NATO members refusal to support a NATO mission means

NATO members refusal to support a NATO mission means

  • That Nato should be disbanded

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The members were simply indulging in some Anti Americanism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Should be restructured into the NATO of the willing and capable

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Allah Akbar Crusader dogs you have lost

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NATO just didn’t want to reenact Zulu

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NATO will work next time honest

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
Well like it says on the poll NATO - if you can opt out of providing even basic air lift support to fellow members in the field, is it worth it? Could UK funds and assets allocated to NATO be used for something useful?

Jonny Afghan defeated the Warsaw Pact (ish), will NATO allow the Pashtun to sent it into oblivion as well?
 
#3
armchair_jihad said:
Could UK funds and assets allocated to NATO be used for something useful?
yeah equip the boys with the kit they need, take off the handcuffs, 9 months l8r job done, c'mon home!
 
#4
All this proves again when it comes to the crunch you have got to look after yourself. The only support we have is from the US. As for Europe they are just appeasers as they show again and again.

Have we learnt nothing from history.
 
#5
NATO is simply not capable of undertaking this role, which requires many years of negotiations, agreements and ratifications even before any doctrine, strategies and operating procedures are developed - throw the interoperability of equipment in a new role into this melting pot and it gets even worse. How long does it take to develop STANAGs etc at the sub-working group level, before getting them signed off at the various national and NATO levels? How long does it take to implement them?

The failings are at the political level - European leaders perceiving a cost-free opportunity to strut their stuff on the international stage, the US seeing an opportunity to augment their own international forces without relying on the unreliable UN - and not the level of the soldier, who will bear the brunt of this.
 
#7
Warrior_Poet said:
Always puzzles me that NATO HQ is in f*cking Belgium, why???
Happened when the French bailed out, needed a quick HQ and Belgium had a newly built hospital going cheap plus they wanted the jobs
 
#8
if they don't rock up, the whole basis of the treaty is defunct. Thsnks guys, perhaps we should have just let the Sovs eat you up all those years ago...
 
#9
I spent 1999 - 2002 at NATO HQ on loan to the FCO as part of our Delegation there, and this is all pretty much par for the course: not for nothing did we used to refer to NATO as "No Action, Talk Only". Immediately after 9/11 the North Atlantic Council met in emergency session and it was at this meeting that the NAC (eventually) agreed to invoke Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty (the bit that states that an attack on one member state is an attack on all). Even that agreement was not reached without some serious arm-twisting of the usual suspects (Belgium, France etc) who were quite happy to make grand statements of support but who came over all coy when it was time to actually do something.

As far as I know, the invocation of Article V has not been revoked, so NATO could actually be abrogating its own treaty by refusing to help, although we're probably getting into legal sophistry here.
 
#10
johnny said:
All this proves again when it comes to the crunch you have got to look after yourself. The only support we have is from the US. As for Europe they are just appeasers as they show again and again.

Have we learnt nothing from history.
I believe the Canadians are getting amongst it as well but don't get as much coverage they perhaps deserve.

But yes the Europeans tend to be quite content to ride this one out in safe(ish) rear areas.
 
#12
What is the point of the treaty now ?? Lets reform without the ones that dont want to help each other. I thought the UN was toothless, but I expected better of NATO.
 
#13
I attended quite a few low-level NATO meetings (and conferences which were p!ss ups more than anything else) and change does indeed progress at glacial speed, with international squabbles replicated at varying levels of bureaucracy. We were kicked out of our meeting room on one occasion as the meeting was inconveniently scheduled for the 3rd week of September 2001. It was worth it for those EuroStar trips to Brussels (business class, as the return dates had to be flexible because the meeting itinerary was never set until the first day of the meeting!).
 
#14
AndyPipkin said:
Slowly but quietly, an Anglosphere military alliance is taking shape which will eventually replace NATO.
I agree and the progress gets faster, roll on the day.
 
#15
I think a significant consideration is the Political fall out that would happen in Spain, Portugal et al when they start taking casualties.
 
#16
drain_sniffer said:
I think a significant consideration is the Political fall out that would happen in Spain, Portugal et al when they start taking casualties.
which is tough titty. You are in or out, its time for them to make up their minds
 
#18
londonirish said:
drain_sniffer said:
I think a significant consideration is the Political fall out that would happen in Spain, Portugal et al when they start taking casualties.
which is tough titty. You are in or out, its time for them to make up their minds
Totaly agree. But just look what happened following the Madrid bombing. New Government voted in and troops leave Iraq faster than the French can hoist a white flag
 
#19
Ok , two questions, before we start lumping NATO in the same boat as the UN.

NATO was formed to react to which threat??

The definition of the mission in Afghanistan is what exactly?

Now you are a continental Defence Minister who has to sell that to his Government and population, who can all see just how the other US-led initative on T.W.A.T is going.

Do you wonder it is taking time? No clear mission , no clear mission goals, no set timetable to achieve the above, and Pakistan is busy enabling umpteen thousand more 'freedom fighters' to come and ging-gang-goolie on the next Platoon House/MSR Fort.

No I wouldn't be in a rush to commit troops to that either.
 
#20
There are two characteristics of this evolving cluster:

1. NATO is not fit for the mission for a variety of reasons;

2. The mission is incoherent - are we rebuilding Afghanistan, wrecking it or both (better to wreck it first rather than vice versa).

It is unsurprising that nations are unwilling to put up troops. There is nothing to say they should - no ORBAT, no defined roles, nothing! There is no self-interest - the Afghans are not yet likely to roll across Germany in their T55s. The only self-interest is in Whitehall and Downing Street - if this mission (whatever it is) fails or is perceived to have failed, then Bliar's position and legacy are shattered (even more than now).

What does our dear Secretary of State say to his fellow defence Ministers when visiting Brussels? Is it the same cr@p he spouts to Parliament and the media?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top