Future of NATO "Dismal"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Commissar, Jun 10, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Gates warns of 'dismal future' for NATO without urgent changes - CNN.com

    outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says NATO has become a "two-tiered" alliance poorly equipped to deal with challenges, and with members either unable or unwilling to carry out agreed missions in Afghanistan and Libya.

    In his farewell speech Friday to the NATO Council in Brussels, Gates pulled few punches in listing the shortcomings of the alliance.

    In particular, he drew a contrast between those members "willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership ... but don't want to share the risks and the costs."

    "This is no longer a hypothetical worry," he said. "We are there today, and it is unacceptable."

    Gates called for urgent action to "avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance."

    Ultimately, he said, "nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense."

    The defense secretary said the problem was in part one of resources.

    Pointing to one estimate that European defense spending had declined by nearly 15% in the decade following 9/11, Gates said that only five of the 28 allies now spent the agreed target of 2% of GDP on defense.

    Gates said the allied mission in Afghanistan had exposed significant shortcomings of NATO -- in military capabilities and political will.

    "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 40,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets," he said.

    Gates praised governments that had stepped up in Afghanistan.

    "Frankly, four years ago I never would have expected the alliance to sustain this operation at this level for this long, much less add significantly more forces in 2010," he said.

    That had "decisively changed the momentum on the ground," but NATO must now guard against a "rush to the exits."

    "The way ahead in Afghanistan is "in together, out together," Gates said -- with the aim of "inflicting a strategic and ideological defeat on terrorist groups that threaten our homelands."

    Gates had harsh words for the conduct of the air campaign against the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. He said it had become "painfully clear" that shortcomings could "jeopardize the alliance's ability to conduct an integrated, effective and sustained air-sea campaign."

    "While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said.

    Some did not want to -- others simply were unable to. NATO lacked intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to do the job. Gates gave one critical example: "NATO air operations center in Italy required a major augmentation of targeting specialists, mainly from the U.S., to do the job ... We have the spectacle of an air operations center designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150."

    Gates praised some NATO members for punching above their weight in the Libya operation.

    "Norway and Denmark have provided 12% of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets," he said. But such examples were the exceptions.

    Gates concluded with a candid warning about American willingness to continue bearing a growing part of the NATO burden.

    "The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress ... 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 a serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

    NATO members must better allocate their resources, follow through on commitments and protect defense budgets from being "further gutted" to avoid "a dismal future," Gates said.

    Following the US defence secretary's statement that the future of NATO looks "Dismal" without urgent changes should we seriously be looking at increasing defence spending post 2015 to ensure that we don't see US support move to the Pacific where they are facing a growing challenge from China.
  2. Realistically is NATO the way forward, if the "European Army" goes ahead Nato will really be dead in the water. America have always done their own thing and don't seem to really want to be part of it anyway.
  3. The only "European army" I can realistically see now is a Joint Anglo-French force.

    Maybe a joint Amphibious Marine division and an airborne equivalent.

    That would certainly be a useful force in the 21st Century IMHO.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. The EU army would face the same problems as NATO, half the countries couldn't give less of a damn when the support is there (US now EU later) but when its gone they'll feel horribly exposed.

    I prefer NATO over an EU armed forces any day, everyone still has to chip in their $5 and in NATO we get US might backing us up.

    I think the main element of Gates' argument is that many NATo members are spending less than the 2% required and this is leading to a critical shortage of critical units which do not directly engage in combat such as air refuelling tankers command and control aircraft and general logistical support and this has led to the European NATO members only being able to contribute a force of 40,000 max. A drop in the ocean compared to US unilateral strength.
  5. They are re-orientating towards Asia Pacific..."Old Europe" pretty much means all of Europe now including the UK. :|
  6. I agree. Only the UK and France seem to take a real interest in defence now.

    The US will have it's hands full in the 21st century with peer/near peer competitors. We (Europe in general) will have to start looking out for itself/themselves more....much more.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    Yesterday the Herman defence minister offered Afrika Korps teile 2 for Libya (after the actually military stuff has finished of course).
  8. I have talked about this in another thread, with the US orienting towards the Asia Pacific region NATO could fill an important niche of defence from the Atlantic to the Middle East, freeing up US assets for other duties. There's still life in this alliance yet. Failing that I think that the UK and possibly France should look towards a trilateral defence agreement with the US outside of NATO, I believe that they still value our commitment, if not that of all NATO members.
  9. Maybe we could get a Common Military Fund to replace the Common Agricultural Pact. Those that don't fancy fighting wing some cash towards those that do.
  10. No system is infinitely sustainable without revision. Sometimes you just need to prune the bureaucracy. If NATO goes away, another organization will inevitably take its place.

    I'm sick of that ****. I wish he would just leave office quietly and stop talking. Not that Leon Panetta is looking much better. (****ing CIA.)
  11. <head above parapet>

    I'd have said France is the only country in Europe currently taking defence seriously.
  12. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    the danes allways commit but I allways wonder if its a put up job by the germans as they werent allowed to send troops overseas like the japs.
  13. In response to the article, all valid points imho. We love the peace dividend and are unwilling to pay for collective defence, as we much prefer giving our money away.

    Soon the only NATO country to be able to operate wih any true force will be the USA, further cuts in defence spending (by all EU countries) leaves a massive hole in capability - one which we expect the USA to pick up the tab. If I was them I'd tell the rest of NATO the same put up or shut up.
  14. I'm of the opinion that rather than seeing NATO become useless, we're seeing a divergence of beliefs as to what it's for. When there's been a broad consensus, it acted: when there hasn't, it didn't. Well, it is an alliance, after all, and not a confederation.

    Gates' statement seems redolent of the sort of thing we got used to under the last presidency - if you're not with us you're against us, if it doesn't support us (on second thoughts, make that US) then it's useless. Objectively, that's not actually the case. Perhaps the US could strengthen its waning leadership position by acknowledging that and acting on that assumption?
  15. The yanks would do well to leave NATO and go into isolation. Why should they carry The EU defence force (Basically what its going to become) when The EU aren't willing to take NATO matters seriously.

    Also standing by for incoming when I say we would do well to do similar as if The Yanks get off that would leave us and our underfunded over stretched armed forces leading from the front.