US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates chides our European allies

[skh1]

In his valedictory address delivered in Brussels today, Mr. Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defense, said —
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13734885 (1:17 minute video clip)

[…] He said the Nato operation in Libya had revealed serious shortcomings. Just 11 weeks into the operation - involving the mightiest military alliance in history - the allies revealed they were beginning to run short of munitions. Supplies had to be brought in from the US.
Robert Gates said that since the fall of the Berlin Wall two decades ago America's share of Nato's spending had risen to 75%. He clearly does not think that is sustainable.
Only four European countries are spending 2% of GDP on defence and they are France, the UK, Greece and Albania. The Americans have lobbied strongly against UK defence cuts. Even after 9/11, European defence spending declined by nearly 15% over the following decade.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13729751

[…] True, there were some grumblings among Europe’s military leaders that Gates gave short shrift to Europe’s contributions in Afghanistan – and notably to the lead role that the French and British have taken on in NATO’s military mission in Libya. But the broad reaction to Gates’s alarm bells appeared to be a ho-hum, we’ve-heard-this-siren-before response.
“The Europeans I spoke with [about the speech] shrugged and said, ‘He’s right, but economic numbers are economic numbers,’ ” Dr. Hulsman says.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110610/ts_csm/389813_1

From a site with an annoying pop-up —

[…] The US has tens of thousands of troops based in Europe, not to stand guard against invasion but to train with European forces and promote what for decades has been lacking: the ability of the Europeans to go to war alongside the US in a coherent way.
The war in Afghanistan, which is being conducted under NATO auspices, is a prime example of U.S. frustration at European inability to provide the required resources.
"Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the US military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more," Gates said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...ow/8808666.cms

If not rectified, Secretary Gates says this could spell the demise of NATO.

Is this:
Nonsense?
Impeccably good sense?
Fantastic news, can't wait?
Or wuteva?

[saglam2000]

Well most NATO nations understand there is no real threat to their countries or their alliance as a whole, the United states is in a paranoid state that believes russia is going to steam roll it's biggest consumer or something.

[Imperial]

the United states is in a paranoid state that believes russia is going to steam roll it's biggest consumer or something.

It has more to do with the fact that some countries aren't pulling the same weight as other countries in NATO operations like Libya and Afghanistan. There is no paranoia over Russia as you may assume.

[Kanaric]

People always about the money the US spends on defense in these other countries not realizing that their defense budget is so low because they are pretty much relying on ours in the event something goes wrong.

Oh we can have 1% defense budget, if something happens the Americans will take care of it.

[Gelgoog]

People always about the money the US spends on defense in these other countries not realizing that their defense budget is so low because they are pretty much relying on ours in the event something goes wrong.

Oh we can have 1% defense budget, if something happens the Americans will take care of it.

BINGO!!

Our european allies can brag about their excellent social services and universal health care which is paid for by huge cuts to their military budgets while milking the national defense that the US provides. Either pull your weight european nations or GTFO.

[skh1]

A case in point —

In Norway, meanwhile, military officials said on Friday the country would scale down its fighter jet contribution the NATO force flying above Libya from six to four planes and withdraw completely from the NATO-led operation by Aug. 1.

The Dutch government, however, has continue its forces' role in the NATO campaign through the end of the three month extension the alliance announced last week. It also plans to contribute a handful of new staff.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has urged NATO allies, including the Netherlands, to do more in Libya to share the burden with France and Britain, which are carrying out most of the air strikes.
The Dutch government still will not allow its six F-16 fighter jets involved in the mission to carry out airstrikes. Instead they will continue to enforce the no-fly-zone above Libya.

In addition, the government announced it will send experts in psychological operations and legal affairs to join the mission.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43360311...east_n_africa/

[Admiral Piett]

BINGO!!

Our european allies can brag about their excellent social services and universal health care which is paid for by huge cuts to their military budgets while milking the national defense that the US provides. Either pull your weight european nations or GTFO.

This.

[Adar]

I think many Americans doesn't really understand "European" politics. European militaries aren't picked apart because we think that USA is going to save us. They are picked apart since we do not believe that there is any credible threat to Europe.

Personally I think this is naive and dangerous view but it's the view that is dominating most of Europe. Pacifists/anti military groups got a very strong position thanks to Bushs self righteous attitude and invasion of Iraq and conservatives have been unable to convince the public that a strong and self sufficient military is necessary to avoid the mistakes of 1905 and 1925.

I also think that many of the knee-jerk responses from American posters here are based on very little factual information. Nations like Denmark, Sweden and Norway gets far to little credit despite suffering higher losses per capita in Afghanistan than the UK and delivering 30 % of airstrikes in Libya (Norway and Denmark) as well as a substantial part of the reconnaissance missions (Sweden).

Ironically these nations are also the ones with excellent social services... So to me it looks like both military activity and social services are possible as long as you don't make irresponsible tax cuts.

[kentuckybandit]

I also think that many of the knee-jerk responses from American posters here are based on very little factual information. Nations like Denmark, Sweden and Norway gets far to little credit despite suffering higher losses per capita in Afghanistan than the UK and delivering 30 % of airstrikes in Libya (Norway and Denmark) as well as a substantial part of the reconnaissance missions (Sweden).

I have noticed this. During my long days of aimlessly watching the Military Channel, I see more and more of Sweden lately (joint exercises, sniper and recon training, stealth ships, etc.)

[Tiberios]

I also think that many of the knee-jerk responses from American posters here are based on very little factual information. Nations like Denmark, Sweden and Norway gets far to little credit despite suffering higher losses per capita in Afghanistan than the UK and delivering 30 % of airstrikes in Libya (Norway and Denmark) as well as a substantial part of the reconnaissance missions (Sweden).

Ironically these nations are also the ones with excellent social services... So to me it looks like both military activity and social services are possible as long as you don't make irresponsible tax cuts.

This. Besides it's wrong to generalize about all European countries. Some countries do alot while others don't.

[Thorn777]

^Even that scenario is bogus. While Germany isnt aboard in Lybia for constitutional reasons, it in return put more resources in A-stan, where it already provides the largest contingent after the US.

People always about the money the US spends on defense in these other countries not realizing that their defense budget is so low because they are pretty much relying on ours in the event something goes wrong.

Oh we can have 1% defense budget, if something happens the Americans will take care of it.

BINGO!!

Our european allies can brag about their excellent social services and universal health care which is paid for by huge cuts to their military budgets while milking the national defense that the US provides. Either pull your weight european nations or GTFO.

just lol

wonder when people are starting to be expected seriously

[Azog 150]

On the whole, I think Gates is right. Europe has become far too complacent in defence spending. The USA won't have our backs forever, especially as their focus turns towards the Far East. The fact that only 3 European countries are living up to the pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence is ridiculous, and the fact we are struggling to maintain an operation in our own backyard is a disgrace, especially considering the whole of NATO voted on it. Why do we think we are in a position to start voting for wars, or launching wars, when we can't even back up our convictions?

But on the other side of the debate, aside from terrorist threats, what real threats does Europe face? As shown by the War in Afghanistan (and Iraq) over the last decade, full scale military intervention is not the way to tackle a terrorist threat- if anything its the way to make it worse. 'Europe' doesn't need to spend significant amounts from a defensive point of view. NATO was meant to be a defensive alliance, not an organisation to support the launching of overseas military interventions which is what it now is. Most of these comments regarding logistical support etc are in relation to wars being launched hundreds or thousands of miles away.

NATO is no longer neccesary to most European countries. Those that continue to put significant contributions in are those countries trying to punch above their weight in some futile attempt to remain important in the world or gain favour with the US

Saying that, if the countries of Europe don't want to participate in foreign wars, why are they still voting for them (Like Libya) if they can't or won't contribute? And why, if they feel they are no longer really under threat, are they in NATO?

I think the US is worried that, as its focus turns elsewhere in the world, it is going to loose its European military support for future US ambitions in North Africa, Russia and the Middle East

I think its time for a serious rethink regarding NATO, its function and Europe's role in it.



However, I would also like to challenge these ridiculous comments you often get regarding 'pussy Euros!!'. I mean really, what the is that? Not wanting to engage in wars half way around the globe that don't really concern you makes you a 'pussy'? Oh, and Europe doesn't trade off its military power in exchange for universal healthcare etc, as some seem to believe. We have higher taxes to pay for that , but thats a different matter.

^Even that scenario is bogus. While Germany isnt aboard in Lybia for constitutional reasons, it in return put more resources in A-stan, where it already provides the largest contingent after the US.

And the UK

[Captain Jin]

However, I would also like to challenge these ridiculous comments you often get regarding 'pussy Euros!!'. I mean really, what the is that? No wanting to engage in wars half way around the globe that don't really concern you makes you a 'pussy'?

Who said that? ANd if someone did say something like that it's no less retarded then people saying stupid things like America betrayed the British during the Falklands War. The ignorance is obvious on both ends of the spectrum.

[Dubh the dark]

BINGO!!

Our european allies can brag about their excellent social services and universal health care which is paid for by huge cuts to their military budgets while milking the national defense that the US provides. Either pull your weight european nations or GTFO.

Get out of what? - NATO

Fair enough the European Union Nations are developing their own force anyway and Turkey wants to join.

The EU defence budget is going up again anyhow under the EU Plus Pact, so maybe that's what's happening.

[Tiberios]

And if that ever becomes a reality it will be the same as with NATO: A few countries pulling the weight and sacrificing while others won't pull their weight. It will just be rather impotent without the military of the US and the European nations won't increase spending to compensate. So the result will probably be a tiny force unable to launch sustained operations without US support.

If that is how it will be, then I'd rather my country continue it's alliance with the US.

[Captain Jin]

Get out of what NATO - fair enough the European Union Nations are developing their own force anyway and Turkey wants to join. The EU defence budget is going up again anyway, so maybe that's what's happening.

Except that the EU isn't developing it's own force anyways. The closest thing the EU has to its own force is EUROCorps which is mostly a paper tiger given the fact that all of its strength consists of what is 'pledged'. You can take that with a grain of salt given the obvious things we see with NATO. 28 countries unanimously vote for intervention in different places, but only some actually do anything about it. You think Eurocorps would be any different?

[Dubh the dark]

You think Eurocorps would be any different?

I don't know, I lost my crystal ball - I just don't take anything for granted. I do think the EU will push for their own force anyhow, it's a matter of prestige and the EU leadership are not a sensible bunch.

I do agree though if there are 28 Nations in NATO and they agree to involvement in a conflict, they should contribute - but they won't.

[Border Patrol]

Robert can be shortened to either Rob or Bob, never Bill. Bill is short for William, as is Will.

[skh1]

Robert can be shortened to either Rob or Bob, never Bill. Bill is short for William, as is Will.

A Microsoft moment. I'll correct it instantly. Thanks.

[saglam2000]

Pulling your weight against what? Yeah their lack of commitment is horrible but the European nations don't need to have a massive army, just commit more troops. Plus i dont think europe would be worried if the US pulled their budget back a ton, there is no large external threat to europe. Counterterrorism activities and equipment cost significantly less than gearing up for a massive land war.