Gen. Jones: NRF will not be ready in time

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Feb 11, 2006.

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. Oh please! :roll:
  2. If NATO cant standup a quick reaction force then I doubt the EU will be able to. Believe me if I had my way we would shut down NATO and leave the defense of Europe to the EU.
  3. I wouldn't say that the role of NATO is to defend europe any more pal... Its more like they are the teeth arms of the UN, but it's still a valid point, get the septics out of europe! Lets see how they like that!

    T C
  4. That's a somewhat isolationist point of view tom... as much as the US government, democrat and republican, like to think that Steel tarrifs and beating the "anti european imperialist viewpoints" drums will help the USA I think a lot of educated people would tell you they don't.

    Globilisation isn't a dirty word, it's just a harsh fact. Our security is your security. Just as the protection of american financial interests is in our interests.

    NATO is a very worthwhile organisation that has a capability that the UN cant provide. An EU force might be up to par eventually but I'm not sure that the lack of the USA in the equation wouldn't a) be detrimental to US interests and b) detrimental to our capability through the resource that the USA can bring to the party e.g. lift capability.
  5. EU without NATO. Crying time again.
    Our Yank colleges have much to answer for in this world, but as Europe is not prepared to pay for it's own defence in either terms of Money or Lives, Nato is still a must.
  6. Why would the US bother with NATO if it can't even provide a deployable force of 25,000 troops?
  7. The problem with NATO is that most nations are unable to deploy forces in anything more than battalion strength. Battalion strength is fine for the odd peacekeeping mission but just not good enough for a Desert Storm/OIF type operation. Second most of these countries lack the will to deploy forces in the face of serious opposition. In short many[not all] countries in NATO are unreliable.
  8. "In short many[not all] countries in NATO are unreliable."
    True oh so true, bet ya'd like a Kraut brigade or two.
  9. To be fair I prefer my German armies small and crap, rather than large and efficient...
  10. And I always thought that all this Euro poo wuz ta make sure there never wuz another single dominant europower.
    Apart from a socialist state.
  11. Gotta admire the chutzpah--sit out the entire frikking Cold War outside the treaty framework, jump in once NATO's performed its role of slaying the great Eastern dragon, and now run around spouting off about what NATO should and shouldn't do. Sod off. :roll:

    LBJ to his SecState on hearing of De Gaulle's demand for all US forces to leave French soil: "Ask him if he means the dead ones, too!" :evil:
  12. Posters seem to be missing the point

    For a start European membership of EU and NATO is virtually identical - especially those with any capability to speak of

    The French have been actively undermining NATO since its inception so that they can split the Septics away, thereby reducing Brit influence in European defence affairs [because we are so closely related] and boost the EU 'Grand Project'. Note also that for most of the Cold War thy had a buffer state [West Germany] between them and the Red Army, and guess where French nukes would have threatened the Soviet advance? Not in La Belle France! Ask anyone currently in Brussels on the EU Military Staff and they will tell you the games they are playing

    Finally the reason other nations have so many problems raising forces for NATO deployments is that darn democratic accountability

    Most of them cannot deploy forces abroad without Parliamentary approval, and have to request funds to do so (note in the UK the Dear Leader can [and has] do it unilalterally under the Royal Perogative, at least until 'call me Dave' gets elected and changes it). Most of those nations would rather spend money on social projects [much like this government] - deployable capabilities are expensive.

    In some cases that requirement was imposed by ourselves, eg Germany after WW2, to prevent former Corporals going walkabout

    Most of those parliaments also insist on a clear mission[one associated with national self interest], exit strategy etc

    NATO is safe as long as France and the EU are kept in their place - fat chance with this government
  13. You realize of course, that we reneged on our promise to Ho Chi Minh of Indo-Chinese independence, in order to keep these jokers in NATO.

    We all know what happened with that.
  14. Had it occured to you, that maybe it was a deliberate and conscious decision NOT to? I accept some member states do want to create such a force, but 3 or 4 do NOT speak for all. Moreover, those that choose to do so, do it for national reasons, not EU reasons.

    Why do you say this is a "problem"? As mentionned in the response above, this is a deliberate and conscious decision. Just because the US (and the UK) wants to send troops around the war on dubious military interventions, doesn't mean to say other states should follow suit. It's only a "problem" to a state that has overextended its own forces and is now looking for other states to provide the fillers of bodybags.

    Read my lips (words).. The do NOT lack the will, they have made a conscious decision not to follow blindly the US's lead in this respect - they don't agree with it!!!!!!!! When you, and more importantly your administration recognises this, maybe the world may become a safer place.

    Spoken like a 'true' believer. What lengths will man go to when blind faith has taken root???

    Oh please, please, do....