_GOTOBOTTOM
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Is NATO still relevant?
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 03:03 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Let me pose this question to you. If NATO is based on the doctrine that an "attack against one is an attack against all" and the United States was attacked on September 11th, then why is there any question of NATO support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?


IMHO, DJ. It's politics. Somehow I get this feeling the world is regressing. It's like the 1920's again after WWI. That return to normalcy, thinking that peace has finally arrived now that the belligerent powers are gone.

I see it as a clash of interests. National interests against the interests of the world community.


AG-- so what do we do to combat the threat...which (IMHO) is pretty well defined and visible to all.
DJ
GunTruck
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 03:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Let me pose this question to you. If NATO is based on the doctrine that an "attack against one is an attack against all" and the United States was attacked on September 11th, then why is there any question of NATO support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?


I agree with penpen's statement on this question DJ.

The US was attacked on September 11th. The US responded by attacking the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan. There was no need for the US to call in NATO for assistance - but it was the concept of Alliance members standing with one another that was challenged ultimately. NATO stands for more than the "defense of Western Europe" line that most give - problem is - no one goes beyond that first tenet.

Iraq is a different situation - and again - I think other tenet's get lost in the sensational way our domestic media spins things.

Though it gets little "air time" for several weeks now more and more information comes out concerning Iraq's connection and enlistment of Libya in developing nuclear weapons to attack the US. This has been out for some time - and more so now that Libya has taken an abrupt turn towards the West. Iraq is believed to have strongly encouraged and funded Libya's nuclear development - as well as encouraging Libya to take the nuclear battle to the US. It is not thought that Iraq would have launched these nuclear attacks themselves - but they would certainly house, train, and equip the forces to do so.

Just as the Taliban Regime was attacked to stem global terrorism because it sponsors it - so was Iraq attacked to prevent the transfer and funding of nuclear weapons material to Libya. I don't think a lot of WMD's will be found in Iraq because they got that stuff outta there and across the border. Perhaps look in Syria and even Libya itself...

Not my personal opinion - just what has been related so far. I do happen to believe that VP Cheney and the present Administration does know more than the 9/11 Commission. What arrogance for that body to actually prop itself up that way!

This kind of news just doesn't reach the US Public - and when it does, it usually comes from a "shock jock" who's reputation usually calls any and everything they report into question.

The best way to keep a secret in America is to keep it right out in the open - no one listens and believes it anyway in the face of skepticism...

Gunnie
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:20 AM UTC
Friends of the History Forum-- I encourage you to read Gunnie's input regarding this question. His responses are a model of decorum and balanced logic. I might also add that I totally agree with his statements. If NATO is not a world wide deployable force (and I believe that it can not move) and if Europe is no longer threatened by a land invasion, should NATO orient itself to solve the terrorist threat to world stability? We are re organizing our military to respond to the most likely threats to our security. It is a complex but compelling process. So, once again read Gunnies commentary and think about how NATO would have to reorganize its military structure to deal with a asymmetric invasion of Europe. Like it or not that is happening right now. What does NATO do?
thanks
DJ
GunTruck
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 5,885 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,405 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:49 AM UTC
Hmmm DJ - no one has yet taken up your last question - so I'll take another stab at it...

Iraq's new government early on asked for NATO's support and help, I believe this was printed in the larger news outlets. NATO responded favorably to help Iraq.

This is a historic and perhaps telling symbol of NATO's future - and likely missed by the general public. NATO's grander purpose (assisting Alliance members and nations calling for aid outside of Europe) has been addressed. Though Iraq is not in Western Europe, it is very important to the greater security of that region as well as its geographic center in the Middle East. It occurs to me that NATO itself sees a greater role than just the defense of Western Europe and is addressing the threat of terrorism by responding favorably to Iraq's call for assistance - changing or demonstrating more than one mission or focus.

It is interesting to me to ponder whether or not NATO's membership will change in light of this possible growth and expansion of roles in the global community.

Is it too far-fetched to imagine Iraq a member of NATO?

Gunnie
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:34 AM UTC
Gunnie-- NATO will be valuable to world stability if they can collectively come to grips with the threat of terrorism. The penetrating question of the moment, IMHO, remains:

In view of the ongoing violence and assassination
attempts on new Iraqi leaders, do you think the transfer of
government from the Coalition Provisional Authority to
Iraqi self-control will succeed?

Now, if the NATO partners see that it will succeed, they are more apt to join the band wagon. The tragedy will be, just as it was with pre-war Germany in 1936, if the NATO alliance fails to appreciate and react to the terrorist threat. Terroirism will become a bigger danger. Signs of weakness appear already as the Philippines are hesitant to send more troops to the area based on the terrorist holding one of their citizens.
DJ

4-Eyes71
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:52 PM UTC

Quoted Text

AG-- so what do we do to combat the threat...which (IMHO) is pretty well defined and visible to all.
DJ


I concur with the way to address it. I'm just pointing out why others are opposed to it. Just giving a critique there.

As for the Philippine situation, as of now (depending on how fast I can get hold of the news), negotiators are on their way to Iraq and probably seeking assistance from "third parties" to secure the freedom of our compatriot there.

I foresee emotions running high here should anything happen to him. People here tend to get easily carried away by their emotions no matter how hard you try to rationalize it.

If it were up to me, I would not accede to their demands. This is something most people here do not seem to understand.
crossbow
Visit this Community
Antwerpen, Belgium
Member Since: April 11, 2003
entire network: 1,387 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 07:35 PM UTC
Ok, I going to give my (and it's just my opinion) view on Nato.

I think Nato should redefine itself. First of all create a rapid reaction force, this means a well trained, well equipped very modern (yes, the U.s. should share some of it's technology, just as they used to do...), quite good size force. This force could then be deployed wherever needed in a crisis situation. Also some country's could specialise... (Like Belgium does)

But most important, Nato should set-up a world-wide counter-terrorism intelligence network. Now every country has is own part of information and most of the time reacts too late on a terrorist threat. Don't leave this to UN, because this is turning into a debate club and some terrorist sponsers are members...

My opinion....

Kris
mikeli125
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Member Since: December 24, 2002
entire network: 2,595 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,079 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 08:51 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Ok, I going to give my (and it's just my opinion) view on Nato.

I think Nato should redefine itself. First of all create a rapid reaction force, this means a well trained, well equipped very modern (yes, the U.s. should share some of it's technology, just as they used to do...), quite good size force. This force could then be deployed wherever needed in a crisis situation. Also some country's could specialise... (Like Belgium does)

But most important, Nato should set-up a world-wide counter-terrorism intelligence network. Now every country has is own part of information and most of the time reacts too late on a terrorist threat. Don't leave this to UN, because this is turning into a debate club and some terrorist sponsers are members...

My opinion....

Kris


Kris,
Nato does have a rapid recation force called ARRC (allied Rapid Recation Corps) it's HQ element is base in Rheindalen, Germany same cap as were Hq British forces Germany are located
crossbow
Visit this Community
Antwerpen, Belgium
Member Since: April 11, 2003
entire network: 1,387 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 09:25 PM UTC
Hmm, as far as I know isn't this a "combined" force.

By this I mean, Infantry, armor, air support, logistics, communications,...
I mean a real army, that can operate fully independent and doesn't need to be build up whenever needed.

Kris
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 12:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hmm, as far as I know isn't this a "combined" force.

By this I mean, Infantry, armor, air support, logistics, communications,...
I mean a real army, that can operate fully independent and doesn't need to be build up whenever needed.

Kris


Kris-- this leads back to the points raised throughtout this discussion, the current force structure is incapable of dealing with the threat. The use of artillery and armor while still valuable is giving way to an urgent need for mor Soldiers on the ground holding rifles. Hunting and destroying terrorists is a combination of police forensics, intelligence gathering and brute force. The force structure needs to reflect these new requirements. If the UN is a debating club, the European equivalent is NATO. The current secretay general can not get the members to contribute three helicopters to efforts in Afghanistan. Does not sound too responsive to me.
DJ
crossbow
Visit this Community
Antwerpen, Belgium
Member Since: April 11, 2003
entire network: 1,387 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:01 AM UTC
I am afraid it's all down to public opinion...

Sacrificing fellow country men doesn't go down well.
They all shout this and that must happen, but as soon as there are a few casualties, it's let us get everyone back...

U.s. was hit hard on 9/11 and it retaliated, but now the critisism starts to pop up if all the military effort is still necessary.

Western politicians became very carefull with sending out military into battle, death bodies cost voters (ask Blair and Aznar).

I think that before Nato or UN or whatever alliance cooperation seriously cracks down on terrorism or any other malicious oragnisations or states,it will sadly take some more innocent civilians being killed in bloody attacks. Perhaps then if the body count is high enough there will be some united action...

Kris
greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:25 AM UTC
ive said it before and ill say it again, the UN is a powerless debating society. NATO is running the risk of becoming the same.

i personally feel that NATO no longer has much use, too many nations are unwillng to actually contribute to operations. by this i am not refering to actions over iraq, but kosovo, bosnia etc.

who was it that actually put troops in on the ground when it mattered? Britain and the USA contributed the vast majority of the troops who stabilised the countries. Britain and the USA contributed most of the peacekeeping troops. fair enough many other nations later took over the reigns, but when it mattered who was it who took action?

i feel that NATOs unilateral action pledge is no longer needed, nor would it ever be honoured.

and the biggest threat to NATO is without doubt france and germany. their sharded idea of an EU army to go with their EU supersate is a disturbing and dangerous idea. long over shadowed as by the USA and Britian over foreign policy, these two countries IMHO want to shift the balance towards giving them more power.

This bitterness towards the the close alliance between Britain and America is also IMHO the reason why france and germany so opposed the war in iraq(other than frances vested interests)

just my thoughts

joe
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 02:06 AM UTC
Joe-- I tend to agree with your analysis. It is a twisted web of vested interest. I fail to appreciate all of Kris' argument. Although, I feel he is quite correct that there is a proclivity to abandon the war due to the casualties. Unfortunately, no one ever exams just how many more attacks there would have been had we not joined with Britian and gone into Afghanistan and Iraq. Make no mistake, pip squeaks like Syria and Iran definitely think before they act. Their concern is that they might be next. Showing resolve here and staying the course will turn out to better the world.
DJ
greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 02:13 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Make no mistake, pip squeaks like Syria and Iran definitely think before they act. Their concern is that they might be next. Showing resolve here and staying the course will turn out to better the world.
DJ


i definately agree,

look at the recent fiasco where iran 'captured'/kidnapped those royal marines,
iran, supposedly the most powerful of the middle eastern states wimpered and released them within days.

the fact that 1/3rd of the british army is a few miles away might have helped their decision somewhat!

cheers

joe
crossbow
Visit this Community
Antwerpen, Belgium
Member Since: April 11, 2003
entire network: 1,387 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 02:37 AM UTC

Quoted Text


i personally feel that NATO no longer has much use, too many nations are unwillng to actually contribute to operations. by this i am not refering to actions over iraq, but kosovo, bosnia etc.


time for some info then:

Belgums Nato efforts:

We currently supply F-16's for the Baltic reconaissance and defence force. Commanded by Nato.

Until very recently we had military troops in Kosovo, which have been there from the start of Nato operations. Are now replaced by police training forces.

We are still deploying military in Afghanistan and will be sending more later this year.

Ok, we opposed th Iraq conflict, but we allowed the use of Antwerp port for use by the U.s. forces for troop and equipment transports. Also we opened airspace for U.s. and U.k. warplanes.

More info on this on the official site of the Belgian army:

http://www.mil.be/def/index.asp?LAN=E

(I'm not sure if they list Nato operations on the English site)

Ok, perhaps we don't send first rate battle troops, we don't have those.... Belgium never had the means for an offensive army, defense has always been priority.
We always helped... as good as we are able to, but we are just a smal sprocket in the Nato machine.

For compensation Nato and SHAPE HQ are in Belgium, so staff will always have good food and beer

BTW, don't take our minister of defense to serious, every country has its rights to a moron diplomat (no pun intended...) :-) :-) :-)

Kris
greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 02:50 AM UTC
kris,

thanks for the info, i was aware of belgiums assistance, the same goes for canada, italy and a few others, however as you pointed out, belgium and the others that assisted have small armed forces mainly concerned with the defense of their own borders and interests.

the same could not be said of nations such as france and germany, both of whom i believe have bigger armed forces than Britain, but are so un-willing to commit forces for anything of any serious nature.

the assistance of countries like yours is a valuable part of deployments and operations, its the 'big' boys i have an issue with.

i would hate to see the french and germans actually fight anyone, although maybe once their armies had been made fools of they would drop the attitudes!

cheers

joe
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 09, 2004 - 04:18 AM UTC
The challenge is to ask NATO why do we still Belgium F-16s patrolling the Baltic? Is there a threat from that location? My point is that NATO needs to orient and configure towards the the new threat. It is nice that we have a rapid reaction force in NATO, but it did not go anywhere or do anything in the current war against terrorism. So, unfortunately, until another attack by these thugs, the woorld at large and some at home in the US, will continue to criticize Bush for doing something about the threat before it happens. No one perceived Hitler as a threat in 1936.
DJ
4-Eyes71
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 05:02 PM UTC

Quoted Text

kris,
i would hate to see the french and germans actually fight anyone, although maybe once their armies had been made fools of they would drop the attitudes!
joe


Since you mentioned it, it reminded me of this novel written by Larry Bond titled "Cauldron." Bond seems to be so adept in writing about hypothetical wars enough to make Tom Clancy proud.

If this would really happen, this book may become prophetic.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 12:51 AM UTC
I think if you told us more about the book, we could better appreciate your observation.
DJ
phoenix-1
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Member Since: December 25, 2003
entire network: 629 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 04:32 AM UTC

Quoted Text

My point is that NATO needs to orient and configure towards the the new threat. It is nice that we have a rapid reaction force in NATO, but it did not go anywhere or do anything in the current war against terrorism. DJ


I was just thinking about this and came up with somewhat of a solution. As we saw in Iraq, the US and its allies had no problems taking out the main established army of Iraq. However, when it came down to policing operations and dealing with a small fractionalized terrorist / freedom fighter group, the allies seem to be ill equiped to deal with the new problem. Now to my suggestion. I would suggest the creation of a NATO police force and I am not talking about a military police unit. I would like to see those involved in peacekeeping operations trained as police officers, not as soldiers. This force would then be able to be rapidly deployable to a threat region after main military operations have been completed. These trained police officers could then be used to train the country's new police forces more adequately because they were trained as police in the first place. This way you keep the two groups doing what they do best: police are able to police and the soldiers are able to fight the wars.
Kyle
penpen
Visit this Community
Hauts-de-Seine, France
Member Since: April 11, 2002
entire network: 1,757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 10:47 PM UTC

Quoted Text



i would hate to see the french and germans actually fight anyone, although maybe once their armies had been made fools of they would drop the attitudes!

joe


Just an info : politicians in your country and in my country disagree about what the interest of their countrys are. This doesn't mean that the politicians in your country or in mine are more stupid than the other, or are more interested in their personal interests...
It is the same about the military and the rest of the population.

Now, France also has troops in afghanistan. We had troops in Bosnia very early (quite a few friends of mine spent time there fighting under the UN)... there are french troops in many places in Africa to stop several conflicts (peace-keeping operations are just as needed there)... french troops also help several countrys to secure mined areas (cambodia, angola...)...


greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:31 PM UTC
pen pen,

i appreciate your points, and i know france has a very different political viewpoint to Britain,
but from the amount of influence france seems to think it has(or should have) your government seem unwilling to commit COMBAT troops to operations, peacekeeping is all well and good, but it was british, americans (possibly canadians) who actually drove the serbs from kosovo etc

IMHO the only reason france opposed the war in iraq was due to fact that the vast majority of WMDs etc that iraq had prior to the 1991 gulf war were supplied by france. were they scared of what we might find still left there?

i also stand by my statement that france and germany are the single biggest threat to NATOs continued existance. the ulterior motive of a federal europe and its own army is deeply worrying, and any steps towards this will further undermine NATO.

cheers

joe
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:48 PM UTC
May I ask that we revisit Kris' statement on Belgium aircraft continuing to patrol the Baltic. To me, this is a further sign/evidence that NATO is not keeping pace with threats. The Baltic area was a possible Soviet invasion route. That threat has disapppeared. Why are they still flying there?
DJ
crossbow
Visit this Community
Antwerpen, Belgium
Member Since: April 11, 2003
entire network: 1,387 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 12, 2004 - 01:12 AM UTC
We are still flying there on request of the new Nato-states (Estonia, Lituania,...). Apparantly they still feel a threat from the big neighbour.

Kris
phoenix-1
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Member Since: December 25, 2003
entire network: 629 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 12, 2004 - 01:43 AM UTC

Quoted Text

IMHO the only reason france opposed the war in iraq was due to fact that the vast majority of WMDs etc that iraq had prior to the 1991 gulf war were supplied by france.
joe


Someone correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the US also contribute a large amount of WMDs and conventional weapons to the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq conflict?
Kyle
 _GOTOTOP