We did it because of the Legal requirements of NATO, and we didnt have a choice "Legally". However I dont think the Iraq situation was legal grounds for NATO to act as an alliance even tho it was zanadu compared to the legality of blowing up Serbia. NATO blew up Serbia not because it was Legal , but because it was an "easy one".And, as sovereign nations, nor should they.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
What are you on about? are you saying that a Nation state gives up soverignty because it signs a treaty, or what?.Yeah, actually, they do. Legally they do. We would have had to send hundreds of thousands "oversea" to defend NATO, and we always maintained a huge Euro-NATO deployment even during peacetime "oversea". We did it because of the Legal requirements of NATO, and we didnt have a choice "Legally". However I dont think the Iraq situation was legal grounds for NATO to act as an alliance even tho it was zanadu compared to the legality of blowing up Serbia. NATO blew up Serbia not because it was Legal , but because it was an "easy one".
@Rich
I don't know what you want.
I never said about ruling out going oversea.
I just said that in the end with every new oversea deployment it comes down to each individuell country deciding wether to go or not.
How do you want to change this?
USA as the leader and when they say go everyone goes?
I have no problem with NATO playing a bigger role in the world outside its home territories. But every new mission has to be approved by every individuell member.
Maybe one could say that every country is bound to elections and if the majority of NATO countries decides to intervene somewhere you have to send the soldiers.
But blind following is nothing I desire.
I don't know what you want.
I never said about ruling out going oversea.
I just said that in the end with every new oversea deployment it comes down to each individuell country deciding wether to go or not.
How do you want to change this?
USA as the leader and when they say go everyone goes?
I have no problem with NATO playing a bigger role in the world outside its home territories. But every new mission has to be approved by every individuell member.
Maybe one could say that every country is bound to elections and if the majority of NATO countries decides to intervene somewhere you have to send the soldiers.
But blind following is nothing I desire.
You should read the treaty more carefully. It says that an attack on any member country or its ships or aircraft within a certain defined geographical area is "an attack on all". Iraq is irrelevant to NATO, as was the Falklands. Afghanistan was allowed under the wire because it was agreed that the 9/11 attack originated there, so it qualified. And in case you haven't noticed, the 9/11 attack triggered an immediate response from the European members of NATO, offering unlimited support, whatever the USA desired. As it happened, the USA didn't ask for much, but that was the USAs choice.So NATO bombs the Serbians without their cherished UN authorization, but wont enforce UN penalties in Iraq , or , provide meaningful troop deployments in Afghanistan?
Show me something in the NATO A Charter against "going oversea" or even into another country. If I remember right its "an attack on one one is an attack on all". And further, If I remember right, the clause is "force needed to secure the North Atlantic alliance", and its doesn't say anything about sending troops overseas. I dont think theres a question NATO is yesterdays news.
Yeah, actually, they do. Legally they do. We would have had to send hundreds of thousands "oversea" to defend NATO, and we always maintained a huge Euro-NATO deployment even during peacetime "oversea". We did it because of the Legal requirements of NATO, and we didnt have a choice "Legally". However I dont think the Iraq situation was legal grounds for NATO to act as an alliance even tho it was zanadu compared to the legality of blowing up Serbia. NATO blew up Serbia not because it was Legal , but because it was an "easy one".
Anything outside that is voluntary. If NATO countries wish to co-operate in a UN-mandated action, then they may. If they wish to do so within the framework of NATO, then they may - as long as any NATO members that do not wish to participate acquiesce. But it is not required. The NATO response to 9/11 was required by the treaty - and everyone stood up & accepted their obligation. After the USA submitted the evidence for Afghan involvement in 9/11, & it was accepted as valid by other NATO members (& damn right too, IMO), Afghanistan became a NATO operation. The USA did not insist on full NATO participation, as it could have done, but most NATO members willingly supported the operation.
Iraq is different. It didn't attack a NATO member, its ships, aircraft, or armed forces, within the designated area, or host an organisation that did (that last was what did for the Taleban). So NATO support could not be required. NATO countries were individually asked for help, but had no treaty obligation. Their status in the invasion of Iraq was no different from, e.g., Ethiopia. Free to help if they wished, but with no treaty relevant to the conflict.
Serbia was the same. NATO could act, but wasn't required to. It was within the NATO area (unlike Iraq), but that wasn't relevant as there hadn't been an attack on a NATO country, its ships, aircraft, etc. But NATO countries chose to.
You see? There aren't two categories, required & forbidden. There's also "permitted but not required". Participation of, e.g., France in Bosnia or Iraq was permitted but not required. They chose to participate in one, but not the other. Fine. Their choice. That's the agreement they (& you) signed. Helping after 9/11 was required. Fine. That's the agreement they (& you) signed. and what did they do? Step up to the line, as required, & offer their full resources, whatever you wanted - because that was their promise, & they kept it.
Now stop whingeing because they didn't do exactly what the USA demanded, when there was no agreement under which they should, & they disagreed with what you were doing. You've not done them the same favour - nor us (remember Suez?). They've kept all their promises, & not quibbled when maybe the promise was being stretched a bit (e.g. they stepped up to the line for Afghanistan in 2001). Fair enough, IMO.
I thought I said Iraq didnt really qualify. Tho it qualified far more then Serbia because there was a history of UN involvmenet. Read the NATO charter and it almost leaves it up to the UN for to act. And before you say "only NA and Europe" read the charter.You should read the treaty more carefully. It says that an attack on any member country or its ships or aircraft within a certain defined geographical area is "an attack on all". Iraq is irrelevant to NATO, as was the Falklands. Afghanistan was allowed under the wire because it was agreed that the 9/11 attack originated there, so it qualified. And in case you haven't noticed, the 9/11 attack triggered an immediate response from the European members of NATO, offering unlimited support, whatever the USA desired. As it happened, the USA didn't ask for much, but that was the USAs choice.
Yes, Of course NATO "could act". My point is no NATO country was attacked , and there was no UN authorization, so the bombing was illegal. Its kinda funny when you think about it. The greatest alliance of free countries in history binds itself to a world goverment body thats made up mostly of countries with no such freedoms.For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Its time we dumped the UN actually. But thats for another thread. NATO got away with Serbia because there was a Yank President in office they liked, and, because it was simply an air campaign. Tho it must be noted there was significant support in NATO for a ground assualt in Serbia as well.
Serbia was the same. NATO could act, but wasn't required to. It was within the NATO area (unlike Iraq), but that wasn't relevant as there hadn't been an attack on a NATO country, its ships, aircraft, etc. But NATO countries chose to.
I didn't say "only NA & Europe", because I have read the charter, including the amendments to the article you've quoted the original text of, (which has since been amended to take account of the independence of Algeria & the entry of Spain, but the amendments don't affect what we've been discussing). I simply said there is a designated area, & Iraq hadn't done anything within it. Which I now realise you agree with, & I'm sorry I overlooked you saying so before.... And before you say "only NA and Europe" read the charter....
When you talk of illegal bombing, I presume you mean the Kosovo affair, rather than Bosnia. Is that right?
Well the main NATO nations that will more than likely go beyond their general sectors would be the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland. They've shown in the present and in the past that they would support a "long-distance" conflict, more or less in the middle east or in North and East Africa.I think you have to remember what NATO was designed for and weather all of the NATO nations would or are willing to go beyoned those original considerations.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #173
But this might not realy have anything to do with NATO itself, just the willingness to support annother nation who happens to be a signatary. We went into Vietnam but technically it had nothing to do with ANZUS.Well the main NATO nations that will more than likely go beyond their general sectors would be the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland. They've shown in the present and in the past that they would support a "long-distance" conflict, more or less in the middle east or in North and East Africa.
As far as NATO not being in Iraq, we have to figure out why anyone is in Iraq. The iraqies attacked no one, didnt host anyone who did, were not a threat to the west at all, were only a minimal threat to the region and had nothing to do with Al Quieda. So any NATO nation who decided to become involved would not have even considered treaty obligations, because these events were so far beyond what the treaty outlined. Any nations who got involved in the Kosovo campaign also were not bound by treaty obligations, but did so volentarily, even under a NATO command structure. So realy complaining about NATO not being in Iraq is purely a political argument, a moot one IMO, and nothing to do with the treaty itself.
Afghanistan in the current context of global military conflicts (taking Iraq in to consideration) is a NATO sanctioned operation. Please note the below extract from the organizations web-site:
“NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul."
NATO countries agreed to and approved the mission, therefore as stated earlier; they are obliged to contribute according to their abilities. Arguments about ‘direct attacks on NATO members within Europe (founding concept) is largely immaterial in the current context. NATO IS NOT a turn-up if you feel like it organization, restricting caveats and operational limitations imposed by individual member countries is not acceptable. The whole reason for the organizations existence was one of shared risk, member countries regardless of how small or large collectively operating as a single force under NATO command and control.
The following provides a link to NATO’s current Afghan charter:
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html
“NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul."
NATO countries agreed to and approved the mission, therefore as stated earlier; they are obliged to contribute according to their abilities. Arguments about ‘direct attacks on NATO members within Europe (founding concept) is largely immaterial in the current context. NATO IS NOT a turn-up if you feel like it organization, restricting caveats and operational limitations imposed by individual member countries is not acceptable. The whole reason for the organizations existence was one of shared risk, member countries regardless of how small or large collectively operating as a single force under NATO command and control.
The following provides a link to NATO’s current Afghan charter:
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html
It never was restricted to Europe. The charter says Europe and North America, the Mediterranean, & the North Atlantic.... Arguments about ‘direct attacks on NATO members within Europe (founding concept) is largely immaterial in the current context. NATO IS NOT a turn-up if you feel like it organization, restricting caveats and operational limitations imposed by individual member countries is not acceptable. The whole reason for the organizations existence was one of shared risk, member countries regardless of how small or large collectively operating as a single force under NATO command and control.
The following provides a link to NATO’s current Afghan charter:
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html
When it was decided that the 11th September 2001 attack (on a NATO member, within the NATO area) had originated in Afghanistan, NATO offered to support US action against Afghanistan, as the charter requires. The subsequent formation of ISAF should be seen in that context.
IIRC, the Afghan operation is the only one which has actually fallen within the mutual defence requirement of the Atlantic Charter.
Exactly Iraq is a U.S. problem at this point, since we pushed for resoultion to allow us to conduct our mission their. Not to mention the Third Gulf War had nearly the same Coalition as it did in 1991 during the Second Gulf War.But this might not realy have anything to do with NATO itself, just the willingness to support annother nation who happens to be a signatary. We went into Vietnam but technically it had nothing to do with ANZUS.
As far as NATO not being in Iraq, we have to figure out why anyone is in Iraq. The iraqies attacked no one, didnt host anyone who did, were not a threat to the west at all, were only a minimal threat to the region and had nothing to do with Al Quieda. So any NATO nation who decided to become involved would not have even considered treaty obligations, because these events were so far beyond what the treaty outlined. Any nations who got involved in the Kosovo campaign also were not bound by treaty obligations, but did so volentarily, even under a NATO command structure. So realy complaining about NATO not being in Iraq is purely a political argument, a moot one IMO, and nothing to do with the treaty itself.
The following provides an interesting link to an article in the telegraph, which shows the disposition of NATO / Allied forces in Afghanistan.
Also reflects the latest concerns about restrictive caveats, including one from Germany, which restricts its troops from operating at night!
The strain on the organisation continues, with very senior UK military and political chiefs questioning its continued relevance in the 21st Century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...SFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/10/wafg10.xml
Also reflects the latest concerns about restrictive caveats, including one from Germany, which restricts its troops from operating at night!
The strain on the organisation continues, with very senior UK military and political chiefs questioning its continued relevance in the 21st Century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...SFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/10/wafg10.xml
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #178
This allmost smells like the first death throws for NATO. How can an alliance function with some members relying on other members to do the dieing, namely two of NATO's largest, France and Germany. I know posters like waylander have outlined the dificulty in changeing public opinion in germany, but that doesent change the fact that the alliance is lop sided and can not function properly. NATO is about shared risks and shared burdens that are proportional to your nations strength. There is no way NATO would have stood a chane against the Warsaw pact with this sort of attitude, and i dont see it lasting the 10+ years that will be needed in afghanistan.
That German troops are not allowed to operate at night is bullshit.
Nothing more and nothing less
Its more the other way around.
Most of the firefights and RPG ambushes in the north between the patrols and the enemy take place during the night.
It looks also like our Fenneks being now targeted especially because of their excellent (night) recon capabilities which caused much trouble for the enemy since their arrival.
Nothing more and nothing less
Its more the other way around.
Most of the firefights and RPG ambushes in the north between the patrols and the enemy take place during the night.
It looks also like our Fenneks being now targeted especially because of their excellent (night) recon capabilities which caused much trouble for the enemy since their arrival.
NATO should be restructured into a peace keeping, defensive role and natural disaster relief.
NATO was originally setup to defend and counter attack against the USSR. There is no longer such threat and money is being wasted in keeping this capability alive. The role of fighter/attack aircraft should be given back to the individual countries if they need it.
It will always be difficult for NATO to be aggressive with so many conservative countries having to agree. Being defending and the peace keepers is something everyone can agree on.
AWAC's, support ships, transport aircraft, basic escort aircraft should make up the bulk of NATO. Have these setup and based for rapid deployment.
Say theres a natural disaster somewhere in Europe, 12 hours later a dozen C-17's turn up with first aid. Huge amount of money will be saved due to having less high end front line equipment as these require constant training. This money could then be saved for when a big ground deployment is needed.
An example of a big deployment would be the Israel Lebanon conflict. Once the cease fire was signed, straight away 20,000 'neutral' Nato soldiers rock up in NATO owned C-17's with NATO support ships, AWAC's and a few fighters to secure the air space. This will stop all violence and save hundreds of civilian lives. The majority of peace keepers being Israel Jews in a muslim country is never going to work. Having German, French, Italian, Greek, Turkish etc soldiers on the ground will stop all hostilities.
The recent tsunami in South East Asia the restructured NATO could have stepped up to the plate. Instead of hiring Antonov aircraft and having to deploy first aid days after the event, NATO being designed for natural disaster relief could have arrived in half the time with twice as much first aid. Again thousands of lives could have been saved.
The USA would love NATO being setup like this. NATO as a fighting force will be much more conservative than the US, so the US can easily knock the door down themselves as a stream lined fighting machine and then NATO comes in to help.
NATO was originally setup to defend and counter attack against the USSR. There is no longer such threat and money is being wasted in keeping this capability alive. The role of fighter/attack aircraft should be given back to the individual countries if they need it.
It will always be difficult for NATO to be aggressive with so many conservative countries having to agree. Being defending and the peace keepers is something everyone can agree on.
AWAC's, support ships, transport aircraft, basic escort aircraft should make up the bulk of NATO. Have these setup and based for rapid deployment.
Say theres a natural disaster somewhere in Europe, 12 hours later a dozen C-17's turn up with first aid. Huge amount of money will be saved due to having less high end front line equipment as these require constant training. This money could then be saved for when a big ground deployment is needed.
An example of a big deployment would be the Israel Lebanon conflict. Once the cease fire was signed, straight away 20,000 'neutral' Nato soldiers rock up in NATO owned C-17's with NATO support ships, AWAC's and a few fighters to secure the air space. This will stop all violence and save hundreds of civilian lives. The majority of peace keepers being Israel Jews in a muslim country is never going to work. Having German, French, Italian, Greek, Turkish etc soldiers on the ground will stop all hostilities.
The recent tsunami in South East Asia the restructured NATO could have stepped up to the plate. Instead of hiring Antonov aircraft and having to deploy first aid days after the event, NATO being designed for natural disaster relief could have arrived in half the time with twice as much first aid. Again thousands of lives could have been saved.
The USA would love NATO being setup like this. NATO as a fighting force will be much more conservative than the US, so the US can easily knock the door down themselves as a stream lined fighting machine and then NATO comes in to help.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.