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/charl...nd-future-nato

[coyotes_geek]

Gates is spot on.

I wish he wasn't leaving.

[RandomGuy]

Full speech at:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...-natos-future/

The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appe e 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/...t-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/charl...nd-future-nato

[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 bull world police crusade, continue spending stolen fake money, continue expanding, blah blah blah.

[Capt Bringdown]

Missing Iraq money may have been stolen, auditors say

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.

[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. , it may even work. But inevitably, I guarantee, someone is going to look at them and realize what an easy target they are.

, might even be the USA looking at an ever-ballooning debt spiral with no way out 50+ years after NATO's dissolution and say " , 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 bull , 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.