Is NATO coming apart?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Outstanding, Jun 15, 2007.

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. It seems as though it is, as the US appear likely to halve their National commitment.

    This at the same time that certain nations ( who can all be named), are not prepared to send troops into conflict.

    Has NATO now run its coure?
  2. It ran its course a fair few years ago mate.
  3. Nato died a death once the french and germans were no longer under direct threat of soviet invasion.

    It was obvious that they would never fulfil any commitment to fight in any campaign where their own survival was not under direct threat.
  4. Fair points but it still exists and sucks up a large chunk of manpower and cahs, as well as getting UK involved in situations that it can do without, with poor leadership and a very strange CoC.
  5. Bosnia


  6. Was it ever together - just ask anyone who has, or is in a Nato unit now how well each nation gets on with each other, who are the lazy idle mothers and who does the work - Nato has NEVER been a succesful organisation - Kept together by the Minority perhaps............but never an organisation taking seriously by an opposition
  7. Sorry mate, don't understand what this list of countries means in relation to the question.?
  8. Labrat is dead on... NATO ceased to have value the day the Soviet Union went to shambles.

    Addendum... by value I meant as a unified body with a purpose. Some folks hoped that NATO would become the core structure of an international military to operate under the UN but that obviously is not going to work since several of the members signed the treaty purely to keep the bear out of their yard and now can give two bits about it.
  9. After the recent NATO shambles in Afg. I had massive doubts about NATO's usefullness, and it got me thinking....

    Could we start again and get a new one? Recently it looks like only the Dutch, Canadians, US, UK, Estonians and Germans are putting their money where their mouthes are.

    For me this isn't a definativfe list... not even close, but I would like to hear what people on here think.

    If you had to make a 'new NATO', what would it's role be and who would be in it?

    T C
  10. Depends on what its used for. I deployed with a German unit to help with the pakistani earthquake, and it worked well, but i dont know what its like in larger scale deployments
  11. I meant for anything really. If you take Afg, as an example; Do you think a new NATO-Light, made up of fewer Nations, would work better in Afg.? To me it seems that it's the same countries sending troops, while the other's just mince about. Would loosing the mincers improve NATO?

    I dunno, I just want to hear your ideas about a new NATO light (I really like that new name...) or if there is any need for anything like it.

    T C
  12. NATO died as an operational military alliance over Kosovo - the US would never again be constrained by committee and indeed turned down NATO's offer of help in the initial 2001 invasion of Arghanistan. Now NATO is struggling to fulfil its commitments in Afghanistan.

    NATO basically continues because it gives the Europeans some sort of leverage over the USA and because it acts as a standardisation agency.
  13. Andy, thiunk that you are partly right. NATO has lost the limited military effeciveness it retained whilst there was threat from Russia, howver it still has a military capability, it is just gaining the concensus to utilise that force that has now become a problem. Additionally the introduction of another 10 (fairly useless) members has only added to that difficulty. I don't think that NATO member countries feel that they have leverage over the US, as the US provides such alarge element of the CoC and the technology, in fact I think that it may even be the other way around. My view is that many countries like to be in NATO as it gives them some credibilty on the world stage and provides protection (under Art 5 ) against aggression from their neighbours. Sadly these nations are by and large poor and militarily weak, so their contribution to NATO is at best limited and at worst actually a drain. If the US does reduce its commitment to NATO, to focus more on IRAN, then that will cause significant strains on NATO, especially as they are stuck in ISAF and ramping up a new mission in Addis Adaba.
  14. I think a military network needs to exist. I think joint-training operations, personnel exchanges, and liasons need to exist. For instance, I talked briefly once to a Turkish soldier who'd spent some time at SHAPE, and ended up hanging out with an American and Norwegian soldier quite a bit. It builds comradery and allows troops to learn from each other as professionals. I actually think that we ought to bring troops from Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East into programs like that. Maybe this wouldn't be a solid "Alliance", but I think it would serve a reasonable role

    Now, onto NATO as it is now. At the very least, from what I've heard, NATO troops always get along fine. The problem is that Politicians ultimately decide how much they're willing to commit. Alot of NATO troops, while disciplined and well trained, are on a very short leash.

    In Afghanistan, US, British, Canadian, Dutch, Danish, and Estonians put up a good fight in combat last year. And in fairness to other nations, many have been reasonably effective in CIMIC and ANA training roles in Afghanistan.

    Now, this is completely second hand, so if anyone has anything to add, or any part that they think is off, please tell me.
  15. Just depends on the campaign mate. Turns out they might have made the smart move staying out of Iraq after all, although I acknowledge that no-one really thought the Bush Administration would balls things up as badly as they did. Unfortunately this has tainted the public perception of the war in Afghanistan, since most French and German people I talk to regard it is another failure waiting to happen, and don't think they should get dragged into something that is not their mess.
    This is understandable but totally wrong, since the Allies are far from screwed in Afghanistan, and it's way too early to be giving up on the place.
    However, France has done a few good things here or there lately, like speaheading the deployment to Lebanon (when nobody else wanted to), and you've gotta understand Germans are by and large against their Soldiers getting into Combat outside of Germany (it hasn't lead to good things in the past).
    That said, you're right, they need to start pulling their weight. France and Germany could both sustain a Brigade given their large forces and relatively few committments elsewhere compared to the UK and Canada.
    Hopefully Sarko will try to turn things around, although he's going to be up against so much strife as he demolishes the old welfare state that he might try to avoid the heat associated with fighting a fairly unpopular war as well.