How Much Longer Does NATO Have?

[swerve]

... 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Also the common excuse that NATO is there to defend Europe, so we shouldn't be in A-Stan is no longer valid.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.

Except that the NATO treaty is quite explicit: it exists to defend a certain geographical area. What you are arguing for is either that NATO members act in ways not mandated by the NATO treaty as if they were committed to do so under the treaty (a very bad idea, IMO), or a change in the NATO treaty.

That's the crux of the argument about NATO being "there to defend Europe". That's what the treaty says it's for. And North America, of course. If you want to change that, you should change the treaty. If we ignore one provision because we don't like it, we're saying it's OK to ignore other provisions, & bang goes the whole point of having a formal treaty. How can we rely on the commitment to mutual defence, if we've agreed that the treaty is no longer relevant?

BTW, IIRC the NATO operation is voluntary for members, precisely because it's outside the scope of the treaty. Defending Germany from the Red Army was entirely within the scope of the treaty: it's what it was written for. There was no possibility of partial opt-outs without breaking the treaty. The two situations are completely different.

 

[dragonfire]

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."

Does this mean that US might be interested on a parallel defense alliance with countries or group of countries (these new powers), if so what would be the objective be - Global War On Terror, containing China (as against engaging it) ? A country like India is seen engaging with the US increasingly in the past few years(although i dont see India also deploying in foriegn soil unless it is directly harmed - India wouldnt under ordinary circumstances would have deployed in Iraq/A-stan). Which are the pther probable candidates for such an alliance (esp the ones with sizable military capabilities)?

 

[Waylander]

A much better question is if the US are able to find partners for a new coalition which is not designed as a defensive coalition but a "coalition of the willing" which is going to follow the US wherever they go and add all their weight to possible coalition missions on foreign soil.

I really doubt that the US is going to be able to form such a coalition...

And that's exactly the point. IMO long lasting coalitions can only exist in the form of purely defensive alliances. Everything else is going to be a case by case decision by every nation.
I doubt that any souvereign, modern country is willing to be part of a coalition which is able to push it into an offensive war just because the majority of the coalition wants it.

 

[dragonfire]

A much better question is if the US are able to find partners for a new coalition which is not designed as a defensive coalition but a "coalition of the willing" which is going to follow the US wherever they go and add all their weight to possible coalition missions on foreign soil.

I really doubt that the US is going to be able to form such a coalition...

I dont think apart from England there will be any other big country which would be willing to toe the US line and even that might change in the future depending on the political environment there. For e.g. Operation Urgent Fury was opposed to by Margret Thatcher but the Iraq invasion was supported despite massive protests in London and other european capitals. Perhaps a Nobel Laureate Obama might set a precedent of not engaging in 'cowboy activities'

And that's exactly the point. IMO long lasting coalitions can only exist in the form of purely defensive alliances. Everything else is going to be a case by case decision by every nation.
I doubt that any souvereign, modern country is willing to be part of a coalition which is able to push it into an offensive war just because the majority of the coalition wants it.

Any ideas of potential candidates (from the new power blocks that is..) for such an alliance

 

[kato]

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.

What US role in Europe really? If we're talking military...

Let's see, the US currently has actually stationed in Europe - nominal units, other than the pure rear-echelon stuff:

------

Ground Combat / Army Aviation:
- 173rd Paratrooper Brigade Combat Team, Viacenza, Italy
- 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, Vilseck, Germany
- 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, Illesheim, Germany

Ground Combat, currently deployed (i.e. not available for defense):
- Multinational Task Force East, Ferizaj, Kosovo
- 170th Infantry Brigade (2nd HBCT until 2010), Baumholder, Germany (Iraq)
- 172nd Infantry Brigade, Grafenwöhr, Germany (Iraq)
All three above units are slated to go back to the USA longterm, not stay in Europe.

Air Combat Units:
- 31st Fighter Wing, Aviano AB, Italy (2 F-16 squadrons)
- 48th Fighter Wing, RAF Lakenheath, UK (3 F-15 squadrons)
- 52nd Fighter Wing, Spangdahlem AB, Germany (2 F-16 squadrons, 1 A-10 squadron)

Air Logistics Units:
- 86th Airlift Wing, Ramstein AB, Germany (14 C-130J aircraft, 14 VIP aircraft)
- 100th Air Refueling Wing, RAF Mildenhall, UK (number of KC-135)

Combat Support:
- 352nd Special Operations Group, RAF Mildenhall, UK (number of MC-130)
- 21st Theater Sustainment Command, K-Town, Germany (contains an engineer brigade)

------

Now. Seriously. For sheer comparison sake, the above would represent about 4% of the EU's ground forces, and around 8% of the EU's air forces. There's nothing in there Europe can't replace out of its pocketbook.

If we're talking the political role the US plays in Europe, that's precisely what the ECFR paper i linked is discussing. And economically? Not really worth discussing. As a trade partner for the remainder of the EU, pretty much any of the Western EU states just by itself exceeds the USA (ok, not Denmark). Considerably.

 

[Grand Danois]

What US role in Europe really? If we're talking military...

Let's see, the US currently has actually stationed in Europe - nominal units, other than the pure rear-echelon stuff:

Nice breakdown, you can always be trusted to know an orbat.

So who can come to the rescue of allies; who's the enabler? numbers, critical/enabling assets eg. operation allied force?

Yugoslavia - in the middle of Europe - is an obvious example, having Europe waiting for the americans to commit politically and thus also militarily, bringing the needed competence and numbers.

Check this air tasking order for allied force:

Kosovo Order of Battle

virtually all combat enabling ISR brought by the US. if you deduct the 50 odd Hungarian jets (which did not take part in the air offensive), about 73% of all aircraft came from the US. All cruise missiles fired. Practically all laser and sat guided munitions dropped (and some of the rest was from US supplied systems). ALARM is an odd one out here, though.

They bring it along when needed, like desert shield/desert storm.

Btw, whats the number for inter-US-EU trade?

 

[Grand Danois]

... and op deliberate force. including non-penetrative sorties:

DELIBERATE FORCE SORTIE BREAKDOWN FROM 29 AUG 95 - 14 SEP 95

NATION TOTAL SORTIES PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
FRANCE 84 8.1%
GERMANY 59 1.7%
ITALY 35 1.0%
NETHERLANDS 198 5.6%
SPAIN 12 3.4%
TURKEY 78 2.2%
UNITED KINGDOM 326 9.3%
UNITED STATES 2318 65.9%
NATO (NAEW) 96 2.7%
TOTAL 3515 100.0%

Operation Deliberate Force

edit: that ecfr paper does look pretty good. i'll most certainly dig into it this week.

 

[kato]

Those percentage values are screwy. At least the french and spanish percentages.

Btw, whats the number for inter-US-EU trade?

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113465.pdf

Pretty much all the numbers you could want on trade between EU and US (don't let the 2006 in the URL dissuade you, it's actually dated late September 2009).

 

[StevoJH]

- 48th Fighter Wing, RAF Lakenheath, UK (3 F-15 squadrons)

Do they help the RAF with QRA duty? If yes, they should go back to the US so the UK has to order more Eurofighters.

 

[kato]

No. They regularly deploy the small QRA out of Keflavik AB, Iceland, though. The RAF wanted to take over that QRA for the first time last year, but that was canceled due to friction between the British and Icelandic governments.

The primary role of the squadrons in Lakenheath is strategic strike. I.e. until 2004 they were supposed to deliver the nukes. The Lakenheath wing consists of two F-15E squadrons for multi-role strike missions and one F-15C squadron for their escort.

 

[JonMusser]

NATO should be replaced

okay in my option NATO should be replaced i am not going to detail why i think this i just think it is the most noneffective alliance in the world

i suggest an alliance of world democracies some well be NATO members others wont i think the alliance should have countries like: South Korea USA Brazil Singapore Australia India UK Ukraine Poland Romania maybe Canada maybe Egypt maybe just maybe Russia Thailand chili and a few others not sure.
but this alliance well be capable of focusing its attention on the world instead of one region this alliance much like NATO can be used to create stronger economic ties between countries within but this alliance well represent a group of countries with similar view of world
i want to be clear i dont see an alliance like this happening anytime soon however it would be a stronger more willing alliance to help each other in my opinion

Jon

 

[Firn]

okay in my option NATO should be replaced i am not going to detail why i think this i just think it is the most noneffective alliance in the world

This is rather a funny phrase. So basically the alliance which won the Cold War, which is currently by far the strongest on the planet, which has protected the vital interests of the members in the specified geographic zones from military threaths for sixty years and which is the only one with member states proven capable to support major combat operations in one of the remotest parts of the world for over seven years is the most noneffective alliance in the world.

Makes perfect sense


Firn

 

[Waylander]

Even more interesting are the countries he chose.

- USA
- UK
- South Korea
- Singapore
- Brazil
- Australia
- India
- Ukraine
- Romania
- Poland
- Chile
- Canada
- Egypt
- Russia

The countries on this list are more willing and capable than NATO and these countries especially have the same view of the world unlike NATO.
I am so interested in the explanation of this...

 

[JonMusser]

Even more interesting are the countries he chose.

- USA
- UK
- South Korea
- Singapore
- Brazil
- Australia
- India
- Ukraine
- Romania
- Poland
- Chile
- Canada
- Egypt
- Russia

The countries on this list are more willing and capable than NATO and these countries especially have the same view of the world unlike NATO.
I am so interested in the explanation of this...

maybe this alliance in which i envision well never happen however i have done some searching and i have found that at the vary least India has showed so vary intrest in joining such an alliance and maybe it is not alliance because at the moment there is no real threat maybe a coalition against Terrorism all the countries i mentioned are fighting an up hill war against terrorism. and most of these counties in Asia India South Korea Singapore and Australia have showed Concern toward China and i wont lie i see China as a threat and these members as a possible answer most of the counties South Korea Russia Australia India have been historically hostile toward china just sayen

yews NATO maybe be the most powerful but i am going to argue that is because of USA Canada Denmark and other countries that Fight the war the alliance is in and not because of countries that place restrictions on what missions there troops can be involved in. the alliance i suggest above is not limited to one region it is global it is a global group of countries that can fore now fight terrorism ands some day counter China

 

[PhysicsMan]

Even more interesting are the countries he chose.

- USA
- UK
- South Korea
- Singapore
- Brazil
- Australia
- India
- Ukraine
- Romania
- Poland
- Chile
- Canada
- Egypt
- Russia

The countries on this list are more willing and capable than NATO and these countries especially have the same view of the world unlike NATO.
I am so interested in the explanation of this...

The list may be kind of arbitrary and the opinion of NATO's effectiveness is just that, an opinion, but I think there is a more important idea here, about the alliance's goals and ideology. Its mission was so perfectly clear, logical, and virtuous when it was organized and throughout the Cold War. What is its purpose now? Who are they "defending" against? There's no real or even potential threat to its members in any foreseeable future. The only reason I see for its existence now is the projection of force elsewhere in the world to "protect its interests", the phrase that nowadays usually means an offensive operation against a country that needs to be put into some sort of submission.
My point is that the alliance is no longer defensive, it no longer protects its members from aggression (for the lack of it), and it now serves the interests of its members other than defense of their sovereignty, and perhaps its military potential could be used for more virtuous purposes in the modern world. This may mean including other regions, globally. You make a point about importance of having similar world views/cultural values. I believe a much larger portion of the world shares the most important values of the alliance's members than we're usually led to believe in the west. The differences of this kind often appear due to politics, not anything else. Maybe by transforming into something global the alliance will serve everyone with the principles that it values, instead of scaring the rest of the world into trying to increase military capability and form counter-alliances, as is the case with non-member countries now (Latin, BRIC, other Asian countries).

 

[turin]

So basically the alliance which won the Cold War, which is currently by far the strongest on the planet, which has protected the vital interests of the members in the specified geographic zones from military threaths for sixty years and which is the only one with member states proven capable to support major combat operations in one of the remotest parts of the world for over seven years is the most noneffective alliance in the world.

Of course it makes sense. "Winning" the Cold War ("surviving" seems more appropriate) does not indicate any capability to prevail as a concept in a world as it exists today. The "vital interest" of all these countries included in NATO was mostly a single one, to defend against the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact-members. Its by no means common sense to assume that the very same construct is even remotely able to cope with todays diverse interests, as proven regularly by the various conflicts post-1991 and the members are well aware of that. Kosovo was not accidentally viewed as some sort of wake-up call to rescue NATO from slipping into insignificance. This effort failed, from my point of view, and up to today NATO is hanging on a lifeline, while it continues to be torn apart by diverging interests. Its a bit like a patient with cancer, where no one is quite sure when the cancer will go terminal.

That its members are able to support operations in remote parts of the world (to a wildly varying degree) says more about individual capabilities, nothing about the value of NATO in that regard. In fact interoperability between certain NATO-partners still leaves much to be desired and much improvisation took place in that regard post-1991 because the alliance served another purpose then.

 

[Firn]

Of course it makes sense. "Winning" the Cold War ("surviving" seems more appropriate) does not indicate any capability to prevail as a concept in a world as it exists today. The "vital interest" of all these countries included in NATO was mostly a single one, to defend against the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact-members. Its by no means common sense to assume that the very same construct is even remotely able to cope with todays diverse interests, as proven regularly by the various conflicts post-1991 and the members are well aware of that..

Please reread the post I referred to. Do you really think it makes sense to call NATO the most uneffective alliance in the world?

This would be good to know before one continues to discuss this matter seriously.


Firn

 

[JonMusser]

Of course it makes sense. "Winning" the Cold War ("surviving" seems more appropriate) does not indicate any capability to prevail as a concept in a world as it exists today. The "vital interest" of all these countries included in NATO was mostly a single one, to defend against the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact-members. Its by no means common sense to assume that the very same construct is even remotely able to cope with todays diverse interests, as proven regularly by the various conflicts post-1991 and the members are well aware of that. Kosovo was not accidentally viewed as some sort of wake-up call to rescue NATO from slipping into insignificance. This effort failed, from my point of view, and up to today NATO is hanging on a lifeline, while it continues to be torn apart by diverging interests. Its a bit like a patient with cancer, where no one is quite sure when the cancer will go terminal.

That its members are able to support operations in remote parts of the world (to a wildly varying degree) says more about individual capabilities, nothing about the value of NATO in that regard. In fact interoperability between certain NATO-partners still leaves much to be desired and much improvisation took place in that regard post-1991 because the alliance served another purpose then.

i stand corrected i do believe you both are right that NATO its self is not the problem it however is some of the countries within NATO that haven't been performing.

 

[swerve]

i stand corrected i do believe you both are right that NATO its self is not the problem it however is some of the countries within NATO that haven't been performing.

They haven't been performing in an area (both physically & in terms of what is being done) not covered by the NATO treaty. So what?

Imagine you belong to a local cycling club: would you complain about members not being willing to join in when some the club decided to organise go-kart races in a distant town?

It's not what they joined for. They have every right to opt out.

 

[Onkel]

That´s the point. "War on terror" and "defending our freedom at the hindukush" (as the former german MOD pointed out) are very zynical phrases. I don´t want to talk about imperialism and and I don´t want so speak about western aggression, but did you ever ask yourself why 9/11 didn´t happen in e.g. Switzerland? It even didn´t happen in France or in GB. I don´t want to defend Mr. Taliban or to verbally harass our american mates, but there where no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as the world was told. Remember, this war was started BEFORE "war on terror" started. All right, Saddam was a villain and the Taliban are cruel people, it was, from a moralic point of view not the worst thing to beat them, but did you ever ask yourself why nobody helped when the genozid in Dafur was going to happen? Who cares for Simbabwe, who for Kongo? Where were the islamic iraqui terrorists befor Saddams fall? Who needs the middle eastern oil the most?

What I want to say is, that a military engagement overseas may not be in everybodies interest and it is more than questionable if this is really the right answer to the 21th century´s challenges. Countries like India or China want to gain more international influence may be the same for brazilia, Russia wants to get its own influence back and has big problems with its southern provinces. Countries like Romania or the Ukraine are poor and want to deepen their industrial relations to the USA. Poland´s relation to russia are stressed, they search for a strong partner to protect them, same for Poland, Czechia, Ukraine. South korea has it´s strange northern brother to cope with. Without Uncle Sam they fear an agressive act from the north. So the aims of this states may be very different from the american interests.

On the other hand central Europe has now been peacefull for more than sixty years, like it never happend before. And this may, from my central european point of view, be the most remarkable benefit of NATO.