Is NATO a military dinosaur?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The most powerful alliance in the history of mankind, created as a counterbalance to soviet aggression, does NATO still serve such a noble purpose? Without a credible 'threat' has NATO become an exclusive club that eastern European nations have no choice but to join (or attempt to), or the enforcer of a Pax Americana? Or is it now, as it has always been, a cornerstone world peace rendering large scale conflicts like WW2 a thing of the past, or the backbone of a sometimes spineless UN security council?

 

[Big-E]

The most powerful alliance in the history of mankind, created as a counterbalance to soviet aggression, does NATO still serve such a noble purpose? Without a credible 'threat' has NATO become an exclusive club that eastern European have no choice but to join (or attempt to), or the enforcer of a Pax Americana? Or is it now, as it has always been, a cornerstone world peace rendering large scale conflicts like WW2 a thing of the past, or the backbone of a sometimes spineless UN security council?

The Supreme Commander seems to think it's still relavent. He said last week that since they operate all over the world they are making a difference. If you want my opinion I think it is the US way of keeping a reign on Europe. I think the EU should fend for herself on the military stage. As long as the US retains her hegemony over NATO she will continue to precipate the need of European countries reliance on US firepower. I have no problem with Joint operability in fact I encourage it but the average GDP of EU countries spent on national defense is pathetic. They know that they can depend on the US anytime a crises occurs so they leave their militaries impotent to the challenges they should be facing. I can understand nations like Rwanda or the region of Darfur needing US help but I think the EU has the technology, money and numbers to be just as strong or stronger than the US and they should be. Getting rid of NATO is the biggest stumbling block to seeing this goal happen.

The US should withdraw and the rest of the alliance would collapse leaving the EU able to dominant the scene. US bases will be closed and withdrawn to other points for more forward deployability ie the Middle East. Considering the Middle East really is the Middle of the Old World it makes deployabilty much more central. We can then institute a NATO type alliance in the Middle East bringing to them the same advantages Europe had for so many decades.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

We can then institute a NATO type alliance in the Middle East bringing to them the same advantages Europe had for so many decades.

A US dominated NATO alliance in the Middle East? I doubt we will see that in our lifetimes.

 

[Big-E]

A US dominated NATO alliance in the Middle East? I doubt we will see that in our lifetimes.

What do you think the GWT is all about if not to achieve this goal?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

What do you think the GWT is all about if not to achieve this goal?

Lol, Its isnt about establishing a new form of NATO in the Middle east, fighting terrorism in general, sure, but establishing a new NATO? no. Of course, since you brought the topic up, perhaps you want to provide some policy documents to support that idea?

 

[Big-E]

Lol, Its isnt about establishing a new form of NATO in the Middle east, fighting terrorism in general, sure, but establishing a new NATO? no.

To America what does NATO primarily mean today? It doesn't mean protecting NATO members as there is no threat to them. To America, NATO means forward deployable bases for the current and future areas of conflict ie the Middle East. The move against Iraq was a move to establish an American presence in the heart of the Middle East to promote democracy. The president said it is the mission of America "to promote freedom and democracy to the corners of the globe." This is Bush's policy to ending the GWT by bringing peace and prosperity by way of democracy. There will be some form of alliance system in the Middle East dominated by the USA by the end of the GWT. This is innevitable unless the US utterly fails in her mission b/c she will have to maintain significant force levels for decades to come. If you think US forces are just going to leave you can forget it.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip If you think US forces are just going to leave you can forget it.

Just like South Vietnam is a properous democratic member of the world community with its benvolent American protectors to prevent the aggression of the vile communist north, huh?. Yeah, right
Now I asked you for evidence to support your argument, did you forget?.

 

[Big-E]

Just like South Vietnam is a properous democratic member of the world community with its benvolent American protectors to prevent the aggression of the vile communist north, huh?. Yeah, right
Now I asked you for evidence to support your argument, did you forget?.

How can anyone procure evidence, all of it hinges on the outcome of the GWT. It is obvious through the words of the president and the state department what the goals are. That is your evidence. If you are looking for more you will just have to hop into your time machine and tell us what happens 10yrs from now. No one in 67' could have proved the collapse of S. Vietnam 10yrs later. The resolve of the Bush admin has been pretty resolute to see it through, but it all hinges on who wins election in 08' and 12'.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

How can anyone procure evidence, all of it hinges on the outcome of the GWT. It is obvious through the words of the president and the state department what the goals are. That is your evidence. If you are looking for more you will just have to hop into your time machine and tell us what happens 10yrs from now. No one in 67' could have proved the collapse of S. Vietnam 10yrs later. The resolve of the Bush admin has been pretty resolute to see it through, but it all hinges on who wins in 08'

In short, you have nothing to support your argument other than unsubstantiated opinion while conveinantly forgetting that for such an organisation to exist it actually has to have the support of the middle east nations who, and lets face it, pretty much hate the guts of the USA. Not exactly a winning recipie for an argument.

 

[Big-E]

There is no argument. This is not a forum for political debate which this thread started and you are trying to bait me into yet again. If you have a problem with American foreign policy I am not the one to discuss it with.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mod edit: Guys this thread is about NATO's relevancy. Let's get back on topic. Political discussions were stopped on this site due to the flame wars they generate. If a political discussion continues it will be closed. Cheers.

 

[Rich]

In short, you have nothing to support your argument other than unsubstantiated opinion while conveniantly forgetting that for such an organisation to exist it actually has to have the support of the middle east nations who, and lets face it, pretty much hate the guts of the USA. Not exactly a winning recipie for an argument.

NATO needs the support of ME nations to exist? And for "hating our guts" there certainly are a lot of countries in the Gulf who "want" a Yank presence. As Iran grows more powerful we will be made to feel even more welcome. Of course the simple fact is that Europe depends on ME oil even more then we do.

Many in West Europe considered the fight against communism a big joke, which probably would have changed when/if the cardboard shoes, bread lines, and secret police on every corner appeared. Yank forces in Europe have always been "guests" bound by the Laws of the nation they were serving in, as well as treaty agreements. All it would have taken, or would take now, is to tell us to leave. And we would leave. I was one yaknow, a serviceman serving in NATO.

Much is said now in Europe about our "illegal war" in Iraq. Funny how short the memories are across the pond, and how Euro's cant seem to remember their illegal war against Serbia, "which makes Iraq look like a model of legality". Yank involvement in Serbia was due to a US President that was easily manipulated by the UN and the EU. There was no military threat to NATO from little Serbia and no United Nations authorization of any kind. Remember?

I say NATO belongs in the dustbin of history. It exists only in ink on paper right now and that isnt going to change. Let Europe double its defense %%%% and sink or swim on its own. The cooperation in the war on terror will go on because its all in our interests. And of course we Yanks will always be loyal to the Brits.

 

[merocaine]

I agree it is a dinosaur, and its involvement in southern Afganistan is going to be the meteor.
Why is it there!!!! where in its charter is there justifacation? I feel that its trying to justify its existance and relevence to america, esp after america has signaled its belief that ad hoc alliences are its future. And the best way to do that is to take bullet for the big guy, i just dont think in the long run it will make any difference. NATO Kaput.

After NATO the natural thing to do would to be to set up a europe wide defence treaty, how this would be possible without america is another question.

 

[merocaine]

And of course we Yanks will always be loyal to the Brits.

I thought it was the other way around!!??

Much is said now in Europe about our "illegal war" in Iraq. Funny how short the memories are across the pond, and how Euro's cant seem to remember their illegal war against Serbia, "which makes Iraq look like a model of legality". Yank involvement in Serbia was due to a US President that was easily manipulated by the UN and the EU. There was no military threat to NATO from little Serbia and no United Nations authorization of any kind. Remember?

I cant agree more, but it was a 50 50 split in european public opinion about the intervention, we werent gung ho (apart from some crusaders like blair)

I dont understand why you guys want Europe to arm up, you already have a political and economic competeter over here, do you want a military one? and lets face it over armed european nations always make a play for power at some stage its in the genes! last thing anyone wants is a whole bunch of them together!

 

[Big-E]

Why is it there!!!! where in its charter is there justifacation?

When Al-Queda attacked they directed the attack clause against the Taliban as the enemy. So the justification was under the defense agreement. Funny that not even the U.S. Congress declared war like it says in the constitution.

 

[Davyd]

NATO is kind of a joke. I mean, it sure seems like a great idea to make some giant conglomeration with all these ex-WARPAC nations so that there can be some 'mutual' benefits. But the very name is indicative of how redundant the Organization is. Fold it and start fresh is what i say. Use its' base structure to form something new that includes all the current nations and possible future entrants. That is to say, if it really HAS to exist at all. It'd probably be easier to just meld the doctrine into the UN somehow since that is a more encompassing alliance and go from there.

We'd like to think that right now we really could be on some threshold of global peace. Save a few nuclear ready zealots (NK, Iran) and some all out people haters (radical Muslim terrorists), it could be possible. But to keep an Organization whose main purpose was to thwart a foe that no longer exists while said foe has almost completely folded up shop and tried to warm its' relations on the global stage... Well, NATO can be seen as a slap in the face to someone like that.

 

[contedicavour]

An ongoing alliance of like-minded democratic countries is definitively needed today just as it was during the Cold War.
The threats have changed and the alliance needs to adapt, fullstop.

The only thing I would change is the name. I would also edit an official new purpose (starting from the partnership for peace). I think this is needed because as NATO expands East in Europe, it antagonises Russia. We need to find a way to get Russia in the deal, or if we judge it insufficiently democratic, we at least need to stop appearing as a threat to them.

cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

NATO alive and kiccking

I think NATO is more effective than the UN, it certainly can act much quicker than the UN, Kosovo being the prime example.
On the Russian side of things the Russians are still upset they lost there buffer and their greater sphere of influence. I mean it is not like anyone wants a piece of the problems that is going on in Russia, they should look a little more east if they are worried about a threat, I agree involvement of the Russians in one way or another would be ideal though.

PS Contedicavour G'Luck Tomorrow

 

[contedicavour]

I think NATO is more effective than the UN, it certainly can act much quicker than the UN, Kosovo being the prime example.
On the Russian side of things the Russians are still upset they lost there buffer and their greater sphere of influence. I mean it is not like anyone wants a piece of the problems that is going on in Russia, they should look a little more east if they are worried about a threat, I agree involvement of the Russians in one way or another would be ideal though.

PS Contedicavour G'Luck Tomorrow

Yep we'll need it and congratulations for already getting so far, if I'm not wrong it's a 1st for Australia

cheers

 

[Big-E]

Yep we'll need it and congratulations for already getting so far, if I'm not wrong it's a 1st for Australia

cheers

Beat by Ghana... I hate football! Men's that is.