Barney Frank's Cuts: NATO 'Serves No Strategic Purpose'
In the Bush years, liberals worried out loud about how our war on terrorism was destroying our reputation among our noble socialist allies in Europe. But in the Obama years, they are showing their old colors. The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel delighted in Barney Frank's idea that our NATO alliance with Europe is strategically worthless and our spending on it should be slashed:
"These kind of restrictions on domestic spending with unlimited spending for the war -- and you always have to talk about both -- is a great mistake," Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told The Huffington Post last week. "And the liberal community's got to focus more on Afghanistan, Iraq, NATO. NATO is a great drain on our treasury and serves no strategic purpose."
Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who has argued that the defense budget can be cut without harming military readiness, said Frank's idea has merit. "Barney Frank has a good point," said Korb. "We ought to rethink the whole idea of NATO."
This could be described as channeling the "spirit of Ted Kennedy," who seemingly never found a war or a weapons system he could support. Cutting "guns" to churn ever more "butter." Terkel expressed hope that Tea Party conservatives -- and libertarians like Ron and Rand Paul -- will help cut defense spending:
Earlier this year, Frank, along with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), put together a Sustainable Defense Task Force (SDTF), a commission of military and budget experts who recommended nearly $1 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. Recommendations included steps such as reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, pulling troops out of Europe and Asia, and canceling programs like the MV-22 Osprey.
"We are asking that a closer look be taken at our national security," said Jones. "If we do not need the 652 overseas bases that we have currently, then we should take that money and put it back into our own country. We should take that money and use it to take care of our wounded men and women returning from war."
Korb, who was part of the STDF, has also authored a report identifying approximately $100 billion in cuts for the 2015 budget forecast. The Simpson-Bowles deficit-cutting proposal also recommended approximately $100 billion in defense cuts.
Watch for Mark Levin, among others, to really make noise about defense cut proposals in the coming year.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Wait, I thought Bawney Fwank liked strategic missiles
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:18am.
Given the mortgage implosion Bawney was a huge part of, as well as the fact that the world's economy is still digging out from under it (while ours is still faltering despite the trillions Obama has blown out of the treasury), his credibility when it comes to government spending of any kind is exactly zilch with me.
There may well be areas in the defense budget that can be cut, including NATO, but we are already agreeing to reduce our nuclear arsenal sharply (not to mention deprive ourselves of a missile defense system) at a time when our enemies are beginning to nuke up while simultaineously procuring delivery systems to project those nukes for longer and longer distances.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
You're wite, Dave, you widdle wascal!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:34am.
Bawney Fwank wants to do to NATO and de Defense Department what he did for Fweddie Mac and Fannie Mae! He wants to squew it into de gwound.
We don't need no stinking defense when we have hewoes wike Bawney Fwank to defend us against all the tearwowists in de world! Why he can just bwoo dem away wiff one puff.
Well at weast he can just bwoo dem.
I'm willy beginning to get upset wiff dees wascals!
Nb,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:57am.
LOL.
You know, if Bawney was really interested in slashing and burning areas of the federal budget that serve no 'strategic purpose' (other than to give the otherwise unemployable a place to park their over-fed behinds 40 hrs or less a week), then maybe he should start looking at the FCC, DoEnergy, DoEducation, EPA, DHS (especially the TSA), PBS, NEA, and a whole host of other government agencies.
Heck, if those agencies were slashed to the bone, or even eliminated entirely, most people would never even notice.
And just think of the money we could save without leaving ourselves more vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I have a plan, too.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:25am.
Let's decide who the excess government employees are and give them the choice of being fired or enlisting in a branch of the military and accepting military pay scales and retirement plans!
Of course they will have to pass the physical requirements which should eliminate a herd of them, but the rest can suck it up and join the fight! Either that or get their sorry asses fired.
Hell, even Bawney Fwank's boy fwiend can join up now!
I hear Bawney has asked that a special all gay unit be formed wiff the motto, "Never Weave Your Buddy's Behind." Could it be twue?
Nb, that's a hell of a good idea
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:12pm.
And the ones who wash out of military service can get busy with a stick and a plastic garbage bag beautifying the highways and byways of America.
Sounds like a win-win to me. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
He only likes big rockets.
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:19pm.
Never Thought I Would Agree With Barney
Submitted by NC Boy on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:29am.
NATO doesn't serve any good purpose today. It commits us to defend Europe (at our cost). It keeps us "fighting the last war".
NATO does serve a good
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:50am.
NATO does serve a good purpose, who do you think is in charge of prosecuting the war Afghanistan right now. I agree we are protecting Europe and parts of Asia right now and the abuses of NATO by our allies are problematic. One of the reasons the NATO has a mission in Europe is because of incidents like Georgia. We want to be there to stop things if they go too far ... well that's the theory.
Actually, Dan, GEN Petraeus is in charge in Afghanistan
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:32pm.
Several NATO members have sent small contingencies to Afghanistan, and some of those have been effective. But it took a lot of persuasion to get those commitments, and even the members who have participated are considering ending their contributions there.
Those non-US forces in Afghanistan don't have to have NATO command and control; they can function under multi-lateral coalition command.
But by raising the NATO banner in Afghanistan, NATO's bureaucrats and the members of the country club can perpetuate their claim to relevance.
NATO's charter has been obsolete for 20 years. I would wager that if NATO rewrote its charter to expand its missions to coutnerinsrugencies around the globe, the vast majority of members would drop out.
When the Czech Republic was very actively campaigning for NATO membership, then-President Vaclev Havel was asked by a journalist if his coutnry was prepared to spend 5% of its GDP on defense as mandated by NATO. Havel replied that the defense commitment to NATO was not important; what was important was what I've referred to as the "country club" environment. Belonging is what matters.
I'm afraid that 's how most of the members feel, even those who've send small contingents to Afghanistan.
Stop subsidizing the euro's.....
Submitted by BD on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:20pm.
Dan, I gotta disagree to a small extent. NATO has exerted little effort in Afghanistan other than what the US and UK have forced it into.
Hell, the Germans almost universally refuse to engage in combat and are actually in the process of reducing for their force structure to the level one would expect of say, Belgium? By the end of next year their military will rely on something like 80,000 troops total.
NATO has sadly become a diplomatic club in which the price of admission is a nebulous promise to defend the other members. But only if the price is cheap...
I would propose the US move all forces from europe and only leave a liaison element in Brussels at NATO HQ. TOtal US personnel in Europe should not be higher than 3,000 for the purpose. Stop subsidizing the euro's.....
Dan The Man 2, the French just sold some techy stuff to Russia
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 2:27pm.
Is France Pioneering the Sale by NATO Countries of High-Technology Military Equipment to the Kremlin?One of the sticking points in negotiations was whether the deal would include advanced naval weapons and defense systems. In the months leading to the deal, a series of French officials softened their stand, saying that France was willing to supply the technology without restrictions.
…The Baltic states have long raised concerns, keenly aware of the comments of Russia’s naval chief, Adm. Vladimir S. Vysotsky, who last year bluntly evaluated the potential benefits the equipment could have offered during the five-day Georgian war in 2008: “Everything that we did in the space of 26 hours at the time, this ship will do within 40 minutes.”
You Didn't Build That.
France and arms deals
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:09am.
France was selling uranium to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. How do I know? Because the French lost a ship loaded with uranium bound for the Soviet Union in 1985 off of Belgium.
The French, being that they are a Socialist babying nanny state which knows it can't squeeze any more blood out of its 60 million turnips, sells arms to ANYBODY. This is not surprising to me, not by a long shot.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns, The give away of technology, man years of labor, poof.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:11pm.
Just to be reverse-engineered.. and soon to be used against us.
Kick 'em out of NATO
Great information on France losing a ship...
You Didn't Build That.
For once, I also agree with Frank
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:21pm.
I first served in a NATO role as an infantryman in West Germany, and later as a US naval officer aboard aircraft carriers and amphibious ships on Mediterranean deployments under Sixth Fleet. I also commanded a US intelligence center in direct support of a major NATO regional headquarters. So, I think I speak from experience when I say that NATO is obsolete.
The organization is more of a club than a military alliance with a strategic purpose. It has greatly expanded from 16 member nations to 28, with an additional 22 "partner" nations. One merely look back at Operation Allied Force (Kosovo / Serbs) to see how a 16-member alliance could screw things up; now there are 28 involved in decision-making.
NATO's primary mission ended 20 years ago. Since the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, it has been an alliance in search of a mission, but most of its minor members want to perpetuate it as a combination country club and jobs program for diplomats.
We should withdraw from NATO. If the Europeans want to sustain it, let 'em. Our bi-lateral alliances and small multi-lateral alliances (Australia, Canada, UK) are more efficient and practical.
I disagree with you and Frank
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:40pm.
I disagree with you and Frank. I, too, served in Germany under NATO and I understand just what NATO is, a strategic alliance between its member countries. It serves a definite strategic purpose, that of a mutual defense alliance. How is that NOT a strategic mission? Just because the USSR doesn't exist anymore it doesn't mean that there are no other threats to NATO members. Do we really want another war in Europe, one that we would have to become involved with eventually?
Look at it this way; We didn't have something like NATO in Europe after WWI and what happened. Another world war happened and 50 to 100 MILLION people died. Do we really want that to happen again? How many hundreds of millions will die in the next European War?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obsolesence
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:00pm.
There was a military alliance in Europe between the wars. It was headed up by France (the strongest military power in Europe), which established its own 'containment' of Germany signing commitments to Poland and Czechslovakia (The Little Entante). It was stronger than Germany, but it failed.
Let me pose this question:
Will NATO deter the re-emergence of a Russian military threat, or will it inspire the return of a Communist (or other hardline) regime?
Hardliners in Russia have pointed to NATO's eastward expansion to its borders as evidence of the NATO threat. The solution might be to accept Russia into the alliance -- but that has been rejected by those who still need the prospect of a resurgent Russia to justify NATO's existence.
When NATO was created, Chapter 5 of the North Atlantic Charter essentially stated that an attack against one member was an attack against all. Shortly after the start of NATO, the USSR established the Warsaw Pact. It was always understood that the USSR/Warsaw Pact was the threat.
This idea was tested when Argentina invaded and captured sovereign British territory in the Falkland Islands. NATO opted to sit it out; the "threat" meant the Warsaw Pact.
Once the USSR and Warsaw Pact dissappeared and the Russian armed forces literally receded into mother Russia, NATO desperately sought action to justify its existence. It has assumed peacekeeping roles in former Yugoslavian republics that posed no threat to member nations. And, again at the prompting of the US and NATO-philes, it is half-heartedly participating in Afghanistan to provide more reason for its existence (Apparently a reversal of its decision to opt out on the Falklands).
Without a revised charter, NATO action is defined by the whims of no fewer than 28 members, none of whom are threatened now or in the near future by conventional military force.
I don't accept the premise that sans NATO, Europe can slide back into war. The EU -- which essentially has its own military alliance (without the US) in the WEU -- assures that.
Because the US has an significant nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, even a resurgent Russia would not dare attack European countries.
There is only one real
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 7:00pm.
There is only one real question here : Is there some common purpose uniting the NATO alliance since the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Since you do not support continuation of NATO, your answer to this question should be 'no'. If it's anything else, you will lose this debate.
I think the answer to this question is 'yes'. That common purpose is the defense of Western Civilization from those external forces that seek its destruction. Principle among these are Islam and the Chicomms. It is a separate question as to whether NATO or its constituent peoples clearly see these threats or even generally understand the value of the civilization and its preservation they are custodians of.
OK. If you can find the language in NATO's charter . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:05pm.
. . . that addresses the "defense of Western civilization," I'll be glad to reverse my earlier statement.
But the fact is, NATO's charter is obsolete with regard to the threats you list.
And regarding the last sentence of your post, how reliable is an alliance if its members don't "clearly see these threats or even generally understand the value of the civilization and its preservation they are custodians of?" As I noted with Havel's comment on NATO membership, it's viewed as a country club more than a defense commitment. How the heck can it be counted on to defend Western civilization if its members don't see that as its mission?
NATO is obsolete because its primary purpose has evaporated and it has yet to formally address new threats.
To address the new threats, it must either rewrite its charter -- now a task even more difficult thanks to the frivilous addition of 12 members since the USSR died -- or dissolve, allowing a new alliance to be formed under a viable charter.
Alliances are not about
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 12:27am.
Alliances are not about official charters, statements of purpose or mission directives. They are about common interests and shared national aspirations.
The people of the NATO countries in general share Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christian religion as common cultural roots. To the extent that external forces assail these bedrocks, these different national groups share a common purpose in the defense of their institutions, traditions and even lives. Internal forces have been busily eroding these bedrocks : the International Left. It is the effects of the Left that you decry as having rendered NATO obsolete. The common interests of these people still exist, but they are obscured by Leftist Propaganda, most of which is self-loathing towards Western Civilzation
Enter Barack Obama : the quintessential child of left-wing multicuturalism. The so-called leader of the free world despises Western Civilization and is dedicated to erasing it in favor of a new world order featuring moral relatavism and social justice. If the leadership of the principle NATO alliance members were children of ther Western Tradition like Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher, the NATO alliance would long ago have been rejuvenated in realization of that common purpose shared by its membership : these documents to which you refer would already be re-written. Sadly, the Western Alliance no longer has any such leaders. It cannot evovle into a noble new purpose so it evolves into the only purpose leadership will allow : a country club!
A supporter of Whiny America
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:42pm.
NC Boy wants Whiny America to be sure.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Two questions
Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:24am.
Whether or not NATO is worth keeping around is one question. The other question, which isn't addressed, is whether we're scroogeing our defense budget to find more money to throw into the entitlement sinkhole.
As for NATO, it strikes me as ludicrous that we have a long-standing military defense organization designed to protect us from the Soviet Union (which has been gone for a couple decades now) ... but we just signed a treaty in which the Russians denied us the right to develop defense against our current enemies.
NATO not of strategic importance?
Submitted by p-squared on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:39am.
NATO is the only thing standing between Russian tanks and the English Channel. Just because they changed their name from USSR to the Russian Federation doesn't mean they've given up their long-standing desire to dominate and rule Europe. To say that NATO keeps us "fighting the last war" is ignorance of history. The "last war" never ended, it just shape-changed. Has everyone already forgotten the little republic of Georgia? If NATO is meaningless, then why are eastern European countries clamoring to join? Fear of the bear, plain and simple.
If you want to get out of an international alliance that does us more harm on a daily basis than our commitment to European defense, get us out of the United Nations. The relatively paltry sum we spend on NATO is NOTHING compared to the enormous sums we flush down the UN toilet every day. But I'm not surprised B. Frank makes comments like these; his expertise is housing and banking, remember?
The UN is not an "alliance," and it never was intended to be
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:58pm.
I'm not justifying the UN -- I'd like to see us leave that pile of corruption, too.
But the committment to NATO is significant, even if one looks at the support we provide to our military members and their families stationed in Western Europe. We'd be far better off basing them here in the States, especially if the military members are deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maintaining an armored division in Germany, for instance, is ludicrous.
Concur. FOr the last twenty
Submitted by BD on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:26pm.
Concur.
FOr the last twenty years the US has been providing the Euro economy with roughly 29,200,000 subsidized tourist man-days per year paid for using the US dollar. We get less each year in return including gratitude....
Time to bring everyone but the NATO staff home....
Power projection
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:10pm.
Personally, I'd leave a division in Europe, and move our bases entirely to places where we are appreciated, like Poland and Hungary. Constanta in Romania also comes to mind.
They do not have to be very large at all. Just have enough there for joint exercises and training, and have a contingent of people who are there to get them "out of town", so to speak, for contingencies elsewhere.
For me, NATO's purpose now is to simply cut reaction time. The strength of the United States lies in its ability to project power.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Remarkably short-sighted for a Loggie
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:12pm.
We use those NATO bases as logistical staging points for operations in the Middle East. Closing them means rerouting such traffic. Then again,removing our presence form Western Europe might get the point across to those socialists they need to defend themselves.
You are kidding , right?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:56pm.
Are you kidding? Of course it would be a bad idea to just shut down Ramstein and then wait until something better comes long! My idea would be to phase out bases in Western Europe in favor of ones in the east (which naturally you build up), where our forces would be better appreciated - and CLOSER to the Middle East and points where, in truth, we could better defend Western Europe anyway, IF a greater conventional military threat developed (from, say, a resurgent Russia, though for voarious reasons I'm not confident of that materializing).
That's a remarkable knee-jerk post.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There is infrastructure in
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:27am.
There is infrastructure in Ramstein and elsewhere that you will find expensive to replace in the former Eastern Bloc. Recall that this thread is about a proposal made by Barney Frank, sputtering heterophobe, that NATO funding be cut as a COST SAVINGS. This doesn't mean going into Eastern Europe and spending beaucoup bucks to build facilities that already exist in Western Europe.
The difference between Western and Eastern Europe as a staging point into the Middle East is negligible. The difference between Eastern and Western Europe from the East Coast isn't, at least not as I've flown it.
Now, I do think the Eastern Bloc countries like Poland and Czech will appreciate us a whole lot more than Italy, Spain and Germany, but that was before Obama pissed in the well. Nobody in Europe thinks much of Obama. He is damaging our image there greatly.
Forget NATO/Europe. Think India.
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:13pm.
If you want staging bases for intervention in the Middle East and Central Asia, India is better than Europe.
India sees its primary threat as the People's Republic of China (PRC). Nothing would send a stronger signal to Beijing while re-strengthening our influence in Asia than improving our defense relationship with India, to include a military presence.
India is a nuclear power.
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:32pm.
India is a nuclear power. India sees its primary threat as Pakistan, and that would be correct. Look up Kashmir. India dos'ent see China as their primary threat. Pretty sure India dosen't even consider China in foreign policy considerations.
If I was to hazard a guess, I would assume that the Hindu's would put more trust in China than a Islamist Pakistan.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I got my info from a retired Indian brigadier . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 3:30pm.
. . . who headed an Indian strategic think tank. He states that the primary threat is the PRC. Concerns over the past ten years include
The Indians have regular friction and occasional conflict with Pakistan, but in the words of the brigadier, "We can handle Pakistan, conventionally or nuclear." They are very wary of China.
Allies
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:22pm.
You forget: China and Pakistan are allies.
India doesn't trust either of them very much.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
India certainly doesn't trust either . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 2:53pm.
But it's primary concern is China, which is a much better strategic position economically and militarily to challenge India. China will use Pakistan if it can, but since the US military ops in Afghanistan (and US foreign aid to Pakistan), that becomes increasingly difficult.
China is concerned with radical Islamic resistence rising in western China, where the Han Chinese are the ethnic minority.
China, India, and the US have a mutual interest: The end of radical Islam in the region.
BUT...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:11am.
...but is that mutual interest strong enough to tempt them to cooperate fully?
I don't think so.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
While I agree that India is a
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 12:42am.
While I agree that India is a natural strategic partner and ought to be a inveterate foe of the ChiComms, it is not a economical staging point for operations in the Middle East due to simple geography : it costs more to move materiel into the Middle East through India than it does Europe, East or West.
We already do a lot of training with India. This Indian Airforce has recently taught our friends in the USAF that in the next serious conflict, its F-15 force will not be sufficient by itself to insure air superiorty. They accomplished this feat with a small force of Su-27 Flankers augmented by a large contingent of Migs with upgraded weapons / avionics. While not directly privy to the results, I have heard it said they scored a sizeable number of mock kills against the F-15s. This is shocking considering that to date, no F-15 has ever been destroyed by an enemy aircraft in actual combat. My aquaintances inside the USAF have taken this result very seriously. If the Indians can defeat the F-15s, so can the ChiComms. If the ChiComms can defeat the F-15s, they can also defeat the present USN Carrier Airwings.
The emerging PRC threat to USN aircraft carriers . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 5:38pm.
. . . is missiles, both cruise and ballistic. Chinese strategists have written openly about this for at least 15 years, and now their technology is rapidly arriving at their goal.
Together with increased space-borne ISR capacity, China has been improving the guidance and accuracy of its ballistic missiles in order to strike an underway CVN moving within MRBM range. Afloat BMD around the CVN can be deceived and saturated. Sinking a CVN defeats a carrier air wing all at once.
The situation is worse for non-moving airfields like those in Okinawa and Japan. All the Chinese have to do is crater the runways every half-hour or so, and those bases are neutralized. Not only does this eliminate US air superiority, but it impacts the delivery of troops and materiel in theater.
Cruise missiles pose a like threat.
The challenge for us is that those missiles -- under the control of the 2nd Artillery Corps -- are mostly land-based and mobile, and thus difficult to track and within the PLA air defense umbrella.
With regard to conflict with a modern military power, our CVNs and manned tac air will be obsolete in the next 10-20 years. This means that we have to think differently about how we project power in East Asia and the Western Pacific.
You miss the point. If the
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 6:17pm.
You miss the point. If the ChiComms can defeat the airwings, the carriers are irrelevant. Moreover, the Chinese do not need to provoke an incident at sea if they can "teach" one of their flunky surrogates how to neutralize the airwing. I'd fully expect Chinese pilots and equipment to be flying in any such incident under the colors of the client state.
Personally, I have little but contempt for these unmanned UVA's. They are just a batch of targets against 4th gen+ fighter opposition. However, carriers being what they are, UVA's can be launched by them, so this part of your argument is void.
East vs West
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:27pm.
We've been already working on building up infrastructure at Constanta for some time now. Also, there is a NATO AB in Hungary which is home to the alliance's C-17 fleet. Your point on Ramstein is granted, but I don't think it would be as expensive as you think.
It should also be pointed out that Poland, Romania and Hungary have their own currencies, which makes things cheaper as well (at least for now, but I haven't heard much from them on their wanting, or being in the process, of joining the Euro).
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I wouldn't worry about the
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 1:08am.
I wouldn't worry about the Euro. the PIIGS will drag it under while the Dollar is tanking. This debt driven tanking will not hit the remaining Eastern Bloc currencies not in the Euro because they have not partaken of this insane debt bubble. We will see increased dollar costs associated with using bases in non-Euro countries.
Despite construction in Constanta and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, which we have funded, It remains a fact the facilities and infrastructure available to us through them will remain inferior to those in Western Europe for quite some time and we will still find ourselves funding further construction. The object of Barney Frank's proposed "cut" is to reduce expenditures. Switching our Middle East staging to Eastern Europe is going to save little if anything over using existing facilities in Wesetrn Europe. Now ... to cap off refutation of Frank's argument, aren't these Eastern European couintries we are basing in now already or becoming, members of ... NATO? So Barney Frank is 100% wrong, is he not?
Clarification apparently required
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:33pm.
NL207, I have never suggested anywhere that NATO should be abolished. I can't imagine having agreed with Barney Frank on anything. ESPECIALLY this.
Frank wants NATO gone and the U.S. military gone, because he believes, as does much of the Democratic party, that the government's sole reason for being is to baby people. It can't baby people very well if we have a strong national defense. So if America becomes a very whiny, pathetic country in order to achieve Barney's vision...so be it, in his view.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Barney Frank also wrongly
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:46pm.
Barney Frank also wrongly believes as does Galvanic, that NATO has no longer any legitimate purpose for existence and therefore can be eliminated as a 'cost savings'.
I think NATO continues to have relevance based on the common interests of its member states, and the current US leadership is entirely incompetent not to reinforce these common interests within the alliance.
Your differences with me appear to fall entirely along the lines of costs of logistical operations. I do not see the Eastern Eurpoe options as being in total cost an any cheaper logistical tail than staging our logistics through Western Europe and less expensive that staging logistics through India. This is just $$$. Barney Frank wants to spend nothing on any of this.
NATO
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:59pm.
The pros and cons of basing out of either Eastern or Western Europe is an interesting debate indeed. What has to also factor into the equation is where one sees the threat coming from as well, IMHO.
India wouldn't provide any sort of basing for us in any event. That would be political suicide for any government who tries such a thing, considering India's history. I'd just stick with Europe as a springboard - and I'd shift eastward, if only because that is where the threats will come from.
Barney Frank is simply a blithering idiot.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Beyond observing that
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 11:12pm.
Beyond observing that Liberals are in general clueless about the value and necessity of logistical operations in warfare, this isn't the place to debate the relative cost advantages of Eastern vs Western European logistical staging.
Touchy
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 1:54pm.
I get the sense that someone here, for some odd reason, is extremely testy...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Do not confuse lazy with
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 3:18pm.
Do not confuse lazy with testy.
Oh No! I agree with Barney...sort of...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:44am.
I'm for Isolation. Let's announce to the rest of the world that they are on their own now.
Withdraw all our troops from everywhere in the world. Station many of them on the Mexican border.
Also announce to the world countries that any future attack like Pearl Harbor or 9-11 will be responded to with nuclear weapons.
Another one who wants it whiny
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:43pm.
Another supporter of Whiny America. Isolation was tried, and it failed. Miserably.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
When was that?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 6:54pm.
When was that?
History deficient
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:07pm.
Thanks for confessing your ignorance of basic history. Demand a refund from whoever taught you history, regardless of level.
Further, if you bothered with history, you would know that "professional politicians" have been with us since the ink dried on the parchment which contains the language of the Constitution. And if you paid attention to politics elsewhere, you'd know that term limits - something I once favored - are a total flop. They have done nothing, for instance, to make CA's state government better, and from my observing/participation in San Antonio city politics, they only make lazy voters more lazy.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I should have known better. Never discuss with the insane.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:54pm.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Congratulations! You have nothing and you lose.
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:57pm.
It's much easier to call me insane, whine, and sleep, than it is to study history. I understand.
You are lazy, lazy, lazy.
Anyway, your precious, cherished isolationism was practiced from 1919 or so all the way up until we figured out - almost when it was too late - that the United States simply cannot hide from the Big Bad World. In 1940 some brave souls picked up the clue phone. But many refused to, until the mid-afternoon of December 7, 1941.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You might say that America
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:32pm.
You might say that America again picked up the clue phone in Sept 2001, but the message was garbled and we did not get the whole message. The phone keeps ringing but the current crop refuse to pick it up again.
Isolationism is one of the reasons why Ron Paul a loon.
Very good points
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:59pm.
Indeed. Maybe if communications were slow and we truly did not do any sort of trade with the Outside World, isolationism might work.
Ron Paul is basically a reactionary. But the problem with him (other than that he never practices what he preaches to begin with) and the Red Jeeps of the world is that it isn't the 1790s, and America is not a fledgling nation of four million strung out on the Atlantic seaboard with its own internal self-development to keep it occupied.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Perhaps we should defund the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:55am.
Perhaps we should defund the UN and all the support we give them. Charge for everything. NATO still has a mission and an important one at that.
I think if we pulled out of Europe and other places their economy will take a big hit. Perhaps teh countries we protect could give us money.
I say we stop cold all monies given to other countries instead. Stop the AIDS funding, stop giving money to the USSR and China and whoever else. Tell em to go stick it.
I agree with you. Let's
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 11:15am.
I agree with you. Let's defund the UN first before we set our sights on NATO.
That corrupt den of snakes needs to be kicked out of this country and sent to some third world dictatorship of the kind they represent.
Defund, hell.
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:37pm.
We tell the Swiss and the Swedes "You jokers have been neutral all this time, YOU carry the sack for the next 70 years."
Then we tell the actual folks in the UN that they have 30 days to clear their crap out, UN diplomatic seals and passports to be declared void at the beginning, and that we will send a regiment in there to confiscate everything they leave behind.
Let TSA mess with THEM. The money smuggling confiscations alone will pay for the entire op, and then some.
Of course it means we have to stick battalions at anyplace we have an embassy until the job gets done.
NATO's easy. Tell each country that for the troops in that country that we supply, they pay HALF. Time to pay the piper. And we keep an interest in the game.
Understand, though, that realistically none of this takes place until we have offloaded more Democrats in 2012, including BHO.
NVCon.. still drastically low on coffee
In some cases, we did that . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 3:45pm.
The Federal Republic of Germany did pay for some of the billeting of US forces in West Germany. I don't know if they still do.
There used to be some odd rules. For instance, at least as late as the Seventies, all the coal burned to heat US barracks and family housing in West Germany was shipped to the bases from the US, and moved by rail to the bases themselves. This despite the fact that the FRG was a coal exporter -- a manifestation of the addage "carrying coal to Newcastle." It was apparently a law passed in the Congress sponsored by Senators and Reps from American coal producers, but it was cost inefficient.
The expense for sustaining US forces and dependents in Europe is considerably higher compared to sustaining them in CONUS. Bring those forces and their families home and all the sustainment money spent gets pumped back into the US economy.
If memory serves the costs
Submitted by BD on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:35pm.
If memory serves the costs absorbed by the FRG for US forces housing was invested in facilities rather than base costs. My experience was at the Kaserne level in Garlstadt ,North Germany which housed 2AD forward.
THose very facilities now are serving what is left of the German Army which moved out of their own shabbier facility and into the US facility upon the removal of the 2AD forward in 1990.
I think those costs were sunk into the mix as a sort of loss leader to make the basing of the US brigade there palatable in the 1980's when it was moved forward.
Regardless, the Economic boon of having a forward brigade in Garlstadt for five years far out weighed the initial cost laydown of the facility.
With great regret, Galvanic...
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:59pm.
No.
The purpose of a military, boiled down, is to kill people and break things.
NOT to be all the things Fat Bill misused them for, INCLUDING being 'new' revenue.
Don't fret, if there is anything left of a free country after BHO and the authoritarians are removed, there WILL be a need to rebuild military forces both abroad and domestically. THIS time, though, it will be done right.
I am terribly sorry that we must disagree on this.
NVCon
I have no disagreement regarding the mission . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:35pm.
. . . but the forces in Western Europe have not killed or broken things there since 1945, save a few minor training mishaps.
The same can be said for our forces stationed in North Carolina, Texas, California, Hawaii, et al.
The killing and thing-breaking occurs elsewhere.
So, with that consideration, other factors matter.
Let's say goodbye to European basing and bring our folks home.
So it is your position that
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:49pm.
So it is your position that the US only fights a war on one type of terrain at a time? Using your logic because we are at war in Iraq, we do not need Mountian warfare training or mountians to train in. We no longer need to train our troops to be proficient in warfare in a European setting?
Glad you were never serving in any of my units. I would not like having an officer or any type with that attitude.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
No, just the opposite
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:05pm.
I don't know how you drew your conclusion, but my argument is just the opposite.
A unit based in Germany is restricted by the available training terrain -- Hohenfels, Grafenwoehr, Wildflecken. It trains for European war, and more specifically, combat in western Germany. A more logical basing location would be Poland, but even that doesn't optimize our strategic goals. Since the end of the Cold War, USAF air units have faced stricter and stricter training regimes.
A US -based unit can more readily moved to train in whatever terrain is required for proficiency -- NTC, Texas, etc., even European-type terrain, all in the same year. Moreover, it can train with a wider variety of available US units.
As for mountain training in Germany, please tell me where the 1st Armored Division does its mountain training. I served in it from '74-'76, and I never saw a mountain unless I was off duty and a couple hours autobahn-drive from my kaserne. Maybe that 's because armored divisions are less than ideal in mountain warfare.
"Glad you were never serving in any of my units. I would not like having an officer or any type with that attitude."
I'm quite certain we haven't served in the same unit. My soldiers and sailors were all thinkers.
Bavaria..
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:19pm.
That is where we did the mountian training. You never trained in the southern mountians in Germany? Never took part in ReForger?
And your a thinker?? Spare me. I saw plenty of mountians during ReForger exercises. But I was not with an armored unit. I had to rely on my feet and rucksack and my thinking to complete my missions. Was never babied such as a bunch of armor. Worked with the Germans, directly with the combat units. We worked with combined units. Even some Aussies once.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Saw two Reforgers in Bavaria -- nowhere near mountains
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:24pm.
I know that mountain training was and is available in Germany, but that wasn't the question, was it? I asked you when the 1st AD trained in the German mountains becasue armored divisions -- like the one in Germany today -- aren't designed to fight there.
Which is my point. The 1st AD was based in Germany to fight a mechanized war with the Warsaw Pact over ideal tank country. The Warsaw Pact is gone. The 1st AD has deployed to Iraq, which looks nothing like Western Europe (well, except maybe central Spain).
Light infantry and SF do train in mountains, but that's not justification for stationing them in Germany. They can get that training in CONUS.
Germany will not allow US
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:03pm.
Germany will not allow US Rangers or Special Forces to be "stationed" with in their borders. So all training in the Bavarian Alps was TDY. You cannot equate the Rockies to the Bavarian Alps for training. You just cant do it. Both are forbiding above timber line, but they are diffrent.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Huh?
Submitted by paragrouper on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:31pm.
I was assigned to 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Panzer Kaserne, FRG (near Stuttgart). Prior to that 1/10 SFGA was located at Flint Kaserne, near Bad Tolz--since 1953.
What gives, mister?
Power projection
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:36pm.
Yes, I know the Warsaw Pact was gone (it really never existed in a sense), and that's your cue to say "Yippie! Let's dismantle our military and be Whiny Country!!!", but you simply do not see the value in power projection.
No, we don't need a military presence in Europe as it was 25 years ago, but a smaller presence is good, for the sake of power projection. THAT is what makes the military formidable, not nuclear weapons.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I would say that the power
Submitted by BD on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:44pm.
I would say that the power projection argument is fading.
It is just as economical to deploy troops from CONUS as it is to do so from Europe and we lose fewer assets in the mix. Better training in CONUS. Born out by Desert Storm in '91 - Euro based troops were slower than those who earned their chops at NTC.
THis is indeed the reason 1AD is being brought back from Germany and based at WSMR/Fort Bliss.
Maintaining a hub at an airfield and port complex is one thing, leaving a flag unit there is another.
Springboard Europe
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:17am.
I'm not sold on that argument. Unless we can have planes with the capacity of C-5s with the speed of SR-71s or Concordes. there is always going to have to be some room for power projection.
True, better training is available at the NTC. No denying that. But the CONUS is still much further from potential trouble spots than Europe is.
Hence, I personally (if king for a day) would just leave a division in Europe, and a composite air wing with fighters and cargo planes, and some naval support facilities there. That way, you don't have as many people, and response times can be severely cut. Maybe Europe is safe. If not, we can always send in more people. But if it remains such, just use it as a springboard.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Quite a bit of the argument
Submitted by BD on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:52pm.
Quite a bit of the argument to keep US troops in NATO basing is emotionally based on what I call the "Beer and Brotchen" argument.
Many US military people long for the days of three year tours in the FRG allowing them an exotic and picturesque locale suitable for appropriate leaves.
In 1991 a debate was held at Fort Hood that asked the question "Should US ground Forces be withdrawn from Germany." THe side argueing pro-withdrawel used cold logic to explain why it was time to withdraw. The other side got misty eyed about the wonderful opportunities to see Neuschwanstein and the Octoberfest.
Depending on your frame of mind, you viewed the argument through those parameters.
Translation
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:31pm.
"Let's say goodbye to European basing and bring our folks home" is just another way of saying "I hate America's ability to project power. It's better to be whiny and to wait until we have another Pearl Harbor to do something."
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
???
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:17pm.
Actually, I support American power projection, and was an active participant in it for 24 years.
But your argument that we must project power into Europe is weak, if not "whiny" ( to use your word). The Soviet threat has been gone for two decades.
Some of our current staples of power projection, such as aircraft carriers and manned combat aircraft, are on the cusp of obsolescence, much like battleships and cavalry were in the 1930s. The Pentagon has been rethinking power projection for at least 15 years, but has not yet adjusted.
And as I posted elsewhere, how many more C-5/equivalents does it take to move an armored division from Texas to Iran than it does from Germany to Iran. Answer: ZERO.
For the logistics idiot
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:38pm.
My argument is not about projecting power INTO Europe. My argument is about projecting power in areas NEAR Europe. Use Europe as a big springboard. For this you don't need, and nor would one want, a presence in Europe as we has 25 years ago.
Your bolded comment shows me that when it comes to logistics, you are a blithering idiot. If you persist in this fantasy of yours that we can just magically transport an entire armored division by air on a bunch of C-5s, be prepared to face a list of questions from me that will only expose your shortsightedness still further.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Join the logistics idiot club, Unsane
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 3:22pm.
The logistics portals to support the war in Afghanistan -- about as far away from CONUS as one can get -- are in Pakistan (seaborne) and Central Asia (airborne). And that's for what the Pentagon defines as 'low instensity conflict." For major conventional warfare, the US must have access to ports, as it did for Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. In the Middle East, those facilities are in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. European seaports only help to fight wars in Europe.
Furthermore, the use of facilities in Europe aren't dependent on NATO. All basing agreements are bi-lateral; US bases exist at the willingness of the host nations.
The US doesn't need NATO for basing agreements, even when those bases were supporting NATO. The US had bases at Torrejon (air) and Rota (naval) long before Spain was admitted to NATO.
On a side note: As weak as the security of military secrets was in 16-member NATO, do you feel any more secure sharing them with Albania?
Are you familiar with the NATO involvement with Operation Allied Force (Kosovo)? There's a prime example of NATO actually hindering US military operations.
Some comments and questions
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:29am.
I am quite familiar with Allied Force and took in one of the most bitter, sarcastic lectures in my life on the subject while in PME. It was quite enlightening, I assure you.
You call me a logistics idiot in a riposte, and rattle off all sorts of impressive information on how NATO operations are being supported. Please explain how, when I deployed, I flew through EUROPE. Please explain why 99% of the cargo and personnel I handled went to EUROPE.
While you are at it, since you have claimed the mantel of a Modern-Day Tunner, why don't you explain how C-5s can move an entire armored division to, say, Kuwait, based on what we have right now, in January of 2011, assuming NATO is out of the picture.
Those European seaport facilities are ONLY used to fight wars in Europe? Some of the units moved from Europe to the Middle East for Desert Storm might be surprised by this information.
US bases do indeed exist via bi-lateral agreements, but why do you suppose they are done? Just because? Or could it be that they were done due to a particular nation's membership in NATO?
If Spain was just content to have bilateral agreements with the United States for bases there, why on earth did Spain bother joining NATO to begin with? Last I checked, the Soviets weren't on the flip side of the Pyrenees from Spain...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Nether does Congress
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:32pm.
"NATO is a great drain on our treasury and serves no strategic purpose."
The same could be said of Congress.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
NATO IS a strategic mission
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:59pm.
People seem to misunderstand just what NATO really is. It is a strategic defense alliance between its member countries. Just because the USSR is gone, it doesn't mean that threats to member nations have disappeared. There are various threat to NATO countries. Just look at the Balkan Wars as an example.
Do we REALLY want another round of European wars to break out, wars that would, eventually, force us to intervene? No, we don't, and NATO is the most effective means of PREVENTING those wars from occurring. THAT is its strategic goal, and its strategic purpose.
Here's a couple of questions that Frank needs to ask:
How many wars have broken out between NATO countries? (The answer is: None)
How any NATO countries have attacked America and it's allies? (Once again, the answer is: None.)
How many wars have broken out between non NATO countries? (The answer is: Many.)
How many non NATO countries have attacked America and its allies? (Once again, the answer is: Many)
Now, the final question: How many countries that have attacked one another and/or America and its allies are member of the UN? (The answer is: All of them!)
So, Barny, tell me, which organization actually serves no strategic purpose, the UN or NATO?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Which Balkan country threatened NATO?
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:08pm.
Let's not forget Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Angora, San Marino, and Lichenstein. They're manageable as long as NATO spends $ billions to deter their threat. :-)
Congressman Frank....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:14pm.
serves no purpose whatsoever, strategic or otherwise. Unless, that is, you need a Sylvester the Cat impersonator.
NATO Importance to America
Submitted by NC Boy on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 3:46pm.
The acronym for the NATO Mission in Afghanistan is "ISAF". Our troops say this stands for, "I Saw Americans Fighting". NATO was too cowardly to even do that much in Iraq (they run a "training mission").
So far I have read these arguments for keeping NATO:
1. Those dirty Democrats want to get rid of it.
2. It's not as bad as the UN.
3. It's needed for mutual defense (even though we were sworn allies with England and France within 24 hours of Pearl Harbor).
4. It's needed to protect the Eastern European countries from Russia. Sorry, not our job. If the dominos start falling, we will have time to get into the game.
For our resident isolationist
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:52pm.
Sorry, but it IS our job. You see, the most sure-fire way of protecting freedom and democracy is to ensure the freedom of other countries.
JFK said once "When we protect freedom in (West) Berlin, we protect the freedom of London and New York as well." It makes sense, especially when you consider the fact that seldom, if ever, do democracies fight each other. Clearly, you would have abandoned Europe 1945-1990 to the Soviets with your tail between you legs. Unfortunately for you, history shows that the United States made the right decision.
You say that "when the dominoes start falling, we will have time to get into the game." You don't read very much history, apparently. It took awhile to get into the game in WWII. And now, with communications being what they are, the window of time has shrunk by that much more.
We were sworn allies with the Free French and the British within 24 hours of Pearl Harbor, but this was and is cold comfort to those at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Not to mention that WWII was a close run thing. It was not a guaranteed things by a long shot.
Here for me is the best reason to keep NATO, but someone like you who doesn't believe the United States could possibly be weak enough on the world stage probably won't grasp: power projection.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
While the US was ill-prepared for war in 1941 . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:24pm.
. . . it was neither isolationist nor totally unprepared. In fact, many of FDR's pre-Pearl Harbor policies either stretched the limits of the Neutrality Act, or outright violated it.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, the US was actively supplying Britain with war materiel (both cash-and-carry and Lend Lease), and assuming convoy escort duties halfway across the Atlantic. In the Pacific, the US placed an oil embargo on Japan in an effort to curtail its aggression in China.
US war preps included restoring conscription in 1940, and a huge rearmament program begun around the same time.
As long as you're quoting JFK, let's not forget George Washington's warning against foreign entanglements. The point here is that both Presidents were in office in radically different global environments than we face today.
Power projection, again
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:45pm.
It was only becoming interventionist due to the shady dealings of FDR and because a few individuals had the foresight to see what was coming. But isolationism was still a powerful sentiment all the way up until the bombs started hitting Battleship Row.
And the United States, in spite of the Lend Lease Act and other such actions, was not really in a full war-time economy mode until about 1943. If not for the fatal five minutes at Midway, the war could have turned out quite differently.
Washington's quote is a favorite of those who are embarassed by the United States military and that by being very very weak and whiny, nothign bad will ever happen to America. People who use that as a way of saying that Washington would have wanted a weak, whiny America tend to forget that in Washington's time, such thinking made sense. America had 4 million people stretched along the East Coast and had things like internal development to worry about. Today, we have 300 million people in a continental sized land mass with two coasts - more if you count AK and HI and regard the Gulf Coast as a separate entity. It has the #1 economy in the world. The United States is both extremely hard to ignore and as it is #1, it is a big, fat target, whether you like it or not.
Thus, the United States cannot afford to pretend the Big Bad World is just going to go away, nor can it afford to not have the ability to project power and to prevent small problems from becoming much larger ones. If we acted sooner, instead of waiting for the enemy to hit first, we might have saved some lives in WWII. I'd rather be proactive than reactive. I'd rather be on offense that on defense.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
OKay, so shape a scenario where NATO . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:20pm.
. . . engages in a conventional war in Asia or Africa, where the conflicts are.
Engage with the outside world much?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:42pm.
Why should I? We have a scenario going, right now, even as we speak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I didn't think you'd come up with one
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 3:26pm.
So as I understand your posts, NATO is essential to US power projection, but you can't give provide a non-European scenario to demonstrate that.
Why am I not surprised?
Pathetic
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 5:00pm.
Why am I not surprised by the fact that you live in a cave?
RIGHT NOW we have TWO non-European scenarios in which NATO plays a role (and in one it plays a much greater role than the other). Indeed, on the return from one of them, I stopped in a NATO country at a facility which has a power projection role whichdoubtless fills you wth embarrassment and shame. Leave your cave sometime and join the rest of us on the Outside World.
I must say what I am most surprised about is your continuing to argue like a typical NB Leftist.
I leave you with this: if someone in 1920 were to suggest to the American voting public that a 31-year-old loser in Austria with nothing to hang his hat on but a stint in the German army during the Great War was going to rise and take over Germany (legally) and turn it into one of the most hideous, violent dictatorships on earth, AND that an island country in Asia was going to launch a spectacularly successful sneak attack on Hawaii, and all of that would happen in the next 21 years, and thus we need to keep at least a halfway decent military, he would have been hauled off to a sanitarium.
So of course, instead of you backing away from the computer on occasion and reading some history - a subject I would suggest is alien to you - you DEMAND I be a prophet. Since I cannot possibly be crazier than the rest of the world is, and therefore though I have ideas, I honestly can't come up with any on the fly, your response is, as you constantly argue elsewhere, that for this reason alone we need to render the United States as weak as possible. There is no such thing as an America that is weak enough for Galvanic. Why? Because ultimately no one can see the future.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Let's pull on that logic thread a little more . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 3:58pm.
In the history of the United States, how many members of NATO has the US had hostile conflict with?
Answer: At least five -- the United Kingdom (1812-1815), France (1790s), Spain (1898), Germany (1914-1918; 1941-1945), and Italy (1941-1943).
How many times has the US been in hostile conflict vs. Russia/USSR?
Answer: None, as far as I know.
So it would appear from history that if NATO serves any purpose for the US, it's to keep our former enemies from warring with us, and not to defend ourselves fgrom the Russians. ;-)
Hmmmmm..... US vs Bolshevik
Submitted by BD on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:37pm.
Hmmmmm..... US vs Bolshevik war in 1919 in Murmansk and Vladivostok?
But your point is well taken.
How about
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:39pm.
this?
"Between 1950 and 1970 there were a score of US military aircraft shot down by the military of the Soviet Union in undeclared war."Read more at Suite101: US Air Combat Losses to the USSR: Twenty US - Soviet Shoot Down Incidents in the Cold War http://www.suite101.com/content/us-aircraft-lost-to-the-soviets-a15048#ixzz19YD6kqj3 So, yes, there was a period of hostilities, or hostile conflict, between the USSR and the U.S. It would seem that the period of conflict stretched from 1945 to about 1990, if not up until today.
The US certainly lost aircraft in the Cold War . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 2:31pm.
. . . mostly US PARPRO missions over or near the Soviet Union; many of those mission were very risky, as Francis Gary Powers found out in 1960.
Rather than get into an argument over whether these constitute hostile incidents, or hostile conflicts, I'll revise the list: The US has declared war on at least 4 current NATO members in the past -- the UK, Germany (twice), Italy, and Spain (If we include Germany's WW2 allies, Romania would join the list). It has never declared war on Russia/USSR.
There you go again. Which of
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:34pm.
There you go again. Which of those nations you name was a member of NATO at the time?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
What I get from your posts is that the strategic purpose . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:34pm.
. . . of NATO now that the Warsaw Pact is dead, is to prevent our former enemies -- plus Poland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland (which has no military), Luxembourg (whose military is only slightly larger than Iceland's), Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia -- from threatening us. We're all just one big happy family.
If that's the case, then why not bring Russia into NATO, and pull our forces out of Europe?
Or is keeping Russia out of the alliance necessary to justify NATO's existence?
What?
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:48pm.
You simply cannot wait to render America as weak as possible, can you?
Study your history. Russia would NEVER join NATO. Why? There is a Russian ambivalence towards Europe which is rooted in a centuries running internal conflict over who or what should it identify with. Not to mention historical European fears of Russia. (Britain and France kept propping up the Ottoman Empire as a buffer state against Russia!)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And how many surrogate wars
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:00pm.
And how many surrogate wars did the US and Soviet Union wage against one another? Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Grenada? Cuba? And all of these in the 40 years 1950-90.
Are you saying that those conflicts . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:37pm.
. . . had to do with waging war against each other vice struggling over which country would hold dominant influence?
The keyword in your question
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 6:12pm.
The keyword in your question is 'dominant'. What did the Vietnam defeat do for US dominance? What did the Soviet defeats do for Soviet dominance?
Poor logic
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:03pm.
That's some poor logic you displayed there, as all of the the conflicts you describe all occurred before NATO even existed.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
NATO should be expanded.
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:01pm.
NATO should be expanded. Membership should be offered to Georgia. They want to join NATO. Those who are in favor of isolationism, have you not studied the results of those types of policies in the past? Do we need another Pearl Harbor to remind you?
Russia is in the process of establishing the USSR again. Expansionism is the only way they can survive. With the oppression of their goverment, they have to take what others have. Those who wish to disband NATO are those who are doomed to repeat history.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Georgia in NATO
Submitted by NC Boy on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:28pm.
So, you really believe that we should allow Georgia to join NATO? This would mean that America would be obligated to declare war on Russia if they took over Georgia.
That's a pretty small domino (half the population of our state of Georgia) and awfully far from our borders. I don't believe anyone thinks this is strategic "high ground". "Oh no, if the Russians get Georgia they can run the table"!
Let's let Europe take care of their squabbles with Russia and we will watch from a safe distance and get involved when we are threatened.
Yes, Georgia should be
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 4:46pm.
Yes, Georgia should be brought into NATO. This would serve more than one purpose. And while it would obligate us to support Georgia if Russia invaded, I have a feeling that the Georians would be well able to defend themselves if they had access to NATO arms.
And how bigs the domino need to be to be worthy of your support?
Sure, let Europe take care of their own squabbles....you sound a whole lot like a guy called Roosevelt. And we see how that little decision worked out.
LIberty is every free mans responsitility to defend and promote. If you do not think others worthy of the same rights that you have, just because they are "a small domino", you don't deserve to wear them either.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Where will the money come from?
Submitted by NC Boy on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:03pm.
Your argument is the equivalent of the libs always saying that we must spend more and more and more "for the children".
Are you willing to put American money (borrowed from China) and blood into liberating Myanmar, North Korea, and about half of the African countries where liberty is non-existent? If not, why are you even talking about what possibly could happen to Georgia?
NC Boy, I would be very very
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:13pm.
NC Boy, I would be very very careful calling me a liberal here. I dont give two hoots in hades for starving kids in Africa or any where else. I never mentioned such. As far as liberating countries like NK and Myanmar, it dosent even equate to what we are talking about.
Georgia gained independence from the USSR, established elections and a Constitution based on the US Constitution. They fought for it themselves. They gained it. They earned it. And they requested membership in NATO.
Problem with liberals anymore, they are scared of their own shadow. Fear grips their insides at the thought of upsetting Russia or China. They sit and watch the "dominos" fall and do nothing to help those who helped themselves.
I have no need to debate the political ways of the cowards that claim to be diplomats. There should be but one Korea. As far a Myanmar and the other African countries, first they need to earn what they want. Like Georgia did. And if you dont belive in helping those who have helped themselves, I still say you do not deserve the liberty you enjoy.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I didn't call you a liberal!
Submitted by NC Boy on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:24pm.
But I don't think we can afford to be the protector of world liberty any more than we can be "caring parents" for every child.
I will give you that - you believe Georgia has earned our protection. But you are cutting off a chunk to chew when they have a common border with Russia and we are thousands of miles away. I would expect to see the free countries of Europe at least taking the lead in this.
Georgia also controls all the
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:33pm.
Georgia also controls all the natural gas and oil that flows from the former USSR and Russia to Europe. They have the pipelines.
And Obamacare funds will do nicely for payment on these things.
By the way, I have always had a habit of biting off a big chunk. They told me for years it was more than I could chew. But I have always managed.
You give Georgia some updated tanks and get them out of those M-60 antiques, arm them with decent weapons and they would do fine. We have been training them for sometime now. We just need a congress that wont sell out our friends the way the sold out the Vietnamese.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Gerogian Border
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:47pm.
True, we can't afford to do anything with the socialistic society that we are developing at an exponential rate. However, the cost of freedom needs no price tag. If you allow Russia to start taken over their neighbors again then what makes that any better then sitting back while the blitzkrieg rolled through Poland. Afterall, they will stop with Georgia. Won't they? The labor force, natural resources and infrastructure won't be used against any one else once the agressor is appeased. Would they?
Your point is made. We can't afford to confront another enemy and I am not one that believes that war is an economic solution to a recession/depression because you can't spend yourself out of debt. The only way wars help economically in that it bonds a nation, sometimes opens new markets, generally keeps politicians from wasting money as fast and in the case of multi-nation wars creates new military customers.
We didn't have the money to enter WWII so we turned our back and the world was pushed to the point of nearly caving to an extremely cruel socialist regime. A part of history I would never like to see repeated.
More shrieking populism
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:39pm.
Looks like we have ourselves another shrieking populist who loves the national debt. The United States can borrow from ANYONE it wants, and NC Boy does not care.
But if a Series EE Bond is bought by THE EVIL CHINESE (and according to NC Boy, the ONLY people we borrow from are THE EVIL CHINESE), he will throw a fit.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Chinese debt
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:54pm.
What is troublesome about the Chinese debt as compared to the other countries that own our bonds is that we haven't had two presidents appear weakened by their need to be "political" with other countries because of the amount of debt they hold. President Obama may have appeared weak regardless but that doesn't change the image.
A certain amount of debt is fine and by percentage of GDP (if you believe the numbers) we aren't as bad off as many may think but that is changing rapidly and it is clear we have nothing prepared for dealing with the boomers.
The point...
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 8:02pm.
Nothing to me is troublesome about the evil Chinese owning Treasuries. If they owned them all, they could do NOTHING to modernize the PLA, the PLAN, and the PLAAF - due to the principle of opportunity cost. For that matter, they couldn't do anything else either - their economy is too small to do that.
The people who shriek about the Chinese (or anyone else for that matter) owning X amount of U.S. debt miss a major, major, major point, and this annoys me more than you can imagine. It is this: Maybe If We Didn't Have A National Debt, Maybe NOBODY (not the U.S., not the EU, not the Japanese, not the damned Chinese) Would Be Able To Hold Any.
Besides, I've seen this movie before. Twenty years ago, change "China" to "Japan". In about another 20 years, change "China" to "India". What do we need to do? Simple.
F**K China. They will do what they do. What are WE doing? Well, China or no China, we should be DEMANDING our government pay down its debt. We should be DEMANDING our state and local governments do the same. We should be DEMANDING all levels of government be responsible stewards of tax money - because it is the sensible, right thing to do, not because Country X owns Y amount of debt. We need to quit crying and start doing.
Hearing endless whining about "the money we are borrowing from China" is populist shrieking, it is tired, it is inaccurate (the United States is still the biggest owner of United States debt), and it misses the much larger and more important picture.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am with Unsane.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:08am.
Nothing wrong with foreigners, even state owned funds owning our debt, our stocks, our real estate. We as citizens are allowed to invest in many other countries as well. Look at the countries that do not allow foreigners to own and invest in their countries. Find those countries and you find economic & political woes.
Sincerely,
A Veteran of a 1000 Psychic Wars
agree unsane,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:15pm.
Another place to start would be an open accounting system that is representative, consistant and legal for the rest of America. How many years has it been since the accounting methods used by the government would be accepted by the IRS?
Here's one thought:
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:33pm.
The government dumping the concept of "baseline budgeting" wouldf be a huge first step. They really ought to try budgeting the way I do and millions of others do (and probably the way you do too).
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That's just what the US needs: More obligations
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 2:15pm.
And how bigs the domino need to be to be worthy of your support?
When everything looks like a domino, there are no dominoes.
Why don't you solve the whole problem by admitting Russia into NATO?
Why?
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:55pm.
Because Russia will never under any circumstances join NATO for a plethora of historical reasons, and nor would the invite be offered. ESPECIALLY these day.
I agree though: the United States doesn't need more obligations. This is exactly why the federal government's focus should be on national defense and not on babying people.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
One more thing NC Boy
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:03pm.
Just what would you consider a safe distance?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
What's Up with this NC Boy Anyway?
Submitted by NC Boy on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:47pm.
I was gone for several hours and now I'm catching up. I am learning a lot about this guy. He's an ignorant isolationist. He doesn't care about liberty or the national debt. Worst of all, he's a "shrieking populist"!
Wait a minute - NC Boy is ME!
I'm sorry folks. We can talk all we want, but the resources will only go so far. We are going to have to make big cuts in every area. I want a strong military, but I am fed up with paying for Europe's welfare state by providing their national defense. We can still project a strong military without NATO and without huge bases in Europe (likely stronger).
And if you think we (and NATO) have always been right there to support liberty at every turn, do some reading on our shameful lack of support for the Hungarians who tried to break away in 1956.
Addressing naivete
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:12am.
I'm sorry, NC Boy, but if you want to avoid labels like "isolationist" and "Shrieking populist", the FASTEST way to do that is to stop sounding like both.
By having bases in Europe, the United States enhances its ability to PROJECT POWER. This is the #1 way the military is as strong as it is. Very, very few other countries can do this. We do it every day.
Now, I'm not sayng that we need forces on the ground in Europe comparable to 25 years ago - that of course would be silly. But I would argue forcefully that you need, say, a single division there, and people who can help it move with ease, just for the purposes of fast power projection at the drop of a hat. It is a PITA to move people and equipment. Trust me, I should know.
And of course your pious whine on Hungary is duly noted. This from someone who would have cheerfully turned over Western Europe to Stalin in 1948 when Berlin was blockaded. You fail as a student of history, referencing Hungary in any case. Have you thought about WHY we didn't intervene there?
Or why we didn't intervene in the 1953 East Berlin uprising? (You and millions of Americans right now are saying, "What's that?")
Or why we didn't intervene in Czechoslovakia in 1968?
Or what of Poland, in 1956, 1970, or 1981?
Or why we didn't just drive wrecking balls into the Berlin Wall as fast as it was built?
There are reasons why, and your apparent inability to figure out why is probably at the root of your simplistic, naive approach to foreign policy.
You say we are paying for Europe's welfare state with our national defense. If this is true, can you explain why much of Germany's welfare state comes from the Second Reich? (Did we have troops in Germany when it was ruled by Bismarck and the Kaisers somehow?) Or the fact that the welfare states of Europe were getting into gear well before WWII? Or the fact that Finland and Sweden, non-NATO members, have nanny states anyway?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Reply to Unsane
Submitted by NC Boy on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:47am.
We may not be as far apart on European involvement as it seems. You are saying leave a division and necessary support there. That would be fine with me. Right now we have over 80,000 troops permanently stationed in Europe, including 57,000 in Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
I will be the first to admit that I haven't studied Cold War history in detail. My comments are based on world history where nations and empires tend to overextend their reach, and then retreat or collapse. It's interesting that it's often a combination of decadence from within (which the libs supply) and the overextension of power externally. I would say Rome had both. Spain, France, and Britain all hit the "projection of power" button a little too hard (and now, the sun never rises on the British Empire).
No, I wouldn't have let Russia roll over Europe after WWII (well, maybe I would have - I was only a baby). Our policy of containment was just what the Doctor ordered. But the "losers" in that policy were (and continue to be) the people of the small countries, especially when they are very close to the superpowers (eg Georgia, Cuba). It's similar to the poor peasants in Afghanistan, who at this point are trying desperately to stay neutral so the Taliban won't kill them when the Americans leave.
I stand by my statement that we are paying for Europe's welfare state. It doesn't matter who invented it, or when. Those kinds of loony ideas come up all the time. What matters is that they were able to get their people to agree to the taxes to enable it. If they had been required to defend themselves, they would have had a much harder time getting their people to agree to all the taxes.
Varies
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:17pm.
The problem is that you are talking as if we still have the same about of troops on the ground in Europe now as we did 25 years ago. WE DON'T. And I think they can still be pared down. Your problem is that since you hold a monocausal theory of the collapse of empires (all empires overreached, the end), this colors and dominates your world view.
In the case of Spain, I could make a very tight case that it was not so much overreach as their refusal to internally develop their country. Why should they when the gold was rolling in for "free", right? They simply refused to internally self-develop, and they also declared war on its best and brightest citizenry for being either Jewish or Muslim. Both of them cost them dearly and was later reflected in their inabilities to defend their empire. The reasons the Romans fell are many, varied and complex.
I'd agree that we are paying for Europe's Nanny State, IF they suddenly sprang up out of whole cloth in the 1950s. They didn't. They had been around for a very long time and would have been instituted regardless of an American presence or no American presence. As such, I would make a case that we are not; this has been their modus operandi for years. And they HAVE been defending themselves: only recently has Germany talked about giving up their draft. The Dutch (example) have a decent army and some nice equipment in its AF. Many NATO Air Forces fly F-16s and those were not cheap (for example). Their people cheerfully pay exorbitant taxes anyway.
Nothing will bring down the United States; definitely not the smaller military footprint we have now. Except for one thing: the growning numbers of spoiled brats we have of ALL ages who are thinking that they are owed something by the country because They Were Born. If we don't clobber that little problem now, we are screwed.
Basically my vision for forces in Europe now is to have enough people there (a division, say) for training with our European allies and as a rapid reaction force for power projection. Reason: to cut the time and fuel necessary to close the distance to, say, a European or African contingency. It wouldn't take tha much money or effort and would make people think about what they are doing and whether or not it is worth the risk of offending the United States.
So, why didn't we intervene in Hungary in 1956? Because to do so would have turned a DEFENSIVE alliance into an OFFENSIVE one, and to intervene in Hungary would have required either an invasion of Czechoslovakia to access Hungary or forcing our way through Austria, violating its neutrality. That's for starters. That's to say nothing of other events happening around the world at the exact same time. Still, NATO defended its allies perfectly well and in my view helped precipitate the fall of the Iron Curtain without having to fire a shot. For a continent that just got done with its bloodiest (and most needless) conflict in 300 years, that was and is some damn good news.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Thank You!
Submitted by NC Boy on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:04pm.
For a well-reasoned, and well-stated argument. I really don't have any more to say, except that I have learned from this exchange.
Happy New Year!
Mobility question . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:31pm.
How many C-5/C-5 equivalents does it take to move the 1st Armored Division from Germany to, say, Iraq?
And how many C-5/equivalents does it take to move that same division from Texas to Iraq?
My own mobility questions
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:59pm.
How much gas does it take to fly them directly from TX to Iraq vs. Germany to Iraq?
How much TIME would it take?
When is the last time an ENTIRE deployment has gone entirely by air?
If there is a contingency as such, it won't go by air: it will go by rail from Bliss or Hood to a port in East TX, and they will be shipped out on RoRos. A month later, they will disembark, perhaps too late to face whatever contingency they were sent to deal with.
You sure take the ability to project power totally for granted...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So Tom Clancey was
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:14pm.
So Tom Clancey was right?
We can't just FedEx an Armored Division anywhere in the world overnight? ;-)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
We need to use UPS.
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:39am.
We need to use UPS.
Unsane,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:17pm.
Not to divert from your point but I was part of a Naval deployment during the first Gulf War and there were several issues with getting the real fighting personnel over there but what I remember the most was the real speed of the air craft carriers. Any one seeing a nuclear powered carrier at full speed crossing the Atlantic truly would understand the term "Projection of Power".
Carriers!
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:22pm.
James F. Dunnigan and Austin Bay, correctly in my opinion, have called the supercarrier the #2 most powerful weapon in the world.
Indeed, if moving the troops, the beans and bullets were as effortless and easy as pie from CONUS as Galvanic seems to think, I'd be all about pulling in all of our bases and troops to the Great Plains from TX to ND. Unfortunately for him and others, moving people and equipment is a TEENSY bit trickier than that...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
spread the wealth Unsane
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:10pm.
An argument could be made for more but smaller bases throughout Europe with a hub in Germany and somewhere in the East.
The point of reaction time is important. I don't know if Galvonic has ever tried to get a family ready for a short trip with little notice but that is a major feat at times. A few thousand personnel, transport, fuel, consumables, air space agreements, nautical allowments (for those who don't know - there are rules for how and how fast ships of war can cross certain waterways), changes in training, notification of changes in supply contracts, getting bids for contracts because we certainly wouldn't want to save time by giving no-bid contracts, etc...
By the way it would be helpful if someone along the way actually made plans for what was going to happen once everythings was there. We can't plan ahead because the media would leak that the US was planning on invading what ever country speaks Austrian.
Please excuse the excessive sarcasm - Thank you
Did you consider the fact
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:33pm.
Did you consider the fact that the Army will be flying a little lighter (in the loafers) and thus maybe able to pick up a ittle speed over the Atlantic?
Reading through NC Boy's old posts.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:21am.
Found this ---
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. Well, except if the going gets the tiniest bit tough and our commitments to our entitlement programs and government unions gets to be more than we can handle. Let's not work on scaling those back. Let's cut & run from nearly every military commitment we have ever made.
This much we pledge—and more. Well, actually, not more. Less. Screw liberty.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. Ok. Ok. Ok. Screw our allies and friends. Rather than scaling back the intrusive federal progams that impose on the states, like the Department of Education, or the numerous burdensome regulatory bureaucracies. We will just take every thing from one of the few roles of federal government actually spelled out in the constitution, the military.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. Ahhh, nevery mind, screw you new states, you are on your own. We did not got to war with the Ruskies in 1956 so it is time to throw a hissy fit in the name of NC Boy.
(Actually the italics was cribbed from the Inaugural Address of JFK in 1961)
Nice One!
Submitted by NC Boy on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:10pm.
Yeah, that's clever. But I'm afraid you tended to prove my point. Kennedy and others have had all this wonderful sounding rhetoric. This has occasionally "inspired" new countries and liberty movements in old countries to think that we would support them. But we always let them down. Because in the end, all it is is talk.
I'm not saying Russia is no threat. But surely you agree that Radical Islam is the main short-term threat (and a common enemy with Russia). And China is the most significant long-term threat at this time. Keep an eye on everybody, but line up our military and foreign policy to deal with the biggest threats.
As far as "scaling back the intrusive federal programs", I am in complete agreement. But we have let this mess go on far too long to be able to get out of it by just cutting in one area. Also, as a practical matter, we have allowed war to become so unbelievably expensive (by shackling the military at every turn), that we are becoming a paper dragon.
Sorry, I still think it's time to pull in our horns and get this big ship into drydock for awhile so that we can come back stronger than ever.
You are starting to annoy me. And I mean really annoy.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:09pm.
Nothing like a guy talking out both sides of his mouth to really start to wear on my nerves. Is this the plan?
On one side, you tell us to draw down the military to bare bones and worse.
On the other side, you whine because we don't play a more active military role in even MORE countries thus having an even LARGER footprint.
Are you really this dense or you just trying to get on my last nerve?
Stand up and argue your point like a man. And stop this incessant whining about the coulda dones when you are telling us to slash our military might.
What I Have Actually Said
Submitted by NC Boy on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:16pm.
1. Find where I have said we should "draw down the military to bare bones and worse". In response to the initial topic, I simply said that we should withdraw from NATO for a number of (I believe) good reasons. I didn't say we shouldn't defend ourselves, or be in a position to fight anyone, anywhere, anytime.
2. I am not saying we need to necessarily change our military role to deal with Radical Islam and China. I'm simply saying that if we tie our resources up in Europe, just in case the Russians start acting up, we waste resources and flexibility to handle new threats where they appear.
Your arguments are perfect if resources are unlimited. They aren't.
Not a case of resources
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:26pm.
I'm simply saying that if we tie our resources up in Europe, just in case the Russians start acting up, we waste resources and flexibility to handle new threats where they appear
Well we could had been in Georgia and Poland, but dear leader ran like coward. We have the resources, what we need is common sense and a little courage.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:52pm.
You can't even respond to me without even more non sequitors. I called you a hypocrite that advocates cutting our military while whining our military should intervene in more countries squabbles.
Your answer? Yeah, we are still waiting for it. Whatever you think you were saying in response surely did not address a damn thing I said.
But whatever, enjoy a lifetime of disappointment. I have read many many many proposals to save the United States money. Not a one of them advocated withdrawing from NATO. Guess why genious? Come on. Guess. Why? Why is no one but YOU, THE MOST ANNOYING PERSON LEFT ON NEWSBUSTERS, advocating withdrawing from NATO? Come on. You are standing out in the storm alone. Why? Huh? Why is no one else on the planet saying the same thing as you?
Uh, cuz you are wrong. Can't wait for future wants/needs/predictions from you. Must be tough. You pray before you go to bed every night, oh please Lordy, please disband NATO. And every morning it is the same thing over and over. Read the newspaper. Not a thing about disbanding NATO. And so you slink off to your dreary job once again depressed and lonely. Only to look forward to that nightly prayer again.
So Let me tell you for the last time. NO. It ain't gonna happen. So sit down, and shut up. You are wasting our time and NewsBusters storage with your constant whines about disbanding NATO. Shut up. IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
You're Right
Submitted by NC Boy on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:21pm.
I will keep this short, to avoid wasting storage space. I agree with your superior logic. NATO is the greatest achievement in human history. Please send me an "I Heart NATO" sticker and I promise to wear it on my forehead for 2 weeks.
And we end with the straw man argument.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:46pm.
Did I or anyone else here say NATO is the greatest achievement in human history? This is why I got annoyed with you if the first place. You don't argue honestly.
And the Pot is calling the Kettle what?
Submitted by NC Boy on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 8:29pm.
Here is a sample of the things you accused me of saying or thinking, before I stooped to sarcasm:
"Let's cut & run from nearly every military commitment we have ever made."
"Screw liberty."
"Rather than scaling back the intrusive federal progams that impose on the states, like the Department of Education, or the numerous burdensome regulatory bureaucracies. We will just take every thing from one of the few roles of federal government actually spelled out in the constitution, the military."
"you tell us to draw down the military to bare bones and worse."
Stay on that high road, friend - and Happy New Year!
Did I inflate your position?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 1:27am.
Let's see now. Did I misrepresent what you said? Let's look at those quotes of mine you claim misrepresent your opinion.
JWF: (paraphrasing NC Boy) "Let's cut & run from nearly every military commitment we have ever made."
You would have us leave NATO.
NC Boy: NATO doesn't serve any good purpose today.
NC Boy: NATO was too cowardly...
You say we can't afford to protect world liberty.
NC Boy: But I don't think we can afford to be the protector of world liberty...
You would have us leave NATO.
NC Boy: We can still project a strong military without NATO and without huge bases in Europe (likely stronger).
You say we should pull in our horns, AKA withdraw.
NC Boy: I still think it's time to pull in our horns and get this big ship into drydock for awhile...
Now, did I misrepresent your opinion? NO.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JWF: (paraphrasing NC Boy) "Screw liberty."
You would have us leave Georgia hanging.
NC Boy: So, you really believe that we should allow Georgia to join NATO? This would mean that America would be obligated to declare war on Russia if they took over Georgia.
You would have us leave Europe hanging.
NC Boy: Let's let Europe take care of their squabbles with Russia...
You would have us leave Myanmar, NK, and Africa hanging.
NC Boy: Are you willing to put American money (borrowed from China) and blood into liberating Myanmar, North Korea, and about half of the African countries where liberty is non-existent?
You would have us leave everyone else hanging.
NC Boy: But I don't think we can afford to be the protector of world liberty...
You say we are all talk when it comes to liberty.
NC Boy: Kennedy and others...occasionally "inspired" new countries and liberty movements in old countries... . But we always let them down. Because in the end, all it is is talk.
Now, did I misrepresent your opinion? NO.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JWF: (paraphrasing NC Boy) "Rather than scaling back the intrusive federal progams that impose on the states, like the Department of Education, or the numerous burdensome regulatory bureaucracies. We will just take every thing from one of the few roles of federal government actually spelled out in the constitution, the military."
You equate cutting the military with social programs.
NC Boy: But I don't think we can afford to be the protector of world liberty any more than we can be "caring parents" for every child.
Now, did I misrepresent your opinion? Yes, a little. But you only talked about cutting in other areas AFTER, repeat AFTER, you were engaged on the isssue.
+++++++++++++++++++++
JWF: "you tell us to draw down the military to bare bones and worse."
You claim war is expensive, no unbelievably expensive.
NC Boy: ...we have allowed war to become so unbelievably expensive (by shackling the military at every turn), that we are becoming a paper dragon.
You say we waste resources.
NC Boy: I'm simply saying that if we tie our resources up in Europe, just in case the Russians start acting up, we waste resources and flexibility to handle new threats where they appear.
You say we can't afford the military we have now.
NC Boy: But I don't think we can afford to be the protector of world liberty...
Again. You say we should pull in our horns. AKA Reduce our footprint.
NC Boy: I still think it's time to pull in our horns...
Now, did I misrepresent your opinion? NO.
This has been an interesting discussion
Submitted by NC Boy on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:00am.
I wish we could take a poll of readers of these comments to judge whether I appear to hold these extreme views, or you are unfairly assigning them to me. But, you and I are probably the only ones still even reading these!
I am truly sorry that my statements have angered you. I do want to assure you that I don't mean to offend, and I that I believe that our nation's defense is of utmost importance - even though that apparently hasn't come across.
Sincere best wishes for the New Year.
I said annoy not anger.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 11:56am.
Trolls anger me. Souls on the right, and you do appear to be on the right so far, simply annoy me.
Ahhh. I can't even stayed annoyed. You are too nice.
Yep, Vet...your right...kinda
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:23pm.
Yep, Vet...your right...kinda what I got to..
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Barney's #1 Fan
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:36pm.
I agree with Barney. I never thought I'd write that, but I do. I strongly do. What good are these allies anyway? Where are they when we need them? When it came to Iraq, only a few of those countries helped us, and even then they seemed to do so only begrudgingly. I say if they're going to do the bare minimum when it comes to us then they don't deserve any better. If I had it my way I'd pull out of the base in Germany too.
I know a lot of people justify this defense of Europe by citing how a burning house can spread. There's a lot of wisdom to that but it just doesn't cut it any longer. The flower child and socialist attitudes that are so pervasive over there have been allowed to flourish partially because Daddy USA is always there to carry the burden. Their childish attitudes are a cancer on the free and modern world: how many times have you heard a leftist support some backwards policy because it's also found in the socialist utopia of Europe?
As far as I'm concerned, there's not a tyrrant in the world that can beat Europe into something more dangerous to freedom loving people than what Europe has already become. Part of the reason we're so screwed up is our childish desire to adopt their beliefs! Europe needs to stand on its own for a while. It needs to go through the bumps and challenges that are involved with opening your eyes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Yes, but, sigh, I suppose
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:11am.
Yes, but, sigh, I suppose being the only democratic super power in the world is kind of like being a long suffering parent with rebellious and ungrateful kids. At times, you'd like to wash your hands of the spoiled brats, but , in the end, you just have to keep on watching out for them.
Power projection
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:13am.
Again, power projection. Period.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
NATO
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:39pm.
I am not as astute on these subjects as some of the learned commenters but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out NATO's mission is obsolete. the money spent by the military and their dependents would be much better spent here in the US. Besides we can't even secure our own border with Mexico and we are making an attempt to secure Germanys border? Whats wrong with this picture? It took an idioitc session of a "lame brain", pardon me "lame Duck" congress to radify the new START treaty which is just putting another nail in the coffin of America. When will America cowboy the F up and see the enemy is on our doorstep with their foot in it as we speak? There is a muslim trainning camp not 100 miles from where I am setting, we have welcomed them into the DOD, they are tranining our responders and we allow this to happen. They have us so afarid we willingly give up our constitutional rights to give us this false sense of security the TSA is selling us. Wake up everybody because we can prosecute a war from our own shores within hours anywhere on the planet with our technology. Our troops need to be brought home.
The United States of Whiny
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:27pm.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you want Whiny America, along with Red Jeep, Galvanic and others.
Power projection, power projection, power projection.
People like you who whine that "Our troops need to be brought home" are nothing more thn people who think that America can never be weak enough for their tastes.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am a little torn here
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:46pm.
First, I always want to work from a position of strength. But the cost are getting unaffordable. The fix would be to reduce cost and to streamline the bureaucracy. But we all know the US government isnt qualified for this task, their lawyers.
This thread has been facinating, great stuff.
Oh, and the irony here is
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:48pm.
We did the very same thing to USSR.
An idea
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:50pm.
Psst! Want a great idea on how to cut military spending while retaining a powerful military?
Consolidate supply chains whenever possible.
And that might even save enough for the AF to get KC-67s, and to, with that, save even MORE money with greater fuel efficiency adn less maintenance costs by allowing us to retire the KC-135 fleet!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Nato is not now, nor was it
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:58pm.
Nato is not now, nor was it ever in Germany to secure Germanys border. The NATO mission is not now, nor will it be obsolete. Not unless your one of those that thinks in terms of continuous wars.
Not that NATO is all that great anymore. I mean, what with all the gutless members. And those who are unwilling to defend liberty.
We will do it with NATO, or we will continue with the proxy wars of the past. And you think it costs money to keep troops in Europe and Asia now. Just wait till your spending 4 times that amount fighting the proxy wars.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
tanks!
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 3:29pm.
As I understand NATO's mission it is to stop Russian tanks from rolling out of Russia into western Europe or have I missed something here? if we as a nation do not stop going on trips to mamby pamby land and realize that if we do not defend ourselves no one else is going to. Not NATO or the UN for sure. We need to stock pile nuclear missiles until we need side boards to hold them all and not give one of them up. Proxy wars is the problem. Let these people fight their own wars until they make a move on us then make them go boom. Anybody knows you don't mess with superman and you don't mess with his friends. In our almost forgotten past nobody messed with America because they all knew we would kick the crap out of them if they did. Now we don't want to offend anyone. Well lets all just ride our unicorns down through the fairy dust storm and why can't we all just get along.
Collective self-defense
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 2:42pm.
NATO's mission is collective self-defense. From 1949 to 1991 this meant stopping SOVIET tanks from rolling out of the USSR into Western Europe.
Again, power projection. Not into Europe, but elsewhere in the world. Why? To cut down on reaction time and costs. For this you do not need the level of troops in Europe than we had 25 years ago. You simply need, say, a division, a composite wing of fighters, tankers, cargo planes, and the like, and a support facility for Navy vessels. That's it.
Unfortunately for you the ability to project power is the #1 way the United States defends itself, not nuclear weapons. Just the thought that we CAN project power is enough to shut quite a few people up. I'd like to keep it that way
Over the past 20 years lots of people around the world have been fighting their own wars without our intervention (except maybe politically). I don't get what you mean by "proxy wars", unless you still think it is the 1980s.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Huh?
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:27pm.
"Nato is not now, nor was it ever in Germany to secure Germanys border."
That's news to me, and I served in West Germany with the 1st Armored Division from '74-'76.
Aviolation of the FRG's border would clearly have required a NATO response under Chapter 5, which sates that an attack on one is an attack on all.
I'm curious -- what do you think Chpater 5 means?
Article 5
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 9:52pm.
I didn't realize that Article 5 stated that only if the FRG border was crossed would the attack be considered an attack on all...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Who said "only?"
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:53am.
Don't attribute points to me that I never made becasue you're losing the argument..
Read Chapter 5. Then make your point.
I should charge you for this service
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 2:56pm.
Actually, the only one here losing the argument would be you, the logistics idiot.
Don't whine to me because you are an unclear writer. In this sentence: "Aviolation of the FRG's border would clearly have required a NATO response under Chapter 5, which sates that an attack on one is an attack on all." implies that you think the whole reason ARTICLE 5 exists is to defend the FRG. Indeed, your entire isolationist argument on this thread can be summed up as "Now that the Warsaw Pact is gone, NATO must be disbanded, and America needs to be a Very Whiny Country once again."
I can't read Chapter 5 of the NATO Charter. However, I CAN read ARTICLE 5. If you are going to throw around terminology in order to sound superior to everyone else, at least use the right terminology.
I'm not crazy about people who bark orders at people like you. Nor am I crazy about doing other people's homework FOR them. (Is Galvanic turning into a Leftist before our eyes, I wonder?) However, here's the text of the ARTICLE which makes you so ashamed.
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
"Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."
Where did I get this? Why, the NATO website. You can get this in many different languages.
I do not see any language here restricting this to Russia, the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, or any other entities. Tellingly, this ARTICLE was first invoked by NATO in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
I also found this:
"The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty"
Apparently, NONE of these things to you are remotely worth defending, even in the smaller role I envision.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hey, you found it! Good boy.
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 5:10pm.
UNSANE: "Don't whine to me because you are an unclear writer. In this sentence: "Aviolation of the FRG's border would clearly have required a NATO response under Chapter 5, which sates that an attack on one is an attack on all." implies that you think the whole reason ARTICLE 5 exists is to defend the FRG. Indeed, your entire isolationist argument on this thread can be summed up as "Now that the Warsaw Pact is gone, NATO must be disbanded, and America needs to be a Very Whiny Country once again."
Is English your first language, Unsane? I'm just curious because nowhere on this thread or any other thread have I asserted or implied that the sole purpose of Art. 5 is to defend the FRG.
And why do you claim that I am "ashamed" of Article 5? I'm not even ashamed of NATO; I just think that under its current charter, it's obsolete, particularly for US interests.
I also never said that Europe isn't worth defending; as both a soldier and naval officer, I actively participated in the deterrence of the Warsaw Pact in defense of NATO members, and I think that deterrence was necessary. But we no long need NATO. If the Europeans want to maintain it, so be it. It ain't worth it to us.
NATO was created when Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was followed by Soviet installation of Communist regimes. With Germany split in two and France, Italy, and UK financially exhausted by WW2, the US needed to step in and prop up Western Europe against the Soviet threat. The US approach was two fold: Defend Western Europe through NATO, and restore its economy through the Marshall Plan.
That mission was successful. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and the USSR and Warsaw pact collapsed shortly thereafter. But since you seem to be stuck in 1980, let's cover some ground since.
In 1994, Russia was joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program.
In May 1997, NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act of Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security while declaruing that they were no longer adversaries.
In May 2002, the NATO-Russia Council was created to facilitate joint decisions and actions, consensus-building.
This isn't to say that NATO-Russia relations are ideal, but they're not adversdarial -- by NATO's own definition.
So, who is the post-Soviet threat to Europe? Radical Islam? Other terrorism?
If it's terrorism, why didn't NATO invade Ireland from which the IRA launched armed attacks on the UK? Why hasn't it gone after Corsican or Basque separatists?
It must be Yugoslavia.
Afterall, Yugoslavia must have attacked a NATO member because NATO hit Yugoslavia militarily with massive air strikes. So, which NATO member did Yugoslavia attack?
And that's my point. NATO needs a new charter to address new threats, or we should pull out.
Regarding your logistics 'expertise,' are you speaking from your experience as a logistician in the US armed forces?
For our condescending poster
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 5:19pm.
Apparently you do not write well in English. Because you are STILL blaming me childishly for YOUR failings as a writer. Go back and clean up your writing.
Actually, we DO need NATO, for the purposes of power projection. That you constantly fail to recognize this fact shows me that you don't know a damn thing about logistics. Instead of spending time practicing the art of being a condescending asshole, maybe you ought to look into some of the logistical difficulties your absurd claims on this thread entail.
You are the one who seems to be stuck in 1980. You MAY have heard of a joker named Vladimir Putin. He considers one of the great tragedies of his time to be the downfall of the Soviet Union. He took office as President on 31 December 1999. Dmitri Medvedev since replaced him but Putin remains at Prime Minister. He is looking at running again in 2012 for the Presidency of Russia, and his United Russia party faces no serious opposition.
It is essentially a kleptocracy, and it is hitting some rather serious problems. Like Spain in the 1500s-1600s, it has become so reliant on the exploitation of natural resouces, it is very vulnerable if those funds dry up. It refuses to internally develop. Indeed, this also goes back to the 1860s, when the United States, Canada and Argentina began exporting massive bumper crops of wheat to Europe, which exposed the Russian Empire as a one-trick pony: reliant solely on the income from exporting wheat. This is one reason why Russia was ripe for revolution in the early 20th Century.
While for various reasons I do not see Russia as a major threat, they need to be watched carefully. History tells us that things can change at a moment's notice.
Yes, Russia, is integrated into Europe to some extent - this explains why there are documents on the NATO website in Russian. So, if they are aren't adversarial. please explain why the Russians threw a fit about the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, or why they have whined endlessly about NATO expansion ever since. You may also wish to explain their anti-American rhetoric.
The threat can't be readily predicted. Terrorism and radical Islam are worries. But what if NATO members get into it, say, over the dissolution of the Maastricht Treaty (which could happen over the euro, who knows)? What if Germany decides to brusquely go it alone in the euro? Or France, or some other country? What if other nations in Europe go rogue at some point for various nationalistic reasons?
Keep a division in Europe, a composite air wing, and some naval support facilities. Despite your obnoxious claim, which shows me you don't read very well in English either, I'm not seeing the world through 1980 lenses. (How many times have I said that we don't need the numbers of people or equipment in Europe that we required 25 years ago?)
Yes, I deal with logistical issues. You are sounding way too much like various d*******s I had to put up with in the AOR.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I wonder if
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:16pm.
Katie has ever interview one of the many folks who currently fear for their lives because they have either left Islam or has the audacity to speak about it?
We can take on NATO
Submitted by docjohn52 on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 12:08am.
Right after we get out of the UN, and throw it the hell out-of-this country.
Yep
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 12:19am.
Quiting the UN should be priority 1
My idea...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 10:23pm.
Not that I am a fan of the UN, but I'd keep the U.S. in it. What I WOULD do without hesitation is eject their headquarters from the U.S. They can go to Geneva and stay there.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'd keep the U.S. in it
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 1:55am.
Yea me too, I would send the "union" over there to clean the building
Designs for the UN HQ Building
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 5:21pm.
Clean the building, hell. NYC could use a new parking garage... :o)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Happy New Year
Submitted by NC Boy on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 8:26pm.
Happy New Year to all!
Hear hear! Happy New Year!
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 8:40pm.
There's no open thread for this right now, so I'm taking the opportunity to say this here...
Happy New Year to all of my fellow NB'ers! Here's hoping everyone has a happy and healthy 2011!
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan