The end of NATO and what it could potentially mean

[degenerasian]

I thought that this should almost be a separate thread. This topic could really be a world defining topic. Johnnie would be more of an expert here.

We've seen Trump talking very publicly about NATO and it hasn't exactly been flattering. He's called it obsolete. He's groused about Alliance Members not living up to their treaty obligations. And in a few ways, I don't believe he's wrong, but his timing certainly is.

Is NATO obsolete? Possibly. The command structure and even the mission can be confusing. Its gone from a single focus organization based around the defense against the Eastern Bloc to a multinational anti-terrorist organization, a armed response team for the UN, and a shelter organization for weak nations under threat.

At the same time when you look at the spending requirements of 2% of GNP, only Poland, Estonia, the UK and Greece spend to the requirement. US carries the rest while everyone else lags far behind.

At the same time is staying in NATO really in the US interests anymore? From a military perspective, I believe that Trump does believe that no matter what happens the US will be called on and respond to international military crisis and the American removal from NATO will allow the American's to pick and choose their fights without being constrained by NATO articles. So if for example Turkey gets attacked and calls for NATO aid the American's can refuse and say its not in their best interests. the same with the Russian threats in Europe.

This can also go hand in hand with the UN, if the UN calls for NATO intervention, they would also have to ask for American aid separately, which would allow the American's to push their own agenda in the UN as a separate entity. At the same time, if America stepped out of NATO it would allow them to restructure their alliances and pick and choose who they're going to work with and what the conditions will be in terms of allying with a super power.

You might see the forced renegotiation of NORAD for example, where the Americans basically tell Canada to start spending money or else the US will take core responsibility for aero defense of North America and Canada will have no say. You could see a specific Northern Atlantic Alliance with the UK and Germany and the US for example. Or you could see NATO without the US and America being asked to intervene or supply men, equipment and logistics.

I tend to think that even the staunchest Trump Allies in the US wouldn't be on board with a move that would dissolve NATO and probably give an open hand to Russia in Europe and the Middle East. However if this is merely a move for Trump to force a renegotiation of NATO and a redefinition of leadership and rules in NATO then its not exactly a terrible move. Its just heavy handed and threat heavy.

The timing of it is pretty terrible though especially with a resurgent Russian Military. The panic in Poland would be fairly large if America decided to blackmail a renegotiation of NATO based around the removal of forces from Poland.

I also believe that Trump believes that if he does do something like pulling out of NATO he can save money in terms of bringing his forces home and redefining his Forces Structures and Rules of Engagement.

[P.D.X.]

The timing of it is pretty terrible though especially with a resurgent Russian Military.

Coincidence? I think not.

[Johnnie]

I'm no expert here. But if being stationed at Ramstein AB in a unit that went literally everywhere all over Europe (minus Belarus), then something is going to change.

I have no idea if this is a correct move or not, but I think many military folks would argue that the rest of the organization barely pulls its weight and it really comes back to us being world police for everyone under the guise of a joint entity.

But I honestly don't know anything past that.

[LewP]

As currently constituted, Trump says, NATO is ill-suited to combating international terrorism, which is for him the world’s “single biggest threat”. He especially objects to the US footing so much of the bill, saying that other allies should “pay up or get out”, and refuses to see the US as the “world’s policeman”. As he told a town hall meeting in Wisconsin: “Maybe NATO will dissolve and that’s OK, not the worst thing in the world.”

To judge by the response to his words, though, on both sides of the Atlantic, it would appear to be the worst thing, or close to it. In casting doubt on the future of Nato, Trump has challenged an establishment consensus that goes far beyond Washington DC. Both Trump’s Republican rivals have denounced his view. Hillary Clinton, the probable Democrat nominee, accused him of “putting at risk the coalition of nations we need to defeat Islamic State”.

Practically every general and admiral between the US and the Baltic States reached for their verbal swords. Every transatlantic think-tank, every Atlanticist professor, and even President Obama joined the fray. Trump’s words, said Obama, had shown that “he doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy... or the world generally”.

Frankly, I'm tired of being the world police. Not only that, having to foot the bill world-wide for that distinction is old as well.
Let some other countries pay the price, in resources and their blood.

[degenerasian]

When youre getting a free ride youll fight to keep that free ride.

[The Sybian]

As currently constituted, Trump says, NATO is ill-suited to combating international terrorism, which is for him the world’s “single biggest threat”. He especially objects to the US footing so much of the bill, saying that other allies should “pay up or get out”, and refuses to see the US as the “world’s policeman”. As he told a town hall meeting in Wisconsin: “Maybe NATO will dissolve and that’s OK, not the worst thing in the world.”

To judge by the response to his words, though, on both sides of the Atlantic, it would appear to be the worst thing, or close to it. In casting doubt on the future of Nato, Trump has challenged an establishment consensus that goes far beyond Washington DC. Both Trump’s Republican rivals have denounced his view. Hillary Clinton, the probable Democrat nominee, accused him of “putting at risk the coalition of nations we need to defeat Islamic State”.

Practically every general and admiral between the US and the Baltic States reached for their verbal swords. Every transatlantic think-tank, every Atlanticist professor, and even President Obama joined the fray. Trump’s words, said Obama, had shown that “he doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy... or the world generally”.

Frankly, I'm tired of being the world police. Not only that, having to foot the bill world-wide for that distinction is old as well.
Let some other countries pay the price, in resources and their blood.

I'm confused. You quoted something talking about how Trump's view is dangerous, both Dems and Republicans think it is horrible, as do our allies, "every transatlantic think-tank, every Atlanticist professor," as well as "practically every general and admiral," but then you seem to agree with Trump.

And you included Obama's quote that Trump's comments show "he doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy... or the world generally.” Yet you agree with Trump? Genuinely curious to understand.

[sancarlos]

It would be nice if others paid their fair share, and I also don't want the U.S. to have to be the world's policeman.

But, those are certainly not acceptable justifications to abandon NATO.

[The Sybian]

It would be nice if others paid their fair share, and I also don't want the U.S. to have to be the world's policeman.

But, those are certainly not acceptable justifications to abandon NATO.

Yeah, totally agree. Let's stop nation building, which inevitably leads to creating, training, arming and funding our next enemy. Leaving the Baltics for Putin to annex isn't the place to skimp and save a few bucks, while showing our friends we mean business, and will refuse to help them if they don't pay. Foreign policy occurs on dozens of levels, but Trump doesn't even know that, or care for that matter.

[DC47]

It's quite possible that on this, as on most things that seem outrageous, Trump is simply negotiating.

If so, I like his general direction. Maintaining the Empire is expensive. I'd like to see more resources utilized in, say, Milwaukee and Oakland. In schools. In health care. In debt reduction. I'd like to see fewer resources used on the 800+ military bases we maintain around the world, for a purpose that doesn't strike me as particularly focused on the interests of the general public. I've had this view since the '70s; this is the first time a president seems even remotely in sympathy. But we'll see if it's for real. There are many contrary indications, so I'm far from sure.

[duff]

It's quite possible that on this, as on most things that seem outrageous, Trump is simply negotiating.

If so, I like his general direction. Maintaining the Empire is expensive. I'd like to see more resources utilized in, say, Milwaukee and Oakland. In schools. In health care. In debt reduction. I'd like to see fewer resources used on the 800+ military bases we maintain around the world, for a purpose that doesn't strike me as particularly focused on the interests of the general public. I've had this view since the '70s; this is the first time a president seems even remotely in sympathy. But we'll see if it's for real. There are many contrary indications, so I'm far from sure.

I too would love to see this, but it ain't happening. Not with his group of military men in his cabinet. Not just the generals, but the others that have served. And don't expect money going to education with DeVoss leading the way, at least not to poor black kids in Milwaukee and/or Oakland. You know all about here in Michigan.

I do think it is partly negotiation. Be outlandish that first offer. That is what this is.

[DC47]

If -- and it's a dream -- Trump can actually down-size American military commitments overseas, this might stick for a long time. Time enough for a future government that is genuinely progressive -- another dream -- to utilize the savings to do good things in this country.

[Giff]

It's quite possible that on this, as on most things that seem outrageous, Trump is simply negotiating.

If so, I like his general direction. Maintaining the Empire is expensive. I'd like to see more resources utilized in, say, Milwaukee and Oakland. In schools. In health care. In debt reduction. I'd like to see fewer resources used on the 800+ military bases we maintain around the world, for a purpose that doesn't strike me as particularly focused on the interests of the general public. I've had this view since the '70s; this is the first time a president seems even remotely in sympathy. But we'll see if it's for real. There are many contrary indications, so I'm far from sure.

I too would love to see this, but it ain't happening. Not with his group of military men in his cabinet. Not just the generals, but the others that have served. And don't expect money going to education with DeVoss leading the way, at least not to poor black kids in Milwaukee and/or Oakland. You know all about here in Michigan.

I do think it is partly negotiation. Be outlandish that first offer. That is what this is.

We have plenty of money for poor black kids in Milwaukee and/or Oakland. We just choose to give out tax cuts to the wealthy instead.

[Nonlinear FC]

It has been well-established Soviet/Russian foreign policy that a weakened NATO is preferable to the status quo. It has also been well-established that a key strategic objective of Russia is to undercut/undermine US-Germany relations.

This stuff isn't even hard to follow folks. There is really no other logical reason for Trump to have gone out of his way to take shots at Merkel and Germany. He is talking about upending over 70 years of US foreign and trade policy.

It wasn't just campaign rhetoric, everything he is saying the last month signals:

* He is going to undo sanctions on Russia and forge an alliance to "fight terrorism" and keep China at bay in the Pacific

* Undermine with a goal of gutting Nato.

* Attempt to put up significant trade barriers and pretty much reverse the globalization trend.

This is all out in the open.

[Shirley]

I think most folks agree that we're tired of being the world's police. But let's not be naïve. We aren't doing it out of charity or some sense of duty. That might be 5% of it. The rest is that we are by far the largest and most international economy in the world. Instability and/or change almost anywhere directly affects the US economy. We fight to protect that. Poland (I didn't forget!) is simply never going to care as much as we do about international policing, because it matters far, far less to their economy.

[Sabo]

I think most folks agree that we're tired of being the world's police. But let's not be naïve. We aren't doing it out of charity or some sense of duty. That might be 5% of it. The rest is that we are by far the largest and most international economy in the world. Instability and/or change almost anywhere directly affects the US economy. We fight to protect that. Poland (I didn't forget!) is simply never going to care as much as we do about international policing, because it matters far, far less to their economy.

Precisely. Just about everything our military does is to protect America's financial interests, and that's been the case for the last century or more.

[sancarlos]

I think most folks agree that we're tired of being the world's police. But let's not be naïve. We aren't doing it out of charity or some sense of duty. That might be 5% of it. The rest is that we are by far the largest and most international economy in the world. Instability and/or change almost anywhere directly affects the US economy. We fight to protect that. Poland (I didn't forget!) is simply never going to care as much as we do about international policing, because it matters far, far less to their economy.

Precisely. Just about everything our military does is to protect America's financial interests, and that's been the case for the last century or more.

I'll assume you're not including our adventure in Afghanistan. Or, am I missing how that is financial in nature?

[Keg]

I think most folks agree that we're tired of being the world's police. But let's not be naïve. We aren't doing it out of charity or some sense of duty. That might be 5% of it. The rest is that we are by far the largest and most international economy in the world. Instability and/or change almost anywhere directly affects the US economy. We fight to protect that. Poland (I didn't forget!) is simply never going to care as much as we do about international policing, because it matters far, far less to their economy.

Precisely. Just about everything our military does is to protect America's financial interests, and that's been the case for the last century or more.

I'll assume you're not including our adventure in Afghanistan. Or, am I missing how that is financial in nature?

Just guessing here - oil?

[sancarlos]

I think most folks agree that we're tired of being the world's police. But let's not be naïve. We aren't doing it out of charity or some sense of duty. That might be 5% of it. The rest is that we are by far the largest and most international economy in the world. Instability and/or change almost anywhere directly affects the US economy. We fight to protect that. Poland (I didn't forget!) is simply never going to care as much as we do about international policing, because it matters far, far less to their economy.

Precisely. Just about everything our military does is to protect America's financial interests, and that's been the case for the last century or more.

I'll assume you're not including our adventure in Afghanistan. Or, am I missing how that is financial in nature?

Just guessing here - oil?

Ranked 104th in the world in oil production. Not really a good payoff for our investment. Not much of a motivation.

[Ryan]

For a while, it probably ranked #1 in job creation for the American military industry

[Sabo]

SCK, I never claimed they were all about money. But I don't think there's any doubt that American forces are distributed where they are so they can protect American financial interests. It isn't always to protect a direct investment - like an oil field - but bases are where they are so they can respond to issues as they arise. America won't leave Afghanistan because it provides them with a base right at the doorstep of China, Pakistan and Iran, which are three countries that can directly challenge American authority.

A dissolved or weakened NATO does nothing to improve America's financial situation. Any savings by reducing the military (which will not happen under Trump) will be offset by volatility in the market, which will cause prices to rise and make already skittish investors even more risk adverse. My thinking is Trump and Putin want Cold War v2. Both countries' economies boomed during that era because of the military build up, and it only ended because the Soviets ran out of money. Trump will see this as an easy way to jump start manufacturing in the U.S., and Putin can use it to increase Russia's sphere of influence.

I'm sure my theory has holes in it, but that's my two cents.

[sancarlos]

Sabo, I get you. I just don't think it's always financial, even though I hear that said regularly. Often it is for other reasons, many of them valid, such as you described.

Afghanistan is such a clusterfuck, I have a hard time understanding any real good reason for our presence there.

[Keg]

I think most folks agree that we're tired of being the world's police. But let's not be naïve. We aren't doing it out of charity or some sense of duty. That might be 5% of it. The rest is that we are by far the largest and most international economy in the world. Instability and/or change almost anywhere directly affects the US economy. We fight to protect that. Poland (I didn't forget!) is simply never going to care as much as we do about international policing, because it matters far, far less to their economy.

Precisely. Just about everything our military does is to protect America's financial interests, and that's been the case for the last century or more.

I'll assume you're not including our adventure in Afghanistan. Or, am I missing how that is financial in nature?

Just guessing here - oil?

Ranked 104th in the world in oil production. Not really a good payoff for our investment. Not much of a motivation.

It's impossible to produce oil when the country has been a war zone for the last decade and a half.

From The Guardian in 2001:

As the war in Afghanistan unfolds, there is frantic diplomatic activity to ensure that any post-Taliban government will be both democratic and pro-west. Hidden in this explosive geo-political equation is the sensitive issue of securing control and export of the region's vast oil and gas reserves.

The Soviets estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at 5 trillion cubic feet - enough for the UK's requirement for two years - but this remains largely untapped because of the country's civil war and poor pipeline infrastructure.

More importantly, according to the US government, "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian Sea".

To the north of Afghanistan lies the Caspian and central Asian region, one of the world's last great frontiers for the oil industry due to its tremendous untapped reserves. The US government believes that total oil reserves could be 270bn barrels. Total gas reserves could be 576 trillion cubic feet. These dwarf the UK's proven reserves of 5bn barrels of oil and 27 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The reason oil is so attractive to the US - which imports half of its oil - and the west, is for three reasons. "Firstly it is non-Opec oil," says James Marriott, an oil expert from Platform, an environmental NGO. "Opec has been the bête-noire of the west since its inception in 1960. Secondly, these states are not within the Arab world and thirdly, although they are Muslim, they are heavily secularised."

The presence of these oil reserves and the possibility of their export raises new strategic concerns for the US and other western industrial powers. "As oil companies build oil pipelines from the Caucasus and central Asia to supply Japan and the west, these strategic concerns gain military implications,"argued an article in the Military Review, the Journal of the US army, earlier in the year.

More here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/200 ... fghanistan

[Keg]

There's also the rumored ties between Karzai and Unocal...

[The Sybian]

If -- and it's a dream -- Trump can actually down-size American military commitments overseas, this might stick for a long time. Time enough for a future government that is genuinely progressive -- another dream -- to utilize the savings to do good things in this country.

Trump is constantly talking about building our military, about how weak our military is because Obama is a pussy and hates the troops. The Right frequently puts out stats to make it seem like we have the smallest military in 100 years. They show stats, like the decrease in the number of ships over the past 100 years. As though aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and modern battleships are a 1:1 comparison to our WWI era ships. They site the number of troops in the cavalry units, as if a horse is equivalent to an Abrams battle tank. It's fucking madness. Trump now has a hardon for starting another nuclear arms race. WTF? We need to increase the missile gap we hold over the rest of the world? I think we need to safeguard and dismantle to decrepit missiles in the arsenal, maybe replace a few, but calling for an arms race? Calling on other countries to ramp up their numes? WTF? Trump is a damned nightmare with no concept of what he is talking about, no filter, and more concerned with hearing his name praised than he is with the fallout of his rhetoric.

Most important, does Trump seem like the kind of guy who wants to be known for decreasing military spending? Of course not, he wants to whip his military cock out and show the world how powerful he is. His foreign diplomacy will be bullying other countries with passive aggressive or straight up threats. I could see him using the old mafia technique of hitting store owners up for "protection money," so the mafia doesn't destroy them. Maybe that is what he is doing with NATO, but that doesn't make his words any less dangerous. It instills fear and mistrust from our allies, and emboldens Putin to start annexing our allies.

[sancarlos]

Ok, Keg. You win.

[Keg]

Eh, the only folks who won were oil and military contractor executives.

[Shirley]

I think most folks agree that we're tired of being the world's police. But let's not be naïve. We aren't doing it out of charity or some sense of duty. That might be 5% of it. The rest is that we are by far the largest and most international economy in the world. Instability and/or change almost anywhere directly affects the US economy. We fight to protect that. Poland (I didn't forget!) is simply never going to care as much as we do about international policing, because it matters far, far less to their economy.

Precisely. Just about everything our military does is to protect America's financial interests, and that's been the case for the last century or more.

I'll assume you're not including our adventure in Afghanistan. Or, am I missing how that is financial in nature?

I wouldn't include that one in the "world policing" bucket. At least, not at first. That was more of a straight up war. Al Qaeda attacked us, with The Taliban's support, so we attacked back. I doubt many folks bemoaning the US's military presence all over the world were really complaining about that one.

Now ... well, it's closer to world policing now, but I'd say it falls under the Pottery Barn Rule.

[A_B]

Is that the "this place sucks let's get out of here" rule?

[sancarlos]

Al Qaeda attacked us, with The Taliban's support, so we attacked back.

Are you saying the Taliban had some involvement in the 9/11 attacks? I've never heard that claimed before.

[The Sybian]

Al Qaeda attacked us, with The Taliban's support, so we attacked back.

Are you saying the Taliban had some involvement in the 9/11 attacks? I've never heard that claimed before.

The Taliban controlled the Afghan government, and they provided safe haven for Al Qaeda.

[sancarlos]

Al Qaeda attacked us, with The Taliban's support, so we attacked back.

Are you saying the Taliban had some involvement in the 9/11 attacks? I've never heard that claimed before.

The Taliban controlled the Afghan government, and they provided safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Maybe we're splitting hairs here. But there is a difference there.

[The Sybian]

Al Qaeda attacked us, with The Taliban's support, so we attacked back.

Are you saying the Taliban had some involvement in the 9/11 attacks? I've never heard that claimed before.

The Taliban controlled the Afghan government, and they provided safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Maybe we're splitting hairs here. But there is a difference there.

Remember Bush's whole friend of our enemy, you are either with us or against us thing? I think going into Afghan after 9/11 to destroy Al Qaeda was a reasonable justification for war. How it was handled is another matter.

[Shirley]

Al Qaeda attacked us, with The Taliban's support, so we attacked back.

Are you saying the Taliban had some involvement in the 9/11 attacks? I've never heard that claimed before.

The Taliban controlled the Afghan government, and they provided safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Maybe we're splitting hairs here. But there is a difference there.

Which is why I said with the Taliban's support, as opposed to saying that Al Qaeda and the Taliban attacked us. Al Qaeda lived, trained, and hid in Afghanistan, protected by The Taliban. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a lot of crossover as well. Yes, splitting hairs.

Still, I don't consider that one - regardless of how you figure The Taliban's role - as world policing. That was straight-up war. At first. Now, I'm not so sure.

[DaveInSeattle]

So Trump is going to build up the Military (bigly!), but doesn't want to play "World's Policeman"? Why the fuck do we need to build up the military then? For his Triumph of The Will style parades?

[degenerasian]

That is the big question, when does a war end? US goes into Afghanistan and Iraq to overthrow the threatening (to the US) government and puts in a democratic/friendly (to the US) one. But what is the measurement for when that government is considered self governing? As I said above When you're getting a free ride you'll fight to keep that free ride. Why would these governments make any effort to be self sustainable? Why make laws or train police or troops when success means the US goes home and leaves you to fight against the next internal revolt. Heck if I were that government, i'd pay rebels to conduct fake attacks to scare the US into staying longer.

[The Sybian]

So Trump is going to build up the Military (bigly!), but doesn't want to play "World's Policeman"? Why the fuck do we need to build up the military then? For his Triumph of The Will style parades?

Because he needs to swing his giant military dick around, like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the Kims... Comes with the personality disorder. I'm sure he will claim we need trillions of dollars in hi tech weaponry to defeat ISIS and the scourge of Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Because you fight an ideology and hidden sleeper cells; with bigger, better weapons to indiscriminately blow up cities. Might as well call it a Crusade, and a War on Islam. Worked for Bush. Trump already said we need to bring back torture, but it's not enough to torture terrorists, we need to torture their families, too. Diplomacy!

[Nonlinear FC]

He is teeing up a war with China. Calling Taiwan and sabre-rattling about the man-made islands in the Pacific. Throw in the tough talk on trade.

Kind of being redundant to what I posted earlier, but this is also one of the main reasons why he is lining up with Putin and Russia.

It's an extremely dangerous tactic and cause for very specific and serious alarm.

[A_B]

The man made islands are bullshit.

[The Sybian]

He is teeing up a war with China. Calling Taiwan and sabre-rattling about the man-made islands in the Pacific. Throw in the tough talk on trade.

Kind of being redundant to what I posted earlier, but this is also one of the main reasons why he is lining up with Putin and Russia.

It's an extremely dangerous tactic and cause for very specific and serious alarm.

I think you are giving Trump too much credit with the call from the President of Taiwan. Maybe I am misunderestimating Trump, but I don't think he knew the foreign policy implications in announcing he spoke with her. I think he was Tweeting to boast about a world leader calling to congratulate her. Now I'm wondering if he Tweeted about other leaders congratulating him.

[Nonlinear FC]

He is teeing up a war with China. Calling Taiwan and sabre-rattling about the man-made islands in the Pacific. Throw in the tough talk on trade.

Kind of being redundant to what I posted earlier, but this is also one of the main reasons why he is lining up with Putin and Russia.

It's an extremely dangerous tactic and cause for very specific and serious alarm.

I think you are giving Trump too much credit with the call from the President of Taiwan. Maybe I am misunderestimating Trump, but I don't think he knew the foreign policy implications in announcing he spoke with her. I think he was Tweeting to boast about a world leader calling to congratulate her. Now I'm wondering if he Tweeted about other leaders congratulating him.

Just lazy on my part, I guess. He and his folks are on record saying the One China thing is going to be an issue they take up.