Future of US in NATO

A poll was taken this week and only 49% of Americans say we should stick with NATO (Only 49% Think U.S. Still Needs to Belong to NATO - Rasmussen Reports™). We have seen during this Libya conflict that NATO is severely weakened without the US running the show (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/europe/11gates.html?_r=1) and also here (Gates blasts NATO - The Washington Post). Basically, what we have is an alliance that the US gets no benefit from in terms of her own security. There are 3 (MAYBE 4) nations in all of the 28 member states that benefit US security, and that is England for sure, France for sure, Germany somewhat, and maybe if you want to count Italy. These nations, aside from Italy, keep a relatively tough military budget (all beside Italy) of above 50 billion yearly, though Germany even is cutting military spending. Due to austerity measures in all of Europe, we've seen some serious issues with them aiding us. Now, of course, the US is the big power, but what benefit are we getting from spending billions a year on the defense of tiny nations like Romania or Iceland?

My personal belief is that we need to reevaluate the whole thing. There are nations in there which have absolutely no benefit to the United States, and there are nations across the world with strong militaries whom are our allies, that we are not in a cooperative pact with, namely South Korea and Israel. I think that simply pulling out is a bad idea, because we do have some benefits, like bases in Poland that are going up now, etc, but I do simply think that if these nations want to get defense from the largest military power in the world, they need to have a certain monetary and troop contribution to remain, along with allowing basing in their nations.

Some also argue we should leave and create a new alliance, with heavier joining requirements, but what's the point of that, if we are just going to do the same thing but require more stringent measures?

So, what do you think? So many Americans according to that poll say we should leave, but I just don't think that's a good idea, considering we've got some powerful allies in there and the basing component is vital to our security.

NATO does not benefit the US, it benefits Europe. We have no reason to be in NATO.

get out of it president hussein wants to just spend spend spend more money to nato instead of fight like men we shodul be commanding libya not some french dope but thats right president hussein leads from behind not from forward

Considering how much work NATO has put in over the last decade in aiding the U.S. (Afghanistan, Syria, etc.), it would be a slap in the face to abandon our allies because they aren't doing exactly what we want them to do at all times. Canada, for example, lead the entire southern front in Afghanistan for the majority of Bush's office. Are we just going to ditch them?

If we are withdrawing from NATO for financial reasons, I could understand that - but the rhetoric I'm seeing coming out of the right wing in particular is somewhat disgraceful. These nations are our allies, we should stick together.

Temporal said:

Considering how much work NATO has put in over the last decade in aiding the U.S. (Afghanistan, Syria, etc.), it would be a slap in the face to abandon our allies because they aren't doing exactly what we want them to do at all times. Canada, for example, lead the entire southern front in Afghanistan for the majority of Bush's office. Are we just going to ditch them?

If we are withdrawing from NATO for financial reasons, I could understand that - but the rhetoric I'm seeing coming out of the right wing in particular is somewhat disgraceful. These nations are our allies, we should stick together.

Click to expand...

But that's only a small fraction of them. Canada has not been doing much lately and needs to step it up. England/France have always been with us apart from Iraq which was justifiable on France's part. I know Germany doesn't want to go into Libya which is fine so they upped their troops in Afghanistan. But the point is these small nations that have military budgets barely touching 1 billion are protected by us and what do we get from it other than basing (some of them don't even allow bases).

Gargantuan said:

But that's only a small fraction of them. Canada has not been doing much lately and needs to step it up. England/France have always been with us apart from Iraq which was justifiable on France's part. I know Germany doesn't want to go into Libya which is fine so they upped their troops in Afghanistan. But the point is these small nations that have military budgets barely touching 1 billion are protected by us and what do we get from it other than basing (some of them don't even allow bases).

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, NATO is not America's personal army. We co-operate based out of mutual interest and respect for similar international goals. Canada doesn't have to step up anything. We had no business going into Iraq in the first place.

Your comments are what I'm talking about. It's total disrespect to our allies and the history we have had together. "Do what we say or we'll pull out of NATO" - ok then, pull out. You'll just be showing your ass to our allies and making fools of our nation.

EDIT: Forgot to address you point about the budgets. The U.S. military budget has increased significantly in the past 20-30 years. NATO doesn't need other nations to fund more, what the U.S. needs to do is change its foreign policy so that we are not the be all and end all of everyone else's survival, or so that we are no longer world police.

Temporal said:

Last time I checked, NATO is not America's personal army. We co-operate based out of mutual interest and respect for similar international goals. Canada doesn't have to step up anything. We had no business going into Iraq in the first place.

Your comments are what I'm talking about. It's total disrespect to our allies and the history we have had together. "Do what we say or we'll pull out of NATO" - ok then, pull out. You'll just be showing your ass to our allies and making fools of our nation.

Click to expand...

But what benefit are we and the allies who actually make an effort with NATO getting from smaller nations who don't even spend 1 billion on defense?

Gargantuan said:

But what benefit are we and the allies who actually make an effort with NATO getting from smaller nations who don't even spend 1 billion on defense?

Click to expand...

The benefits may not be military; they may be economic, strategic, or relate to other partnerships.

Alliances are complicated and are not always based on black and white factors like whether or not a country is trying to match our own military spending. U.S. foreign policy is ultimately about self-interest and so the money that we put into our own military has far reaching benefits to us, when it is applied properly. What's happening in the Middle East right now represents a failure in the application of our foreign policy and our military. If we had succeeded, we would have acquired new capital gains to help our dwindling economy (i.e. natural resources), but our mission is grueling and it's part of what is crippling our budget.

The U.S. has never had a problem with NATO in the way you are suggesting. What you are rehashing are right wing talking points that are actually related to finding excuses for restricting the U.S. budget. No one wants to come out and say that the U.S. military needs to be slashed because the U.S. is spending too much pork; no, they have to blame other nations to make it look justifiable. America is #1, right? So yeah... we have to make it seem like it's really someone else's problem.

In any case, once we are forced to slash out military budget, other nations will have to step up their game anyway. But let's not confuse what the root of the current argument is.

It isnt very likely that other nations will have the ability to attack the US anytime soon. Our involvement in NATO has been traditionally to curb the rise of soviet bloc countries. It has the added impact of promoting economic alliances. there really is no benefit to ending our NATO relationship. However...the UN is a completely different animal.

Temporal said:

Last time I checked, NATO is not America's personal army. We co-operate based out of mutual interest and respect for similar international goals. Canada doesn't have to step up anything. We had no business going into Iraq in the first place.

Your comments are what I'm talking about. It's total disrespect to our allies and the history we have had together. "Do what we say or we'll pull out of NATO" - ok then, pull out. You'll just be showing your ass to our allies and making fools of our nation.

EDIT: Forgot to address you point about the budgets. The U.S. military budget has increased significantly in the past 20-30 years. NATO doesn't need other nations to fund more, what the U.S. needs to do is change its foreign policy so that we are not the be all and end all of everyone else's survival, or so that we are no longer world police.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the last point. But nations who contribute nothing to NATO do not deserve membership plain and simple. My position is not to exit, but to require more stringent contribution from member-states. Do you really consider Poland and Romania to have been excellent contributors to our history? I'm not going after England/France/Germany, but Spain has done nothing, Portugal nothing, etc. And I left out Canada because we already have cooperative defense with them in terms of NORAD.

The current role for NATO for the US is purely geopolitical. Militarily Nato outside of the UK and France will never be able to supply much outside of soldiers on the ground. Germany could do more but is limited to a defensive role. Canada of course has too small a military to make much of an impact.

As for the future of Nato, I think it will be rather limited. France and the UK will be making cuts to their military, (especially the UK) that will impact their ability to operate large distances from their boarders


Overall without a real common threat and no a rag tag bunch of terrorists do not make for a significant common threat requiring hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending, the goals of the US and European nato members will diverge. Leaving the generally by itself to counter China (yes China) which is the main issue for the US military in the future.

The problem with the US being in NATO is purely economic. We have always provided the bulk of military personnel, air support, and weaponry. That allows European nations to cut back on their military defense budgets and pour that money into their extensive social programs. Now that's fine, that's their choice. However, that choice should not be subsidized by America continuing to bear the brunt of NATO's budget exclusively on its back. We've subsidized the defense of Europe far too long. I say we get out of NATO completely.

Edit: BTW, I'm kind of tired of all the partisian rhetoric centering on international issues. The economic consequences of decades of American subsidies to European defense is not a right versus left issue; it's an American issue, and last I checked both the right and the left consist of Americans.

DiAnna said:

The problem with the US being in NATO is purely economic. We have always provided the bulk of military personnel, air support, and weaponry. That allows European nations to cut back on their military defense budgets and pour that money into their extensive social programs. Now that's fine, that's their choice. However, that choice should not be subsidized by America continuing to bear the brunt of NATO's budget exclusively on its back. We've subsidized the defense of Europe far too long. I say we get out of NATO completely.

Edit: BTW, I'm kind of tired of all the partisian rhetoric centering on international issues. The economic consequences of decades of American subsidies to European defense is not a right versus left issue; it's an American issue, and last I checked both the right and the left consist of Americans.

Click to expand...

Realistically the US is not defending Europe from any real threat anymore, not since the mid 90s when Russia went into a tailspin. The US could pull its entire military from Europe and Western Europe would still be safe. The Russian military is not capable of invading europe, and it required a massive amount of its ground forces to be able to handle Georgia, a country of a few million people with even worse equipment then what Russia has. Germany, France and Italy have enough men under arms, enough equipment to destroy any potential Russian invasion who would get stuck in Poland and be unable to advance. There is a reason why Russia is looking at buying more then a few European weapon systems/ships, that reason is that Russia has not been able to develop a brand new weapon system that has not been based on designs created in the Soviet times.


Heck America could cut its military spending by 50% and still have US territory safe from foreign military attack. It would still be by far the worlds largest military spender even with a 50% cut

I believe economic and political stability in Europe is in America's interest too, and NATO is necessary to protect it. NATO's role doesn't begin the moment there is a foreign invasion (maybe Europe could indeed defeat Russia in case of invasion, I don't know -- but think of the repercussions of such an attempt on the US too), but by its mere existence, it makes sure there is none.

That said, I do believe the US should exert some pressure on the European NATO members to contribute more and to take more responsibility. Europe's military state is pathetic. We need a strong military on our own, instead of freeriding on US protection. But that's again partly a problem of us Europeans. We are not willing to create a strong united EU army, although IMO, that is one of the fields where a union really makes a lot of sense. I'd rather see a united EU military, than the EU regulating all kind of things which don't really need regulation.

NATO has been a positive force during the Cold War and it's still important that it continue.

I do think that when it comes to contributing it needs to be equatable.

Our leadership has been the driving force up until now, but now that is in question because we have weak kneed Obama at the helm.

So far I think he's doing things for political reasons, not for the hood of the people of other Countries. He's shown he is pro-Islam, and i think he's playing for votes.

we are storngest in the world we dont need it obama wants to spend for his islamic european friends europe is islamic now you can call it eurarabia now they are islamic and let me tell you , i know some muslims , the muslims are real happy now because their leader is our president, thats why they havent attacked

NATO is a "military alliance" made up of people who don't want to be our allies, and dont' have militaries.

Let it Die.

heckgunderson said:

we are storngest in the world we dont need it obama wants to spend for his islamic european friends europe is islamic now you can call it eurarabia now they are islamic and let me tell you , i know some muslims , the muslims are real happy now because their leader is our president, thats why they havent attacked

Click to expand...

Is this satire?