What you think of NATO

[dergon darkhelm]

I'm not sure how big this story is in the european media, but U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' retirement speach in which he blasted the NATO partners in eurpope has gotten a fair bit of play here.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... a803f81b7f

In a stern rebuke, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Friday that the future of the historic NATO military alliance is at risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for front-line combat. The United States won't carry the alliance as a charity case, the outgoing Pentagon chief said.

....

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

What do you on the other side ofthe Atlantic think?

[hollyfant]

I'm not sure how big this story is in the european media

It's mentioned, but usually brushed aside in a "yet another gung-ho American" sort of way.

distaste for front-line combat.

Case in point. When did this become a bad thing?

NATO, or more specifically the US, was very much appreciated when they stood ready to fight "our" wars. Now that it's more about fighting "American" wars, enthusiasm is waning.

As a common defence agreement NATO was a good thing, in the Mutually Assured Destruction times. For most of Western Europe war has become something that happens elsewhere though. While there's no desire to opt out, I think a lot of nations would prefer to see the alliance as a cheap wholesale merchant for their defence needs. Except Britain and France, which still have their own delusions of grandeur.

[I-KP]

Except Britain and France, which still have their own delusions of grandeur.

For the better part of the last two decades Britain's role as being utterly subserviant to the militaristic ambitions of the US became a sour and bitter pill for the British public to swallow; it wasn't a well liked situation and as the years ticked on public support for this lapdog-like behaviour became increasingly negative. The Iraq war was the last straw for many here, arguably the final straw that broke the camel's back, and such out-dated ways of thinking were shown the door. A slight cooling off of US-Anglo relations resulted, a change met with a largely positive response by the British public. This slightly cooler rapport with the US manifests itself within NATO in answer to US sabre-rattling as, 'well, we're not so sure; lets explore other options first', rather than the immediate collapse of any resistance with the old hack of, 'whatever you say, you can count on our guns- erm, I mean vote'.

It is also true to say that some member states of NATO have never pulled their weight, even during the days that NATO was arguably at its most valuable. Today, the old enemy has gone but the US military seems keen to find new ones wherever it can in order to justify its existence, whereas in all other NATO member states defense expenditure is being severely curtailed to reflect the reduced apetite for finding someone else to aim the guns at merely for the sake of it. 'Western' states face threats of a different kind now, a kind that can only be combatted through economic means not conventional militaristic ones.

The north atlantic treaty is old, creaky, and increasingly irrelevant in today's world. The expanding european union and the co-operative european strategic defense initiatives are steadily nudging the old NATO credos out into the cold. It's not surprising that certain elements of the US military don't like this shift. Why? Well, because they aren't in control of it this time, and never will they be.

In direct answer to the OP: No, it's not a big deal here.

I do not speak for the nation; consider this as merely one postcard among many.

EDIT: Shocking grammar.

[Blindhamsterman]

I-KP sums things up for us brits pretty well actually, based on news reports, personal opinions of many folk etc.

Sad as it sounds, the film 'Love Actually' has a scene where Hugh Grant is playing the new british prime minister and essentially tells the President of America where to go... this was done as a nod to public oppinion and hopes. It's also a reason Tony Blaire became less and less popular, Bush said jump and Blaire yapped like a good little dog to do his bidding...

NATO served its purpose well, but as said is largely becoming redundant in the modern world.

Again, the above is just the opinion of myself and folk I know, not the UK as a whole.

[NickD]

This thread needs more Danubus...

NATO is there to protect you pansy euros from attacks from the evil islamic countries that are just waiting to attack you with terrorism! But you pinko euros just want to hide behind us Americans all while pointing at us and calling us murderous barbarians! I'd like to see you commie bastard euros survive without us! Enjoy your terrorist attacks when we pull out of NATO!

[Blindhamsterman]

[fluffmonster]

Its either irrelevant, or a free-riders club. Take your pick.

[dirsa]

sadly, nato has ever mattered if the attacked one mattered as well. it's all a game of dollars, rather than some ideological or altruistic enterprise... with or without nato there would be an uproar and military action if let's say chineese overrun germany. at the same time if they chose to overrun albania there would be a lot of talk of condemnation and political finger waving, but all the albanians would start learning chineese....