• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defense Secretary Warns NATO of ‘Dim’ Future

Andalublue said:
NATO no longer has any raison d'etre. It should disband, saving a lot of countries a lot of money that they can spend on more socially useful things than military hardware. What does NATO do that ad hoc cooperative actions between interested states could not do? Britain and France took the initiative over Libya and would have done irrespective of NATO. With the end of the Cold War I can't think of any reason for its continued existence.
Click to expand...

Another poster argued that it should be reorganized, and that might work as it is useless in its present form.

But as every taxpayer knows, once you create a bureaucracy it becomes damned difficult to get rid of. Those 4-star Generals from Romania will probably fight hard (verbally of course) to keep it the way it is.
 
Andalublue said:
NATO no longer has any raison d'etre.
Click to expand...

Certainly not when Americans shoulder three-fourths of the bill.

Andalublue said:
It should disband, saving a lot of countries a lot of money that they can spend on more socially useful things than military hardware.
Click to expand...

What lot of countries, and what lot of money? Only five countries currently meet their NATO commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. One of those countries is Albania. So if you mean Albania will save a lot of money then you have a point.

Andalublue said:
What does NATO do that ad hoc cooperative actions between interested states could not do?
Click to expand...

Apparently, nothing. The E-weenies said NATO needed to do something in Libya. (Most Libyan oil flows to Europe. In the wake of a humanitarian disaster, so would Libyan refugees.) After the initial U.S.-led air campaign destroyed much of Gaddafi's offensive capability, we turned things over to the Weenies who've pretty much done nothing since. Turns out they can't do anything because they don't have the capability. Even when we supply things like mission planners and controllers, they can't bomb anything because they're running out of munitions.
 
Ahlevah said:
Certainly not when Americans shoulder three-fourths of the bill.
Click to expand...
And make nine-tenths of the decisions.



What lot of countries, and what lot of money? Only five countries currently meet their NATO commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. One of those countries is Albania. So if you mean Albania will save a lot of money then you have a point.
Click to expand...
Well, even according to your rhetoric, that's 5 countries.


Apparently, nothing. The E-weenies said NATO needed to do something in Libya. (Most Libyan oil flows to Europe. In the wake of a humanitarian disaster, so would Libyan refugees.) After the initial U.S.-led air campaign destroyed much of Gaddafi's offensive capability, we turned things over to the Weenies who've pretty much done nothing since. Turns out they can't do anything because they don't have the capability. Even when we supply things like mission planners and controllers, they can't bomb anything because they're running out of munitions.
Click to expand...
The initial air campaign was led by Britain and France. I don't believe the US carried out any of the initial raids.

Your post shows up the issue clearly for both the US and its NATO allies. Disbanding NATO would free the US of what appears to be an onerous and resented obligation to act as the spearhead for operations in which it has little national interest. For the remaining allies it means that they do not have to fall-in behind US-driven operations with which they might fundamentally disagree. It's a win-win scenario, and one that clearly doesn't stop any of the members nations remaining friends and allies, and cooperating in future situations on an ad hoc basis.
 
yes, and we've learned (from the financial times of london, above) that action undertaken by the us, england and france is worrisomely similar to the us acting alone

days not weeks, anyone?
 
Andalublue said:
And make nine-tenths of the decisions.
Click to expand...

If a country wants to be relevant, it needs to have skin in the game.

Andalublue said:
(E)ven according to your rhetoric, that's 5 countries (that are meeting their commitment to NATO)...
Click to expand...

... while 23 nations are not meeting their commitment to NATO.

Andalublue said:
Disbanding NATO would free the US of what appears to be an onerous and resented obligation to act as the spearhead for operations in which it has little national interest. For the remaining allies it means that they do not have to fall-in behind US-driven operations with which they might fundamentally disagree. It's a win-win scenario, and one that clearly doesn't stop any of the members nations remaining friends and allies, and cooperating in future situations on an ad hoc basis.
Click to expand...

What kind of cooperation? Europe supplies the cheerleaders and referees while the U.S. supplies the muscle? Who, for example, is going to step up to the plate the next time there's a problem in the Balkans or Eastern Europe? :confused:
 
Ahlevah said:
If a country wants to be relevant, it needs to have skin in the game.



... while 23 nations are not meeting their commitment to NATO.



What kind of cooperation? Europe supplies the cheerleaders and referees while the U.S. supplies the muscle? Who, for example, is going to step up to the plate the next time there's a problem in the Balkans or Eastern Europe? :confused:
Click to expand...

The Europeans should be put on notice that when the next problem occurs in Europe, as it inevitably will, they will be on their own.

Western Europeans have been complaining abut American involvement, or non-involvement, since the end of WWII and it's about time we amicably separated. We are now having more interests in South America and Asia than in Europe.

Each year Canadians have less interest in Europe because it is no longer our immigration base and have as little interest in European history as Europeans themselves do. They have proven to be as unreliable as they are overly critical. The separation, apart from trade, should suit everyone.
 
Andalublue said:
NATO no longer has any raison d'etre. It should disband, saving a lot of countries a lot of money that they can spend on more socially useful things than military hardware. What does NATO do that ad hoc cooperative actions between interested states could not do? Britain and France took the initiative over Libya and would have done irrespective of NATO. With the end of the Cold War I can't think of any reason for its continued existence.
Click to expand...

You need to also disband the UN
 
Here's one for ya, Blue:

PRISTINA, Kosovo -- A senior US official says Kosovo's partition along ethnic lines would plunge the Balkan region back into violence.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon says that redrawing borders as suggested by Serbia's senior officials would be "a recipe for disaster."

Gordon's remarks Thursday follow a statement made recently by Serbia's Deputy Prime Minister Ivica Dacic who said that Kosovo and Serbia could overcome their differences if the country's Serb-dominated north joins Serbia. Kosovo has refused to give up any of its territory.

Serbia rejects Kosovo's 2008 secession and backs institutions set up by the Serb minority in Kosovo that seek to undermine its statehood.

US warns against Kosovo partition - Forbes.com
Click to expand...

So maybe an ad hoc cooperative venture would be for Serbia and Russia to just march into North Kosovo and assert Serbian sovereignty over it while the Weenies have a hissyfit and pee in their underwear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom