Gates Says What Everybody Already Knows
June 28th 2011 19:35
Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said at a media conference after a meeting of NATO members in Brussels what many people, government officials and ordinary citizens, have been thinking for a long time: “Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost.” (“Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance,” Robert Burns, Associated Press, 6/10/11).
The fact is that NATO, which was created in 1949 to “"to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,”” according to its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, (“NATO,” Wikipedia) was really created to allow the United States maintain military bases on European soil to respond faster to wars against any upstart European power or Russia, while surrounding Germany with the continued presence of American military forces; it was really created for the defense of the United States by American military forces. Nobody really believed or believes that any NATO forces will ever come to the defense of the United States should it ever suffer a military attack (maybe Canadian forces will), and it is believed to be better to fight foreign forces in Europe than on the U.S. mainland.
So, if everyone knows the real reason for the existence for NATO, why was Gates so upset? Gates was upset because NATO is an embarrassment. There are 28 countries who are members of NATO, and the other 27 besides the United States have a combined population greater than that of the United States. NATO members account for 70% of the world’s defense spending, and the United States accounts for 43% of the world’s defense spending, so with less than half of the population of NATO members, America accounts for more than 61% of its defense spending. This leads to the popular belief that other NATO members aren’t carrying their fair share and prompted Gates to say, “"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense."” (“Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance,” Robert Burns, Associated Press, 6/10/11).
Gate’s frustration with NATO is a direct result of NATO’s lack of preparedness to fight a war in Afghanistan. “"Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more"” (“Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance,” Robert Burns, Associated Press, 6/10/11).
The prime example of NATO ineptitude is the current operation in support of the rebels who are fighting to wrest control of Libya from Muammar Gaddafi. NATO, with the resources of a population of over 600 million people and 70% of the world’s defense spending, can’t defeat a dictator who claims to live in a tent. Why? In April, it was reported that NATO was running short on ammunition, specifically precision smart bombs (the British and French buy ammunition in batches and stock pile it; when the stock piles run low, they have to retool factories to manufacture more). Also, because the President can only commit U.S. forces for a limited time to a continuous military campaign, the U.S. withdrew its air power, forcing the other 27 NATO nations to fill the void. No problem, right? Apparently the capability doesn’t exist. The six NATO countries that have contributed aircraft to the fight are Great Britain, France, Norway, Belgium, Denmark and Canada. What about the other 21 countries? Those six countries have contributed a total of 64 planes, with Great Britain and France accounting for 40 (a typical American aircraft carrier carries 80 planes). “Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows.”” (“NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya,” Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, Washington Post, 4/15/11).
Recently, Norway, which has a tiny air force but which has been conducting 10% of the Libyan missions, announced that it would withdraw its six planes by August 1. Italy has also announced that it was reconsidering its participation, although its participation has been mostly as a base of operations. Gates “applauded Norway and Denmark for providing a disproportionate share of the combat power in the Libya operation, given the size of their militaries. And he credited Belgium and Canada for making "major contributions" to the effort to degrade the military strength of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.
"These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution," he said.
But they are exceptions, in Gates' view.” (“Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance,” Robert Burns, Associated Press, 6/10/11).
NATO still serves a useful purpose for the United States: a base allowing it to quickly mount military operations in most of the rest of the world while protecting the U.S. mainland from fighting. NATO nations also gain militarily by conducting joint military exercises with the better equipped and better trained U.S. troops, and they gain financially through base leases, civilian base employment, local spending by deployed U.S. troops, and local purchases by U.S. base procurement. But, nobody should ever think the purpose of NATO is for the mutual defense of its member nations. It exists only for the purpose of allowing the United States to defend itself.
The fact is that NATO, which was created in 1949 to “"to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,”” according to its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, (“NATO,” Wikipedia) was really created to allow the United States maintain military bases on European soil to respond faster to wars against any upstart European power or Russia, while surrounding Germany with the continued presence of American military forces; it was really created for the defense of the United States by American military forces. Nobody really believed or believes that any NATO forces will ever come to the defense of the United States should it ever suffer a military attack (maybe Canadian forces will), and it is believed to be better to fight foreign forces in Europe than on the U.S. mainland.
So, if everyone knows the real reason for the existence for NATO, why was Gates so upset? Gates was upset because NATO is an embarrassment. There are 28 countries who are members of NATO, and the other 27 besides the United States have a combined population greater than that of the United States. NATO members account for 70% of the world’s defense spending, and the United States accounts for 43% of the world’s defense spending, so with less than half of the population of NATO members, America accounts for more than 61% of its defense spending. This leads to the popular belief that other NATO members aren’t carrying their fair share and prompted Gates to say, “"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense."” (“Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance,” Robert Burns, Associated Press, 6/10/11).
Gate’s frustration with NATO is a direct result of NATO’s lack of preparedness to fight a war in Afghanistan. “"Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more"” (“Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance,” Robert Burns, Associated Press, 6/10/11).
The prime example of NATO ineptitude is the current operation in support of the rebels who are fighting to wrest control of Libya from Muammar Gaddafi. NATO, with the resources of a population of over 600 million people and 70% of the world’s defense spending, can’t defeat a dictator who claims to live in a tent. Why? In April, it was reported that NATO was running short on ammunition, specifically precision smart bombs (the British and French buy ammunition in batches and stock pile it; when the stock piles run low, they have to retool factories to manufacture more). Also, because the President can only commit U.S. forces for a limited time to a continuous military campaign, the U.S. withdrew its air power, forcing the other 27 NATO nations to fill the void. No problem, right? Apparently the capability doesn’t exist. The six NATO countries that have contributed aircraft to the fight are Great Britain, France, Norway, Belgium, Denmark and Canada. What about the other 21 countries? Those six countries have contributed a total of 64 planes, with Great Britain and France accounting for 40 (a typical American aircraft carrier carries 80 planes). “Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows.”” (“NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya,” Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, Washington Post, 4/15/11).
Recently, Norway, which has a tiny air force but which has been conducting 10% of the Libyan missions, announced that it would withdraw its six planes by August 1. Italy has also announced that it was reconsidering its participation, although its participation has been mostly as a base of operations. Gates “applauded Norway and Denmark for providing a disproportionate share of the combat power in the Libya operation, given the size of their militaries. And he credited Belgium and Canada for making "major contributions" to the effort to degrade the military strength of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi.
"These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution," he said.
But they are exceptions, in Gates' view.” (“Gates blasts NATO, questions future of alliance,” Robert Burns, Associated Press, 6/10/11).
NATO still serves a useful purpose for the United States: a base allowing it to quickly mount military operations in most of the rest of the world while protecting the U.S. mainland from fighting. NATO nations also gain militarily by conducting joint military exercises with the better equipped and better trained U.S. troops, and they gain financially through base leases, civilian base employment, local spending by deployed U.S. troops, and local purchases by U.S. base procurement. But, nobody should ever think the purpose of NATO is for the mutual defense of its member nations. It exists only for the purpose of allowing the United States to defend itself.
| 27 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
