US Defense Secretary Slams European freeloaders.

[RandomGuy]

Dayum.


To be sure, at the outset, the NATO Libya mission did meet its initial military objectives – grounding Qaddafi’s air force and degrading his ability to wage offensive war against his own citizens. And while the operation has exposed some shortcomings caused by underfunding, it has also shown the potential of NATO, with an operation where Europeans are taking the lead with American support. However, while every alliance member voted for Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t. The military capabilities simply aren’t there.

In particular, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets are lacking that would allow more allies to be involved and make an impact. The most advanced fighter aircraft are little use if allies do not have the means to identify, process, and strike targets as part of an integrated campaign. To run the air campaign, the NATO air operations centre in Italy required a major augmentation of targeting specialists, mainly from the US, to do the job – a “just in time” infusion of personnel that may not always be available in future contingencies. We have the spectacle of an air operations centre designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150. Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.


if the European taxpayers do not want to pay to preserve their own security, why should Americans shoulder the burden? Only five of the 28 NATO allies meet NATO’s recommendation that countries should spend at least 2% of GDP on defence: America, Britain, France, Greece and Albania. Today America’s key security interests are in the Middle East and in Asia. Europe will be the obvious place for America to cut expensive overseas commitments.

Homeslice isn't pulling any punches before stepping down, and said some things that needed saying.

Good for him, and I agree fully with his comments.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/06/libya-europe-and-future-nato

[coyotes_geek]

Gates is spot on.

I wish he wasn't leaving.

[RandomGuy]

Full speech at:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/10/transcript-of-defense-secretary-gatess-speech-on-natos-future/


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. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.

Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, 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.

[RandomGuy]

Gates is spot on.

I wish he wasn't leaving.

It was refreshing after Rumsfeld, to be sure.

Gates was of Bush's better appointments.

[coyotes_geek]

Gates was of Bush's better appointments.

One of Obama's as well.

[MannyIsGod]

They're like everyone else. They're not going to do something until they absolutely have to. Its smart. They get to fund national healthcare programs while we foot the bill for protecting them and the MIC laughs all the way to the bank.

[boutons_deux]

I didn't see Gates agitating for reducing the 1000 bases which the UCA garrisons the planet with, or even pulling UCA bases out of Europe. In fact, Gates did nothing about the Empire, other than expand it, including in Europe.

Around the Globe, US Military Bases Generate Resentment, Not Security

http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/161378/around-globe-us-military-bases-generate-resentment-not-security

As MIG says, if Gates were really serious about pressuring NATO into carrying its share, he would have pulled UCA military bases out of Europe.

[symple19]

Dayum.





Homeslice isn't pulling any punches before stepping down, and said some things that needed saying.

Good for him, and I agree fully with his comments.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/06/libya-europe-and-future-nato

:tu

[Capt Bringdown]

They're like everyone else. They're not going to do something until they absolutely have to. Its smart. They get to fund national healthcare programs while we foot the bill for protecting them and the MIC laughs all the way to the bank.

How are we protecting them? From what, who?

[ManuBalboa]

blah blah blah

Amerikuh will continue its bullshit world police crusade, continue spending stolen fake money, continue expanding, blah blah blah.

[Capt Bringdown]

Missing Iraq money may have been stolen, auditors say (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-missing-billions-20110613,0,4414060.story)

U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion, sent by the planeload in cash and intended for Iraq's reconstruction after the start of the war.

But, but, but, it's Europe's fault.

[velik_m]

I hope they kick us out of NATO, should save us plenty of money. I don't even know why we have an army.

[ElNono]

^^^^ just what I was thinking... most countries simply have their priorities elsewhere...

[boutons_deux]

Other industrial countries are pre-occupied with their domestic politics and problems.

UCA is pre-occupied with garrisoning and policing the planet and Human-Americans for fabricated threats that keep the bogus War on Terror and Empire building and maintenance, transferring wealth from Human-Americans to Corporate-Americans.

[TeyshaBlue]

How are we protecting them? From what, who?

Ostensibly, from each other.:depressed

[DarkReign]

It will be interesting to see the day when NATO no longer exists and the countries far more concerned with national healthcare and social uplifting realize they are surrounded by foreigners.

In that world, if only one European power became desperate enough, they could steamroll the continent in weeks. Hope you like vodka, comrades.

Dissolve NATO, let the Euros believe a world without armies is a viable, longterm experience. Hell, it may even work. But inevitably, I guarantee, someone is going to look at them and realize what an easy target they are.

Hell, might even be the USA looking at an ever-ballooning debt spiral with no way out 50+ years after NATO's dissolution and say "Shit, them pussy Euros have lots of cash and resource. Lets take it."

[ElNono]

I don't think so, RG. I think if there would be an actual attack on any of the nations within the Euro block, they would pool their resources and fight it out, especially if it's the case as you propose of a single country trying to take over. The difference as I see it is that they're simply not interested in spending money to fight any wars that doesn't directly involve them or the Euro block. Instead of spending money to play world police, they just rather spend it domestically.

[DarkReign]

I don't think so, RG. I think if there would be an actual attack on any of the nations within the Euro block, they would pool their resources and fight it out, especially if it's the case as you propose of a single country trying to take over. The difference as I see it is that they're simply not interested in spending money to fight any wars that doesn't directly involve them or the Euro block. Instead of spending money to play world police, they just rather spend it domestically.

DR, but yeah. The problem lies in not having the military resource to stand against a world-leading military machine.

Think Polish cavalry versus German Panzers. If you arent at the forefront of the arms race, youre back of the bus.

Again, this is all theory-world bullshit, but its my opinion that the moment a nation of import and resource stops militarizing, they start their inevitable conquering.

[ElNono]

DR (sorry for the previous mixup), I don't even think it's an issue of stopping militarizing. Lots of those countries still have an above average army (if not in size, definitely in the technology department), and spend a good chunk keeping it up to date. It's the cost of having it active, in missions (with the potential of an equipment/life loss), for something that doesn't directly involves their country.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think so, RG. I think if there would be an actual attack on any of the nations within the Euro block, they would pool their resources and fight it out, especially if it's the case as you propose of a single country trying to take over. The difference as I see it is that they're simply not interested in spending money to fight any wars that doesn't directly involve them or the Euro block. Instead of spending money to play world police, they just rather spend it domestically.

Have they invested enough in security though? If the US pulled out of the middle east, terrorists would be likely to look at closer areas to target...

[Winehole23]

Hizbollah pretty much left us alone once we left Lebanon in early 1984, didn't they?

[LnGrrrR]

Hizbollah pretty much left us alone once we left Lebanon in early 1984, didn't they?

Yes, but I think that might be due to the geographic separation. Of course, there's always a possibility that we pull out, and the various factions just focus their intense hate towards each other. But if they are looking to expand outside their borders, I would think that Europe would be an easier target than America at that point.

[ElNono]

Have they invested enough in security though? If the US pulled out of the middle east, terrorists would be likely to look at closer areas to target...

I'm not privy to that info, but ultimately, isn't that their business? From an actual military standpoint, I know they still spend a good chunk in R&D and building planes like the Eurofighter Typhoon and what not.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not privy to that info, but ultimately, isn't that their business? From an actual military standpoint, I know they still spend a good chunk in R&D and building planes like the Eurofighter Typhoon and what not.

Oh yeah, not saying it's not their business. I'm just wondering, IF we pulled out of the Middle East, and IF the terrorists wanted to target something closer to home, are they prepared to deal with the possible ramifications?

Right now, terrorists in the ME are content to bother us since we're charging in with a stick and swinging at their hornets nests. However, if we were gone, would Europe become a more inviting playground?

Again, I have no idea how strong the police/military are in various European countries. I just look south to Mexico to see how bad the consequences can be when you neglect that kind of infrastructure.

[ElNono]

Oh yeah, not saying it's not their business. I'm just wondering, IF we pulled out of the Middle East, and IF the terrorists wanted to target something closer to home, are they prepared to deal with the possible ramifications?

Right now, terrorists in the ME are content to bother us since we're charging in with a stick and swinging at their hornets nests. However, if we were gone, would Europe become a more inviting playground?

Again, I have no idea how strong the police/military are in various European countries. I just look south to Mexico to see how bad the consequences can be when you neglect that kind of infrastructure.

Well, they already have dealt with the ramifications, including England and Spain. It's debatable whether those actions were merely retaliatory for siding with the US or if they had a different message. Some of these countries are not foreign to terror (At least to the level the US has been). Spain had to deal with ETA for far too long. England has had to deal with the IRA leftovers too. I don't have to tell you much about the former Yugoslavia (even that case didn't necessarily spill to the rest of the region).

Your comparison with Mexico is misguided. Europe is mostly a block of 1st world countries. There's more (Italy) or less (Germany, Switzerland) episodes of corruption, and there's also internal conflicts (Balkans), but the entire block is in it's majority very wealthy. If you want to draw a comparison, Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the US (illegal immigration problems, drug trafficking, etc). Due in part to that, and also it's close proximity to mostly Islam countries like Turkey, there's just much more interaction and acceptance of Muslims over there.

[velik_m]

In that world, if only one European power became desperate enough, they could steamroll the continent in weeks. Hope you like vodka, comrades.

I don't get it, so we're supposed to be afraid of our russian brothers? All other european powers are in the NATO alliance. If one of the allies attacks us, will the rest of the NATO respond? On our side? I'm not so sure...
In any case, how much of our budget should Slovenia give to our army to not get steamrolled?

[LnGrrrR]

ElNoNo, thanks for the input. I wasn't very well versed, and it's good to hear they'd be a least somewhat prepared.

[ElNono]

ElNoNo, thanks for the input. I wasn't very well versed, and it's good to hear they'd be a least somewhat prepared.

Don't get me wrong. I said I'm not privy to their capabilities. What I'm saying though is that they've dealt with this stuff before and there's marked differences between how we perceive the threat and how they perceive it.

I'm sure an Euro can give better input. There's a few on the board.

[DarkReign]

I don't get it, so we're supposed to be afraid of our russian brothers? All other european powers are in the NATO alliance. If one of the allies attacks us, will the rest of the NATO respond? On our side? I'm not so sure...
In any case, how much of our budget should Slovenia give to our army to not get steamrolled?

Apparently, the bare minimum 2% of GDP, by NATO treaty of which Slovenia applied for on their own out of a want to do so.

Russian brothers? I understand the sentiment, I do, but I wouldnt trust the Russians as far as you can throw them. Their wealth depends on the price of natural gas and oil, which are both finite as demand rises.

Since the hypothetical assumes 50 years after the dissolution of NATO, safe to say the world and its priorities will be far different by then. Literally, anything can happen.

[MannyIsGod]

I honestly don't give a rats ass if Slovenia wants to build up a military or not. What I do care, is that we provide protection to the entire continent at our expense. If Europe feels its safe, then bravo. But I don't want our military taking care of their foreign policy shit IE Libya or Kosovo.

[diego]

Yes, but I think that might be due to the geographic separation. Of course, there's always a possibility that we pull out, and the various factions just focus their intense hate towards each other. But if they are looking to expand outside their borders, I would think that Europe would be an easier target than America at that point.

maybe their main reason to "look to expand outside their borders" is to go tit for tat on the foreigners that are inside theirs?

Is middle eastern oil an "easier target" than venezuelan or russian oil?

I think the terrorist groups that are currently active would remain active if the foreigners left, but I think they would struggle to attract new recruits with the invaders gone, and considering their main method of attack is suicide bombing, they would either have to stop attacking or change tactics to keep their organizations running.

and I think venezuelan oil is an easier target for the US than middle eastern oil; likewise, I think the terrorists would attack their ideological foes, not their easiest target.

[DarkReign]

Don't get me wrong. I said I'm not privy to their capabilities. What I'm saying though is that they've dealt with this stuff before and there's marked differences between how we perceive the threat and how they perceive it.

I'm sure an Euro can give better input. There's a few on the board.

My point is that if one of those European powers decided to stop playing nice and conquer their neighbors, said neighbors would have no chance.

I hate to use Germany as an example only because of WW1 and 2, but lets pretend NATO is dissolved. Germany subsidizes the EU's very existence. Without Germany's economy and strong deutsche mark, the EU is kaput. What happens when they tire of this role? When they tire of subsidizing Greece and Spain's existence?

This is far off, well into the future, but a world without NATO and a (inevitable) weakening of the EU, the ground would be fertile for drastic, violent change.

If said perpetrator were an industrial powerhouse (like Germany or Russia) and they militarized for years while their neighbors did not, they could cakewalk to victory.

And the broke-as-hell Americans with no dog in the fight wouldnt give two shits.

[boutons_deux]

"the broke-as-hell Americans with no dog in the fight wouldnt give two shits"

UCA is never broke or Can't-Do when it comes fighting any wars or busting into other countries. UCA knows the bonds will be sold to finance the war, the UCA will pocket the very high profits, and Human-Americans are left holding the debts.

US went into WWI after extreme pressure from Wall St because Wall St was exposed in Germany. If Germany had won, there was risk that Germany would have blown off the Wall St banks.

It's huge, total bullshit myth that America fights wars for freedom and democracy. America fights wars for its own business interests, even more so now that US govt is completely controlled by corporations and capitalists.

[DarkReign]

"the broke-as-hell Americans with no dog in the fight wouldnt give two shits"

It's huge, total bullshit myth that America fights wars for freedom and democracy. America fights wars for its own business interests, even more so now that US govt is completely controlled by corporations and capitalists.

All true, which is why a non-NATO Europe ought to fear a demilitarized Europe. Too ripe for the picking to resist temptation, regardless of similarities in skin color and chosen worship of invisible men in the sky.

[velik_m]

Apparently, the bare minimum 2% of GDP, by NATO treaty of which Slovenia applied for on their own out of a want to do so.

You think 2% will keep us safe from Germany? Really?


Russian brothers? I understand the sentiment, I do, but I wouldnt trust the Russians as far as you can throw them. Their wealth depends on the price of natural gas and oil, which are both finite as demand rises.

Who's trusting them (though they were a better and more stable ally than say USA)? I just don't fear them, and if they ever occupy us... well they won't be the first and certainly not the worst major power to do so.


Since the hypothetical assumes 50 years after the dissolution of NATO, safe to say the world and its priorities will be far different by then. Literally, anything can happen.

Right, anything can happen, so why spend money now for weapons and soldiers that will be unusable in 50 years? Isn't it better to save that money and invest it in better economy?

[DarkReign]

I dont know how much more I can say beyond this; I wish the world was a better place, but it isnt.

The maxim "If you want peace, prepare for war" isnt some ancient sentiment to be remembered, its to be practiced vehemently.

Say whatever you want, IMO, there are only three reasons WW3 hasnt happened yet, in order:

1. Nuclear proliferation - ie mutually assured destruction
2. The fall of the Soviet Union
3. The United States being the sole military superpower of the world

Hate the US as much as you want, but imagine for a moment a different reality that made someone different the sole superpower, for example, the USSR, China or Nazi Germany.

Even if the stereotypical ideals of the US are just a facade we claim to respect, it is truly a testament to the US that they havent abused the throne FAR, FAR worse than they could have.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Thats the hit list of American military imperialism. Thats a fucking joke, a fucking joke. None of those countries had/have any infrastructure to write home about, or outside of Iraq, have any natural resource to really speak of that would be some "Crown Jewel" for the imperialists to take.

No, two of them where proxy wars with the Reds and the other two are barely a decade old, under the guise of king-making and the War on Terror.

When, if you really remove your subjectivity and nationalism from the equation, the 1950s through 2000s America could have conquered and controlled all of North and South America wholesale. By the pen or sword, two continents would become one nation, one flag, one resource, one military.

This could have been done before the 70s with ease. The next target, depending on world politics after such an expansion, would most likely have been the Orient. Again, weak infrastructure, poor governments (at that time) and individual militaries not worth even mentioning. Besides, as a genome, Asians are used to being conquered and controlled. They wouldnt bat an eye for too long at their new taskmasters.

At that point, only Europe and the USSR would be the last remaining threats/targets (Africa didnt count then just the same as it doesnt count now).

BTW, I am not talking about the American military you know and hate today and in WW2, I am talking about a Roman American military. Conquerors, nothing more, nothing less. Subjugators, not liaisons for ideology, peace and democracy. An autocratic, hegemonic society intent on world domination by pen or sword, that choice is left to your enemies.

That could have taken place, that could have been reality. You can argue that through the banking system and trade relations that America conquered the world through finance, not bloodshed already, but I am talking about something different.

I am saying, picture Hitler or Stalin with American military power and technology, with America's inherent geographic advantage and picture your world then. Far different world, I say.

"If you want peace, prepare for war" because the next superpower to usurp the US looks to be China. A jingoistic, communist society who has absolutely ZERO in common with anyone from Europe and a fiercely nationalistic populace that has been programmed to obey since birth. Dissenters are imprisoned, for life, while the government machine moves forward. Do you believe they will be as relatively benevolent with their power as the US was?

I dont...not by a fucking longshot.

[DarkReign]

You think 2% will keep us safe from Germany? Really?

No, it wouldnt. But those are the terms of NATO membership, of which nearly all members do not adhere to. I say, adhere to the terms agreed or dissolve it.

No more American military bases Europeans seem to hate so much. You win, we win. See how that works.



Who's trusting them (though they were a better and more stable ally than say USA)? I just don't fear them, and if they ever occupy us... well they won't be the first and certainly not the worst major power to do so.

That...whole defeatist attitude you displayed in the above explains so much about you, I dont even know where to begin.



Right, anything can happen, so why spend money now for weapons and soldiers that will be unusable in 50 years? Isn't it better to save that money and invest it in better economy?

If you arent leading the race, youre losing the race. You think that you will have a chance 50 years into the future by starting to militarize then as opposed to them starting now?

Ha. Seriously, laughable. What? Youre just going to...start a space program then to send all your satellites into orbit to combat their intelligence and situational awareness? Will you even have 3 stage rockets in time?

Ha. Laughable.

But judging by the "we've been occupied before, it wasnt so bad, better than you" attitude you have, Im hardly surprised.

[LnGrrrR]

maybe their main reason to "look to expand outside their borders" is to go tit for tat on the foreigners that are inside theirs?

That's what I hypothesized about why they're focusing on the US. If foreigners were to invade, I'm not sure if they'd turn on each other, or around nearby countries for add'l supplies/manpower/etc.

[LnGrrrR]

DR, I think you're forgetting that VelikM is from Slovenia. In his case, I can see his point about 2%. Will it make a difference in the long run if going up against a world power?

[velik_m]

If you arent leading the race, youre losing the race.
Right, but we can't win the "race". If you can tell me the plan by which we can win this "race", please tell me. So it's best to not even be in this pointless race.

And btw. we've been preparing for war from 1945 till 1990, when the army we financed attacked us. We have met the enemy and he is us.

[DarkReign]

Right, but we can't win the "race". If you can tell me the plan by which we can win this "race", please tell me. So it's best to not even be in this pointless race.

Slovenia by itself? No, youre right.

All NATO countries spending the required 2%? No army in the world could ever stand against you, conquer or occupy you.


And btw. we've been preparing for war from 1945 till 1990, when the army we financed attacked us. We have met the enemy and he is us.

No argument, very true words. Precarious, for sure.

[ElNono]

My point is that if one of those European powers decided to stop playing nice and conquer their neighbors, said neighbors would have no chance.

I'm not so sure about that. There's more than just NATO sustaining a mutual defense agreement in Europe (ie:Treaty of Lisbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon)).

The Treaty of Lisbon also states that:
The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.


I hate to use Germany as an example only because of WW1 and 2, but lets pretend NATO is dissolved. Germany subsidizes the EU's very existence. Without Germany's economy and strong deutsche mark, the EU is kaput. What happens when they tire of this role? When they tire of subsidizing Greece and Spain's existence?

Hate to break it to you, but Germany is actually one of those countries that only spends 1.3% of their GDP on defense. Countries like the UK and France actually spend substantially more in both GDP % and actual dollars than Germany (figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union))

There's 4 top dogs in Europe, militarily speaking: UK, France, Germany and to a lesser degree, Italy. It would require at least two of those to join forces to start some real ruckus (Which coincidentally was what happened in WWII, with Germany and Italy joining forces). But then back then there were clearly fascists governments in place. Never say never, but I'll say pretty unlikely that adds up to that again. I would argue that China in general poses a bigger threat.


This is far off, well into the future, but a world without NATO and a (inevitable) weakening of the EU, the ground would be fertile for drastic, violent change.

If said perpetrator were an industrial powerhouse (like Germany or Russia) and they militarized for years while their neighbors did not, they could cakewalk to victory.

And the broke-as-hell Americans with no dog in the fight wouldnt give two shits.

Today, the UK individually spends about the same as Russia on defense. France individually too.

Here's another list on general worldwide military spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

[ElNono]

All NATO countries spending the required 2%? No army in the world could ever stand against you, conquer or occupy you.

Let me point out that Europe actually spends 1.63% of their GDP on defense right now. Not all Euro members are NATO members though. That 1.63% is a lot of dough. It's almost 4x what China spends on defense, and China is ranked #3 right now in defense spending. So basically, the only country that spends substantially more than them is the US. For all intents and purposes, outside of the US invading, there really is nobody else that can stand against them.

[DarkReign]

What I meant by Germany "subsidizing the EU's existence" was more that their economy subsidizes the lesser economies of the EU, plain and simple.

My point is, at some juncture Germany is going to tire of the Euro being dragged down by failing governments and bailouts. Their economy is the strongest in Europe and it carries the freeloaders who promise their people social policies they cannot afford. Well, that they can actually afford so long as the EU keeps bailing them out whenever theyre about to go into receivership.

It is only my opinion that this Union cannot last under those conditions. I have family in Germany, Munich and Hamburg, theyre none to happy with the EU in general. Mainly because they tire of carrying the dead weight of Europe on their backs when their lives and well-being would be far better off without the EU.

IIRC, Britain never transitioned to the Euro, did they? Arent they still using the sterling pound? A question I have not researched, but I know that in speaking with our family, people want to go back to the Deutsche Mark. Its much, much stronger than the Euro and isnt degraded by the bailout of lesser entities (Greece, Spain).

[ElNono]

Britain and Denmark negotiated an opt-out of the Euro zone back when the original treaty was written. Sweden used a loophole to keep itself out.