NATO's obsolete... but like all entrenched bureaucracies, it grows and grows

[cwjerome]

When the Cold War ended and the last vestiges of the Warsaw Pact crumbled, NATO not only remained, but was emboldened. This remnant to the Soviet threat is a dinosaur. It's a relic that belongs to history. It should have died with the Berlin Wall.

Try to put yourselves into Russian shoes. Your "empire" has fallen and now the organization that faced you off is growing larger and getting closer. Because of its historical mission, NATO still has an air of anti-Russian quality about it. All broadening the base and powers of NATO does is needlessly isolate and frighten Russia. It's not the sort of policy that creates an atmosphere of goodwill at a time when Russia is battling some internal issues. Why use an obsolete military alliance when it only contributes to the creation of a forceful adversary?

NATO has been kept on life support by the UN and its butt-kissers and businesses that gain from NATO and its expansion. This is why we are making NATO larger while potential enemies are getting smaller. The answer lies in the global agenda of internationalists who love large cross-national treaties, alliances, conventions, resolutions and laws. It serves many of their "one-world" purposes, including the goal of hand-tying the United States and using it for global welfare. This is the reason NATO ends up hurting American security and interests instead of helping it.

Time to put it down. All the rationale behind Washington's "avoid entangling alliances" comment is more true today than ever before. The benefits are short-term, mostly illusory, and the end result means putting the US in sorry positions it need not be in.

 

[GoPackGo]

NATO may very well be needed again someday.

As Putin rebuilds Russia in his own image.

 

[cwjerome]

They way we're going, who could blame Russia? What we see is exactly why NATO should have disbanded. All it's been doing is creating a potential monster to rise again. Kill it.

 

[magomago]

I defintely agree with you here. NATO's main reason for existance was to counter communist expansion...it is not needed anymore.

 

[rahvin]

NATO is a stategic affirmation of shared common values between europe and north america, a relationship that hopefully Europe will share a greater role in supporting financially in the future. I see Russia as part of NATO some day.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: rahvin
NATO is a stategic affirmation of shared common values between europe and north america

This is the key. In many ways, NATO is the alliance of western civilization.

I doubt there is much overhead to keep NATO running. You might as well keep it around until the time comes when it's needed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
...
All the rationale behind Washington's "avoid entangling alliances" comment is more true today than ever before. The benefits are short-term, mostly illusory, and the end result means putting the US in sorry positions it need not be in.

Actually...no. Like it or not, we live in an interdependent world where countries rely on each other for survival. This is not Washington's time where isolationism actually worked. But that idea hasn't worked for a long time, something I thought would have been obvious from WWII. We were prepared to simple let Europe fall to Hitler until Japan attacked us and Hitler declared was on us. In retrospect, that would have been terrible idea, even waiting as long as we did probably cost a great many lives.

The point is this...we don't live in a bubble, and while Washington was a smart guy, he didn't have a crystal ball that allowed him to see hundreds of years into the future. Times change.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
They way we're going, who could blame Russia? What we see is exactly why NATO should have disbanded. All it's been doing is creating a potential monster to rise again. Kill it.

I'm not convinced NATO is necessary, but I'm not sure we can blame Putin's behavior on NATO. That guy is (IMHO) somewhat of a lunatic and NATO may very well end up being necessary again.

People often forget this, but Russia is still a huge military power. And more than that, they still have enough nukes to destroy everything. Seems like keeping an eye on them, especially with KGB boy at the helm, doesn't seem like a bad idea.

 

[SuperTool]

Right on. NATO is just a burden on the US to provide for defense of countries which don't have much to contribute to the defense of the US.
Russia has a shrinking population and more land than it can effectively govern already. All European countries are consumers of Russia's natural resources. A free and thriving Europe is in Russia's best interest. An isolated Russia is not in Europe's or US' best interest. If US and Europe isolate Russia, Russia will turn to China and India. China's production capacity with Russia's natural resources, scientific and weapons experitise, will make it a lot stronger both militarily and economically. Dittos for India.
Europeans need to get over the Cold War, and realize that whichever country gets access to Russia's natural resources on the best terms will be the winner of the 21st century. By having this standoff attitude to Russia, they are signing up to be the losers.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would support an elimination of American participation in NATO.

 

[CanOWorms]

Didn't NATO help out the US in Afghanistan? Even though they didn't all carry out their commitments... but it's one example where they helped out American interests.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Right on. NATO is just a burden on the US to provide for defense of countries which don't have much to contribute to the defense of the US.
Russia has a shrinking population and more land than it can effectively govern already. All European countries are consumers of Russia's natural resources. A free and thriving Europe is in Russia's best interest. An isolated Russia is not in Europe's or US' best interest. If US and Europe isolate Russia, Russia will turn to China and India. China's production capacity with Russia's natural resources, scientific and weapons experitise, will make it a lot stronger both militarily and economically. Dittos for India.
Europeans need to get over the Cold War, and realize that whichever country gets access to Russia's natural resources on the best terms will be the winner of the 21st century. By having this standoff attitude to Russia, they are signing up to be the losers.

You seem to think Europeans are more interested in NATO than Americans are. Funny how France has consistently tried to distance Europe from NATO but America opposes it. Also, a lot of you seem to think NATO sucks because Europeans benefit more from it than Americans. Well, you can modify NATO without totally getting rid of it. Simply remove US troops from Europe and equalize funding per capita. Even if that happens, a slimmed down NATO would still be a good thing. Who doesn't want democratic allies (and yes I know about Turkey and I think they should shape up)?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Right on. NATO is just a burden on the US to provide for defense of countries which don't have much to contribute to the defense of the US.
Russia has a shrinking population and more land than it can effectively govern already. All European countries are consumers of Russia's natural resources. A free and thriving Europe is in Russia's best interest. An isolated Russia is not in Europe's or US' best interest. If US and Europe isolate Russia, Russia will turn to China and India. China's production capacity with Russia's natural resources, scientific and weapons experitise, will make it a lot stronger both militarily and economically. Dittos for India.
Europeans need to get over the Cold War, and realize that whichever country gets access to Russia's natural resources on the best terms will be the winner of the 21st century. By having this standoff attitude to Russia, they are signing up to be the losers.

Sounds good. Personally I feel that the US should distance itself from the traditional European allies and realign itself with others.

Lots of people talk about how Russia is failing in Democracy, but these arguments can be easily applied to Europe. Political parties are getting banned by their rivals, governments are infiltrating rival political parties with intelligence services, etc.

 

[cwjerome]

Rainsford: I am not an isolationist and I think you'd know that by now. But, I am not in favor of lots of far-reaching treaties and alliances, especially those that no longer serve a rational purpose at the least and hinder our security at the most.

I do see NATO as becoming a touchy-feely waste of money and resources that unwittingly has been helping to agitate Russia. I don't like the idea of US servicemen operating under the command of foreign powers over and over again, especially without having to obtain permission from Congress. I don't think an all encompassing "attack one and you attack us all" is a good thing for our security anymore and affecting our authority to autonomy. Why we should go to war, including nuclear conflict, to defend every nation is NATO whether or not we feel US interests are at stake is beyond me.

Bottom line is I think it weakens our national security instead of enhancing it. We would eb perfectly fine by establishing smaller and more contextual agreements that wouldn't be a burden to our security or resources. Of course it's great to be in NATO and have the guarentee of US defensive might. What we get out of it nowadays isn't exactly clear. We think it might bring people into our "sphere of influence" but that's not really true. We're just performing military welfare and putting our own interests behind those of some obsolete alliance.

As far as Putin goes, he's a character who needs to be watched. But like I said, we should have reached out to Russia before instead of expanding NATO and encroaching on them just like they thought we wanted to do for 40 years. I guess my argument is a little late, but it's not too late...

 

[yllus]

I gotta disagree with you peeps on this one. Alliances like NATO are not easily formed. The potential projection of power from those overseas bases may yet come in handy, and on that day they'll pay for themselves.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: yllus
I gotta disagree with you peeps on this one. Alliances like NATO are not easily formed. The potential projection of power from those overseas bases may yet come in handy, and on that day they'll pay for themselves.

But why think inside the box? Why does the demise of NATO mean that we somehow can no longer deal with other countries, friendly or foe? If we want some base usage in eastern Europe, negotiate it. If we need some help in a corner of the world, ask for it. Why be part of a one-size-fits-all alliance that does more harm than good? It's too taxing and restricting... and in the case of NATO, it's pressuring Russia the wrong way.

In this day and age the old supra power structures and alliances just aren't feasible. We should be able to have limited, narrow, highly individualized, contextualized relational agreements. The coalitions of the willing should be the new model, not some old fashioned, fake alliances that override our own securities and interests.

In it's heydey, NATO was very useful. But that age has come and gone. Now it merely ties our hands and ties us down. For us to be more independent and assertive, and truly look out for ourselves, we need to move on. This was the spirit of Washington's warning: Don't get caught putting the interests of other nations over our own sovereinty.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: yllus
I gotta disagree with you peeps on this one. Alliances like NATO are not easily formed. The potential projection of power from those overseas bases may yet come in handy, and on that day they'll pay for themselves.

Absolutely!

A lot of armchair geopoliticians in this thread...



cwjerome..."The coalitions of the willing should be the new model, not some old fashioned, fake alliances that override our own securities and interests"

I think you have that completely backwards. Why would you throw away an alliance that was hard won, time proven and has taken us this far, in exchange for some shakey expedient (and crumbling) piece of crap referred to as (gasp) "The coalition of the willing"?


:Q

 

[rahvin]

NATO if for no other purpose serves to keep our interests and Europes interests aligned. History has told us that if we leave the Europeans to themselves they will run off and do something terrible to the world that will have centurys long effects. Nearly every current hotspot (and former hotspot from the cold war) was a direct result of european colonialism and explotation of local inhabitants. We are still spending billions every year cleaning up the problems created a century ago. NATO isn't about defense of western europe anymore, it's about making sure that the Europeans keep talking with the US and amongst themselves to head off century old hatred before it can take root.

That said, the US presence in europe should be drastically scaled back unless the Europeans commit to pay more to support NATO. The German bases should be maintained at minimum staffing levels and the others that have no value to the US millitary should be closed.

 

[cwjerome]

Hmmm, now that's a very interesting argument... that it's a tool to keep the communication and cooperation high, to basically keep Europe in check.

I still have some worries and doubts about NATO, but you make an excellent point rahvin.

 

[imported_Tango]

Where did those planes going to Iraq take off from? I didn't know Germany and Italy were american soil... The american bases in Europe are the main reason why a political and military US presence in the mediterranean and middle-east is possible.

 

[cwjerome]

"Where did those planes going to Iraq take off from?"

What planes?

"I didn't know Germany and Italy were american soil"

What are you talking about?

"The american bases in Europe are the main reason why a political and military US presence in the mediterranean and middle-east is possible."

So without NATO America could no longer have overseas bases? Besides, maybe we should cut down our overseas presence a little bit anyways.

 

[1EZduzit]

It pains me to say this, but if we're going to get rid of something, let's get rid of the UN and keep NATO. NATO is more of a stablilizing force and I do believe that Russia will someday belong to it.

Doesn't Russia have a border with China?? hmmmmm

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It pains me to say this, but if we're going to get rid of something, let's get rid of the UN and keep NATO. NATO is more of a stablilizing force and I do believe that Russia will someday belong to it.

Doesn't Russia have a border with China?? hmmmmm

I see where you're going with that. Another interesting point. I would like Russia in NATO someday (if NATO must survive), but right now NATO seems to threaten Russia. I have to admit, my position is weakening though. I guess if NATO could just be reformed and acting correctly, it's good.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
"Where did those planes going to Iraq take off from?"

What planes?

"I didn't know Germany and Italy were american soil"

What are you talking about?

"The american bases in Europe are the main reason why a political and military US presence in the mediterranean and middle-east is possible."

So without NATO America could no longer have overseas bases? Besides, maybe we should cut down our overseas presence a little bit anyways.

Most of the deploy of men and equipment for the Iraq invasion went to the middle east starting from European NATO bases. It is uncostitutional for the european countries to let an army transit in its territory during a war unless the country is itself involved in the conflict. You had the issue discussed in quite a lot of EU countries parlaments, and eventually the US were allowed the refuel of the planes because it was part of the NATO agreements. Most of the troops left for Iraq from bases in Germany and Italy.
I am not saying that the US shouldn't cut down their military presence overseas, just that these bases do play a major role in keeping the US military force able to deploy in the middle-east.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Hmmm, now that's a very interesting argument... that it's a tool to keep the communication and cooperation high, to basically keep Europe in check.

I still have some worries and doubts about NATO, but you make an excellent point rahvin.

The arguement I presented is the central arguement used by our government for involvement in NATO, I'm just supprised more Euro's didn't jump in and call me a twit.

Our alliance with Japan is along the same lines, the Japanese are just sensible enough to pay us to defend them (close to 150million a year in direct cash subsidation) so it's much easier for the US to swallow the pill of keeping all those troops in Okinawa and to keep Japan moderate by continuing to influence their culture.

It's funny, but consumerism is probably the one force in this world that can bring about real world peace, and the US influence brings consumerism to all the nations we interact with. Europe and Japan are completely different places today because we imposed our popular culture on them through interaction with our troops and their families. That popular culture that they have adopted and modified to fit their circumstances has brought real lasting peace to nations that 100 years ago no one believed could ever remain at peace for any extended period of time. Because of this France and Germany are better friends these days than Briton and France. If we were to disband NATO and seperate ourselves from them they would begin to travel a different cultural path than the US and the end result of that would NOT be good. We must keep our cultures and values aligned if we are ever to have lasting peace.

To give the other side of the arguement to this for Europeans that are reading. NATO helps Europe influence the US to keep from being radical. As the export country of all the European radicals in the 19th century the US still bears the burden of a reactionary and at time radical populous that is not only intensely isolationist but also has fits of relgious ferver that make the Islamists look like the British. The European influence on the US helps moderate US extremeism and the cultural advances you make today we will adopt in approximately a generation (20 years).

NATO is and will continue to be a win-win alliance for both spheres of influence. Do not listen to the French and isolate yourself from the US because it will only serve to make your bastard stepchild more radical and more dangerous.