Gates criticizes NATO allies

riksavage

Banned Member
I see two issues with that. The first is that not all members of NATO are members of the EU, and not all countries involved in air ops over Libya are EU members either.

The second issue is that by having a common fund established, with payouts from the fund for restocking based upon the precentage of ordnance used... That is only useful for restocking munitions. That is not particularly useful in an operational sense if a nation's warstock has been emptied/nearly emptied, because the warstock was small to begin with.

-Cheers
We can't keep carrying on with a situation whereby certain countries are spending a disproportionate amount of limited funds on weapons/re-stocking of weapons to undertake NATO/UN sanctioned tasks whilst other signed up members sit on their hands or select roles which will require zero shots to be fired. Otherwise the US will eventually walk away from NATO and instead establish relationships with countries prepared to shoulder a heavier share of the burden. After all NATO was originally designed to keep the Russian's out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Russia no longer offers a serious conventional threat to European security and the Germans are becoming more isolationist, thus diminishing the argument for America to remain 'in' when they have to focus more of their resources East of Suez.

Having a centralized fund under the administrative control of NATO or EU military command designed to pay for the backfill of expended munitions would alleviate some of the pressure on the national defence budgets of those countries heavily committed to combat operations. The caveat being all signed up members must maintain minimum stock level. The fund would be used as a contingency for operations like Libya, which drag on past the original sell by date.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Having a centralized fund under the administrative control of NATO or EU military command designed to pay for the backfill of expended munitions would alleviate some of the pressure on the national defence budgets of those countries heavily committed to combat operations.
And why would any NATO or EU country go for that?

The point is that in both NATO and EU you're able to opt out of supporting those combat operations you don't agree with (for EU except mutual defense, for NATO including that). Requiring NATO members to fund operations they don't agree with would be the end of NATO.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can anyone please tell me which NATO country was attacked, so that the other NATO countries are morally and by treaty obliged to help in an effort to repell the attack?
The NATO council unanimously voted in October 2001 that the USA were attacked, and that NATO is in a state of mutual self-defense. The US has been milking this since then. But of course the NATO charter doesn't really oblige any member to help out in any way.
 

Locarnus

New Member
The NATO council unanimously voted in October 2001 that the USA were attacked, and that NATO is in a state of mutual self-defense. The US has been milking this since then. But of course the NATO charter doesn't really oblige any member to help out in any way.
But that would not have anything to do with the war against Lybia...
And the according comments on the willingness or ability of NATO members to fight this war.
 

88a

New Member
Truth is, neither Europe nor America can afford these wars.

The truth is, America's economy is reliant on pork, weakens day by day; US defence contractors are, to all intents and purposes, communist state-owned corporations.
 

lopez

Member
Truth is, neither Europe nor America can afford these wars.

The truth is, America's economy is reliant on pork, weakens day by day; US defence contractors are, to all intents and purposes, communist state-owned corporations.
hmmm... yes the pork....
USA number one commodity lol. yes the subprime pork crisis has hurt us all....
:eek:nfloorl::lol3
 

welsh1

New Member
NATO what is it now?

NATO was set up a mutual defence pact. So the big question is what real use is it now? I can not see at present, or in the medium term a threat to Europe or North America. As a result it does not surprise me that many nations in NATO are reducing military spending.

When the original member countries signed up to joining NATO, was it on the basis of forming a defense pact, and not a global police / power projection force. For newer members of NATO joining seems almost like a economic reward for aligning themselves away from Moscow and adopting a more western system of governance.

Lets face it, many of the newer member states do not have the equipment or money to really help out on the Global stage even if they desired to do so. Joining NATO has allowed them to focus resources on economic devolvement as they now have the security required to lower defense spending.

In Western Europe there is no huge will among the population to play the global police man. In general if there is a strong feeling of moral duty to “do the right thing” action is taken. Many of the nations have legacy’s throughout the world which often make direct intervention politically sensitive. If the UK were to act against Mugabe in Zimbabwe for the right reason’s it would be touted as re colonialisation. In the same respect as American intervention in the Islamic world is starting to become though of more as an attack on Islam as oppose to helping out.

Currently Western Europe is for reasons both political and economic are putting less money into defence. Over reliance on the USA and a lack of perceived threats has made military cuts very easy to make. The current Events in Libya and the USA not acting as much a major player will I hope breath some light into the reasons why money needs to be spent in defence. I believe that if it was not for the current lack of capability and current deployments taking up all available resources Syria would be very much in the limelight now for the more willing nations.

The problem with Europe is a simple one, there are too many voices. Assets are controlled by those who speak for them and it will remain the same. Some nations are more willing to contribute on the global stage than others, which makes a pan European force a painful thought in the political nightmare of getting it deployed in all but the most serious of events. Saying this further integration both industrial and militarily is the only way forth and getting there needs to be done in small steps, with likeminded nations working together. Even if spending does not increase, increased co-operation on all levels starting at R&D all the way to sharing assets will create a bigger more affective military force.

The USA which has always been the primary power of NATO. Having lived throughout Europe and North America it would be fair to say Americans have a very different view of the world than their European allies. In Europe there is a greater reserve and emphasis on the UN, in the US there is far less regard for the UN and global opinion. American interests come first and foremost, non American interests are far less publicized for the population to learn about, and when reported often do not tweak the public imagination enough to get action from the government.

There is no doubt in my mind that Europe and the US need each other, the world remains a very uncertain place and with the emerging challenges ahead a new balance in the relationship needs to be created. The US wants more from Europe and rightfully so, but also needs to rebuild some broken bridges. If you want your partners to take more responsibility you need to give their say more respect which many in Europe do not believe the Americans have given in the past and as a result has caused some offence. American’s and European’s have very different values and beliefs and we don’t all want the same thing.

As for NATO’s future, I believe it will remain but it will never be united against 1 cause in the same way as before. Future actions will be made up from coalitions of the willing with in NATO and its partner countries and with any luck Europe will become more united over its place in the world and responsibilities. .
 

rip

New Member
NATO what is it now?

NATO was set up a mutual defence pact. So the big question is what real use is it now? I can not see at present, or in the medium term a threat to Europe or North America. As a result it does not surprise me that many nations in NATO are reducing military spending.

When the original member countries signed up to joining NATO, was it on the basis of forming a defense pact, and not a global police / power projection force. For newer members of NATO joining seems almost like a economic reward for aligning themselves away from Moscow and adopting a more western system of governance.

Lets face it, many of the newer member states do not have the equipment or money to really help out on the Global stage even if they desired to do so. Joining NATO has allowed them to focus resources on economic devolvement as they now have the security required to lower defense spending.

In Western Europe there is no huge will among the population to play the global police man. In general if there is a strong feeling of moral duty to “do the right thing” action is taken. Many of the nations have legacy’s throughout the world which often make direct intervention politically sensitive. If the UK were to act against Mugabe in Zimbabwe for the right reason’s it would be touted as re colonialisation. In the same respect as American intervention in the Islamic world is starting to become though of more as an attack on Islam as oppose to helping out.

Currently Western Europe is for reasons both political and economic are putting less money into defence. Over reliance on the USA and a lack of perceived threats has made military cuts very easy to make. The current Events in Libya and the USA not acting as much a major player will I hope breath some light into the reasons why money needs to be spent in defence. I believe that if it was not for the current lack of capability and current deployments taking up all available resources Syria would be very much in the limelight now for the more willing nations.

The problem with Europe is a simple one, there are too many voices. Assets are controlled by those who speak for them and it will remain the same. Some nations are more willing to contribute on the global stage than others, which makes a pan European force a painful thought in the political nightmare of getting it deployed in all but the most serious of events. Saying this further integration both industrial and militarily is the only way forth and getting there needs to be done in small steps, with likeminded nations working together. Even if spending does not increase, increased co-operation on all levels starting at R&D all the way to sharing assets will create a bigger more affective military force.

The USA which has always been the primary power of NATO. Having lived throughout Europe and North America it would be fair to say Americans have a very different view of the world than their European allies. In Europe there is a greater reserve and emphasis on the UN, in the US there is far less regard for the UN and global opinion. American interests come first and foremost, non American interests are far less publicized for the population to learn about, and when reported often do not tweak the public imagination enough to get action from the government.

There is no doubt in my mind that Europe and the US need each other, the world remains a very uncertain place and with the emerging challenges ahead a new balance in the relationship needs to be created. The US wants more from Europe and rightfully so, but also needs to rebuild some broken bridges. If you want your partners to take more responsibility you need to give their say more respect which many in Europe do not believe the Americans have given in the past and as a result has caused some offence. American’s and European’s have very different values and beliefs and we don’t all want the same thing.

As for NATO’s future, I believe it will remain but it will never be united against 1 cause in the same way as before. Future actions will be made up from coalitions of the willing with in NATO and its partner countries and with any luck Europe will become more united over its place in the world and responsibilities. .
I think that the major disconnect between the US and Europe, concerning the field of world security, is that the Europeans have a much greater but I believe totally flawed belief in international institutions as a method to provide and police world order. They do when the institutions are heavily under their influence that is. And that these institutions stand above and separate from the authority of the individual Nations States. Furthermore that these captive institutions are superior, both legally and morally to all others. While in the US we do not recognize nor will we ever recognize any law or authority above that of our own constitution. I know to most of the world this is an uncommon view in very many different ways but it has its roots in how we define ourselves as Americans which is not a subject of this thread.

But I totally disagree with you about your comment about “In Western Europe there is no huge will among the population to play the global police man.” Since Europe thinks is has and has shown that it will judge the actions of people from anywhere in the world which somehow displeases them (which it feels it had the right to define all by its self by just labeling them as crimes). Action usually concerning events which happened in non-European countries and which evolved non-European’s, under the grand assumption that other legal systems are to be considered inferior and thus cannot be trussed to get the right (comforting) results.

While at the same time it harbors convicted criminals from justice which have been fairly convicted of statue crimes within fair and open courts because the crime is not one considered important to European sensibilities or they do not like the legal proscribed punishments proscribed under the law for those crimes which have been violated. To take just one example from so very many, think of the convicted pedophile Roman Polanski and what a great artist he is. You must be so proud.

Europe does want to be the world’s policeman but they want only half of the job. The job to is both protect the innocent and when failing that to punish the guilty. Of protecting innocent they find effort be too hard and of punishing the guilty, only if they can no longer fight back.

As to the NATO alliance? The world system that was put into effect after WW II mainly by America with the full cooperation and support of the Europe, it is in danger of becoming unrivaled. NATO is only one part of that system. New emerging players want to change the rules so that they can succeed even more but they at the same time they want to limit the possibility of the others following them in to success. The same success they have found under that system which was designed to encourage success in places where it was never known before. A system designed so as to break the endless cycle of conquest and domination that preceded it. While the power and the will to defend that system has declined.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While in the US we do not recognize nor will we ever recognize any law or authority above that of our own constitution.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Recognize that line? It's been in there since 1787.
 

rip

New Member
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Recognize that line? It's been in there since 1787.
Off topic I will not debate constructional law on this thread but you reasoning is flawed. If it was not flawed and if a treaty was signed and then ratified by the senate, which said “kill all tall people over six feet high” it would be the supreme law of the land.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Why this is surprising ?? For one thing Nato really over-priced the capabilities of Air Campaign alone can bring down Khadafi. They don't learn from Iraq that with only Air Strikes, no any dictactor can be brough down. They also ubber-confidence with the ability of those rag-tag rebels in facing Khadafi's forces. No matter how much propaganda come out, the rebels still not winning.

No the game of blaming and excuses come to play. Same old, same old :rolleyes:.
 
Top