Most militaries within NATO or the EU have doctrines that go way beyond that. See Germany, which plans a layout for five concurrent operations including at least two of "conventional" high-intensity warfare (and including one with 50,000 men just on the German side), or France, which has similar designs.
How Much Longer Does NATO Have?
- Thread starter sgtgunn
- Start date
matthew22081991
New Member
Yes, but those are the militaries themselves, I think what Firn is saying is that the people and the politicians don't think in the same way, and think that how warfare is fought now is how it is going to stay.
Excellent point, and one that I agree with completely. I would only add that most countries (with notable exceptions) have a history of fighting yesterdays war. Rarely are forces truely prepared for the "new conflict" be it in terms of equipment, training or ideology. While the large expensive technolgical wonders aren't best suited for LIC, LIC specific or specialized systems and tactics will be steam rolled in a mid or high intensisty conflict both of which actually present the greater or greatest threat to a soverign nation.
Hi,
I want to answer the original post, which to my mind is absolutely US-centered, and therefore wrong on several points.
At some point I think that your proposition to reduce the alliance to a short list of countries, ready to blindly follow the US, is outrageous for the people of these countries : in democracies, the people decides, the democratically elected government decides.
It's called sovereignty. A useful concept.
I want to answer the original post, which to my mind is absolutely US-centered, and therefore wrong on several points.
The whole question, is called by who ? The US ? Are the US the only member of the alliance whose opinion is relevant ? The way you say it, it seems that the alliance's only purpose is to be the armed arm of US foreign policy.
Once again, you see the alliance from the US point of view only. I'm sorry to inform you that in NATO, the US are just ONE country, maybe the main power historically and in terms of military power, but the world has changed, and will change. I understand your/the US point of view. It's convienient to have a handful of countries ready to pull the trigger when asked to by the white house. Actually, the countries with some serious military capabilities (UK, France, Germany at some point) also have large populations, which are not necessarily eager to engage in a fight they don't think is theirs (I won't start a troll on Iraq here, be reassured).
At some point I think that your proposition to reduce the alliance to a short list of countries, ready to blindly follow the US, is outrageous for the people of these countries : in democracies, the people decides, the democratically elected government decides.
It's called sovereignty. A useful concept.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
The purpose of NATO was to keep western europe from falling under armed Soviet domination. Most of which the US, British and Canadians had just spent several ugly years liberating. There was no real Soviet threat to North America in 1948 when the treay was signed. NATO was created primarily for the benefit of Europe - not the United States. Sure the US had pragmatic and ideological reasons to limit Soviet power, but the war that NATO was created to fight (or even better, deter) would have been fought to protect Europeans. The US kept Western Europe under its defense umbrella, at great cost and great risk, for 40+ years, and should WWIII have broken out, there would have been a lot of american blood and treasure spilled on european soil, to protect europeans, AGAIN... (3 times in a century, anyone?). So, when we get attacked in 2001, and we ask for some help, it gets a little irksome when many of our allies, who we had written a very large check with our asses for for 1/2 a century, start coming up with all sorts of excuses about why they'd love to help more, but......
I also find it odd, how compartively small countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada (small by population guys - yes I know Canada is bigger than the US
) are willing and able to take on such a dissproportionate amount of the combat duties, and relatively powerful NATO members - France, Germany, Italy... seem to be willing to let thier partners do most of the fighting for them. (BTW - Thanks guys!)Maybe I'm taking it too personally, and perhaps that's not a very practical way of looking at international relations and mutal defense agreements, and maybe I'm biased, and seeing it from an overly "American-centric" viewpoint, but that's how I feel.
Adrian
matthew22081991
New Member
What you are suggesting is how the US selflessly created NATO to defend Europe. Which is a flawed arguement. The US created NATO to defend against Soviet agression and Europe as a side-effect of this was placed under a US defence umbrella. The US wasn't being selfless and wonderful in looking out for Europe, she was looking out for her own interests. The US may not have been threatened directly itself at the time, but it's interests were very threatened indeed. Once again, the US was not being at all selfless. In some sense the US helped to create the split down Europe by creating NATO. Had NATO never been created the East/West split in Europe would never have been so severe!The purpose of NATO was to keep western europe from falling under armed Soviet domination. Most of which the US, British and Canadians had just spent several ugly years liberating. There was no real Soviet threat to North America in 1948 when the treay was signed. NATO was created primarily for the benefit of Europe - not the United States. Sure the US had pragmatic and ideological reasons to limit Soviet power, but the war that NATO was created to fight (or even better, deter) would have been fought to protect Europeans. The US kept Western Europe under its defense umbrella, at great cost and great risk, for 40+ years, and should WWIII have broken out, there would have been a lot of american blood and treasure spilled on european soil, to protect europeans, AGAIN... (3 times in a century, anyone?). So, when we get attacked in 2001, and we ask for some help, it gets a little irksome when many of our allies, who we had written a very large check with our asses for for 1/2 a century, start coming up with all sorts of excuses about why they'd love to help more, but......
I also find it odd, how compartively small countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada (small by population guys - yes I know Canada is bigger than the US
Maybe I'm taking it too personally, and perhaps that's not a very practical way of looking at international relations and mutal defense agreements, and maybe I'm biased, and seeing it from an overly "American-centric" viewpoint, but that's how I feel.
Adrian
Also, the US was hardly being selfless in the Second World War either. The US knew perfectly well that, if she was to win, she would have huge advantages in the post-war world. Namely economic. Of course there were moral reasons, but the main reason was money and influence. Besides, I have never seen much in the way of thanks for the British for what we've done for the USA... The most I have seen is debt to the US as way of thanks. Sorry if I am displaying some British bitterness there, but it is true, the US does treat Britain bloody badly for all the help they get from us.
Finally, take into account that the US hardly has a right to say to Europe, "Hey look, we've decided to invade this country, and whether you like it or not you're going to help us." As much as I might have previously agreed with the war in Afghanistan (my views have changed somewhat in the last few months) I never thought that any country in NATO was obliged to help, but if they did then that was great.
I personally think the EU is the way forwards now; I'm getting a bit sick and tired of the US way of doing things I'm afraid.
After WW2, the US did sign a big check for Europe, with the ERP (European Recovery Program, aka Marshall Plan). But it had huuuge economical fallouts for the US : a whole new market, etc. It's common knowledge that it had been a good economical deal for the US. So thank you guys, we're grateful, but we don't have to pay back in blood for the coming 300 years, you had your share too.
When France or Germany say they can't do more, maybe it is because they just can't. I'll take the example of France, which I know better.I also find it odd, how compartively small countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada (small by population guys - yes I know Canada is bigger than the US
- the french military already has thousands of troops deployed, mostly in Africa. It's not that easy to find an extra 10000 to send to A-Stan. with 4000 right now, they encouter a lot of problems (logistics, formations, material, etc.)
- the French military is far less wealthy and equipped than the US Military. We all know that, but it has to be reminded, this is not a small issue.
Look at the official reports from the canadian parliament and military. The A-Stan War cost them a lot, and not only money. Their military is going through a profound crisis : all officers are in A-Stan, and there is not enough of them back in Canada, for Defense and formation missions. That's why (or it's one of the main reasons) they are leaving A-Stan.
War is far more than politics, it's also economics, logistics, and this require pragmatism, realism.
Actually you could be wrong, there's a lot of bad blood as a result of A-Stan amongst certain allies, which is NOT going to go away.
Remember the UK, US, Australia and Canada have a proprietary intelligence sharing arrangement outside of Europe and NATO. The UK military hosts more long-look exchange personnel from the above English speaking nations than from the rest of the European Union. If NATO ceased to exist the UK would look West to its traditional allies. For one the UK currently trains (combined arms live firing) all it's armoured battle groups in Canada (BATUS), not in Europe. The UK Brigade in A-STAN hosts artillery personnel from Australia, which are fully integrated into UK chain of command, the same can't be said reference its fellow European NATO partners (no French or German gunners embedded in UK FOB's). Over 7000 personnel in the UK military currently come from Commonwealth countries - none from Europe (even though the Polish community in the UK have been pushing to allow nonpermanent resident Poles to join). The UK is looking at developing stronger ties with India and has instigated a regular exchange programme with Navy, Airforce and Army assets. There are more Indian & Pakistani officers attending JCC & SCC than you will find from either France or Germany.
The threat is no longer centred on or around the rolling plains of West /Eastern Europe, so the UK needs to re-cultivate alliances outside of Europe driven by the fact that most of the countries critical raw materials come from non-European nations. Also Gemrnay is developing much stronger ties with Russia, further decreasing the chance of a shooting war. Clinging on to a NATO command structure based in Europe, when the clear and present danger lies outside is a waste of effrot and money. The US can't afford to continue to prop-up weak willed Europeans, when they need to look at mitigating threats across the ME, Africa, South America and the Pacific Rim.
PhysicsMan
Member
That's a result of tradition & official policy, not the willingness or otherwise of non-British Europeans to join. They're not accepted, apart from the Irish, of who there are quite a few in the British forces. IIRC they're the only non-Commonwealth nationality accepted, except allies on exchange postings.
I have a somewhat jaundiced view of NATO, and being based in Asia since 1988 (HK, PRC & Singapore) I've seen first hand the rapid shift of economic and strategic focus Eastwards. The following quote taken from a Brussels based think tank further convinces me that NATO is a dead-duck in its current form.
"In a week when European affairs are prominent, a study by an influential Brussels think tank suggests the EU is going about things the wrong way. The Europeans must stop being so submissive, they must present a united front on foreign policy and they must work toward a "post-American" state of affairs, the study says.
Washington Is Focussed On New Alliances, Europe Is Not
Globalization is increasingly redistributing power to the South and the East," the authors of the paper write. "The United States has understood this, and is working to replace its briefly held global dominance with a network of partnerships that will ensure that it remains the indispensable nation."
The clear and present danger no longer comes from Russia, Germany is highly unlikely to revert to a military dictatorship and Afghanistan has clearly exposed NATO as a two-tier organisation made up of doers at one end and paper-tigers hiding behind caveats at the other.
Keeping Germany down, Russia out and American in Europe no longer applies making a Eurocentric NATO irrelevent. Europe must start looking after itself. Having a European command structure is one thing, having the balls to step up and fight the good fight is another and A-Stan has shown that the 'fighting part' is still not an option for some nations who still believe they can hide under America's shadow. American's are fed-up with having to carry the burden and in a post Iraq/A-Stan world when the dirty washing is hung out to dry you will see some major changes in traditional alliances regardless of the reasons why the US/NATO went to war in the first place.
Last edited:
As for Eurocentrism, the European Council on Foreign Relations (influential nonpartisan thinktank) has issued a [policy paper calling for a "Post-American Europe"].
Definitely worth reading. I think the quotes by riksavage might be from that paper, or a comment on it? The thinktank is based in London though, not Brussels.
Pretty much calls on EU member states to ditch US bilateral approaches, and assert themselves on an international level. And that European countries are way too subservient to the US. In the sense that Europe finally tells the US that if they want Europe to carry any part of a multi-lateral burden, Europe better get at least equal say on anything related to it. And not in the sense that Europe should start doing things, but that Europe should start demanding appreciation from the US for the things it does.
The paper does go in particular into the Afghanistan situation, where Europe is considerably "underrated" for what it's doing by the authors' account, as well as the Middle East peace process (where Europe "should" take a more autonomous stance from the US position) and the relationship towards Russia (where the US is considered to be "meddling", and where Western European nations don't assert themselves over US-submissive Eastern European nations).
That thinktank among others includes for the areas relevant here, also e.g. former Secretary General George Robertson, certain UN (e.g. former Under-Secretary of Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Marie Guehenno) and EU staff (e.g. former EU Kosovo and Bosnia coordinators), as well as both active and former presidents and prime ministers of a number of European Union members. It also includes e.g. John Bruton, the European Commission's Ambassador to the USA.
Personally, i agree with it in full.
Definitely worth reading. I think the quotes by riksavage might be from that paper, or a comment on it? The thinktank is based in London though, not Brussels.
Pretty much calls on EU member states to ditch US bilateral approaches, and assert themselves on an international level. And that European countries are way too subservient to the US. In the sense that Europe finally tells the US that if they want Europe to carry any part of a multi-lateral burden, Europe better get at least equal say on anything related to it. And not in the sense that Europe should start doing things, but that Europe should start demanding appreciation from the US for the things it does.
The paper does go in particular into the Afghanistan situation, where Europe is considerably "underrated" for what it's doing by the authors' account, as well as the Middle East peace process (where Europe "should" take a more autonomous stance from the US position) and the relationship towards Russia (where the US is considered to be "meddling", and where Western European nations don't assert themselves over US-submissive Eastern European nations).
That thinktank among others includes for the areas relevant here, also e.g. former Secretary General George Robertson, certain UN (e.g. former Under-Secretary of Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Marie Guehenno) and EU staff (e.g. former EU Kosovo and Bosnia coordinators), as well as both active and former presidents and prime ministers of a number of European Union members. It also includes e.g. John Bruton, the European Commission's Ambassador to the USA.
Personally, i agree with it in full.
Dear Adrian,
I think you have framed the discussion in a manner that draws attention to the differences and focuses on the current weaknesses of NATO. It would have been better if you had a discussion set on the basis of American strengths and her unique ability to lead an alliance like NATO. America's reservoir of good-will should not be squandered.
While I understand the need for robust discussion, laying blame and not having adequate or sound processes is not a sustainable basis for moving forward in Afghanistan.
Leadership is needed. What we have now is a failure of leadership and a shortage of vision. Without an inclusionary American vision tied to an action plan and strong leadership, the capability and strengths of NATO is not fully utilized. Your political leaders are pushing at the wrong levers. It is easy to resort of stereotypes but it is much harder to seek first to understand. Once your military and your political leaders have an appreciation of the situation, ONLY then can they seek to push the right levers. It has been a long war and it is late into the fight to provide such a vision BUT it is not too late. IMHO, for NATO to evolve, it needs American leadership. Unfortunately, right now, there's no vision tied to an action plan for Afghanistan (This is in contrast to the work of Gen. Casey in Iraq from June 2004 to February 2007, which laid the ground work for Gen Petraeus and the surge). Beyond more resources, effective leadership is key.
Cheers and best wishes from the 'little red dot', who wishes America every success in your Afghan endeavours.
Last edited:
The quote I make reference to is taken from the following article:
Think Tank's Trans-Atlantic Advice: Europe Must Stop 'Fetishizing' American Relationship - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
Also the issue of 'underrated Europeans' does not confront the current two-tier situation that exists in A-Stan - a NATO sanctioned operation. If NATO agrees, as a unified organisation to deploy and act in a war zone then individual countries should not then be allowed to unilaterally introduce restrictive caveats removing their forces from harms-way leaving other countries to do the hard yards. Would Germany for instance have accepted a situation whereby NATO members - America, Canada and the UK, having deployed to Europe then suddenly and unilaterally decided to introduce restrictive caveats stating that they will neither fight at night or get involved in direct combat with 5th Guards Army - I seriously doubt it?
Also the common excuse that NATO is there to defend Europe, so we shouldn't be in A-Stan is no longer valid. Unless NATO changes to address a new array of global threats (failed states, assymetrical warfare, terrorism, climate change impact etc.) and accept that it will have to get its hands dirty outside mainland Europe and operate under unified ROA's then it's doomed to history.
Last edited:
Back in '79, a survey found that about 40% of the population wanted a unified Germany to become neutral. I.e. with no foreign forces on its soil, and not part of NATO (in the same survey, 2% wanted to switch sides to the Warsaw Pact).
It's always a relative thing. I bet way over half the US population wouldn't care either if NATO died.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
But the hard facts are:
US def expenditure 640 billion usd in a single budget
EU combined (plus Norway) 265-280 billion eur
Plus: US has several times the capability of Europe combined plus the multiplication factor: the willingness to use that strength -> credibility.
Conclusion: None of the larger European nations seem to be willing to make the financial and political investment it would take to replace the US role in Europe, in a globalised world where the city-state-sized nations of Europe are of little relevance. So no obvious alternative.
US - strategic hinterland of Europe and vice versa.
US def expenditure 640 billion usd in a single budget
EU combined (plus Norway) 265-280 billion eur
Plus: US has several times the capability of Europe combined plus the multiplication factor: the willingness to use that strength -> credibility.
Conclusion: None of the larger European nations seem to be willing to make the financial and political investment it would take to replace the US role in Europe, in a globalised world where the city-state-sized nations of Europe are of little relevance. So no obvious alternative.
US - strategic hinterland of Europe and vice versa.
Last edited:
There is no doubt that capability of the USA for expetitionary warfare is far greater than of the EU combined. But this huge advantage can also be a great disadvantage as we have seen in the last 20 years. If somebody has a huge hammer he is far more inclined to see nails around him, and for him some hammering is hard to avoid. It is the USA which carries a far far larger burden due to its strategy and capability.
The more limited strategic scope of most European NATO members also necessitated by weaker military means has thus some fine benefits. The vital issues are still guarded very well by the strength of the European elements in NATO.
Firn
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I'm not arguing the wisdom of the US - I'm arguing ability x virility...
E.g. a nation which can't (ability) and wont (virility) fully commit, even when its most important ally is attacked, is not a credible core security partner for anyone else.
The Americans may make poor decisions, but they put their money and their lives where their mouths are.
If you want a security partner, which one do you go to?
Last edited:
I think the issue you raise has been already adressed before in this thread, IIRC by Kato. The question here is: What are doing in Afghanistan, and to some extent in Pakistan? CT? Still searching Bin Laden? COIN? A stability operation? What are the goals of the various nations there? How is it related to the unique attack of which you speak? Is it a vital interest of the states in question?
I never doubted about the importance of NATO as a firm band between the USA and Europe. You ask with which partners I would go. All I can say it depends on the circumstances and the willigness of them.
Firn
I never doubted about the importance of NATO as a firm band between the USA and Europe. You ask with which partners I would go. All I can say it depends on the circumstances and the willigness of them.
Firn
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yeah, but it somehow also addresses the issue of who makes the wisest choices. Interests, purpose, etc. may make sense, but if this is the rationale, then it is not credible, subtleties regardless.
But I think you may be correct in that eg. Iraq is not a test, whereas A-stan is (IMV), and the test is in reality not of NATO, but of individual countries.
Anyhow, yes, A-stan is a mess. Could have been a lot further along, but European non-commitment hasn't helped a bit, here.
But to get back to my point. If we were to walk the walk in Europe, the starting point would be to grow capability, ie. larger defence budgets... and I'm just not seeing that anywhere!!!
Far, far, far better coordination: Eurocorps et al are fine but nations and interests are at odds again, eg. French forces are being used in direct support of French industrial interest in Africa (which, btw, leads to a much more cynical view on the use of force in the French public).
You want other countries to support that? And also in the context of a coordinated euro foreign policy? The mind boggles...
But to make this post short... For starters: start spend the money on ability... until then, there is no such thing as American lapdogs.