|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:45 pm Post subject: Gates parting shot warns NATO risks irrelevance |
 |
|
| Quote: |
BRUSSELS (Reuters) � Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered a sharp parting shot at European allies on Friday, saying NATO risks "collective military irrelevance" unless they bear more of the burden and boost military spending.
In a final policy address before retiring at the end of the month, Gates said NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and Libya had exposed significant shortcomings in military capabilities and political will among the allies.
"The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country -- yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference," he said.
With the United States facing painful budget cuts at home as President Barack Obama grapples with a $1.4 trillion deficit, he warned that U.S. lawmakers may begin to question the 75 percent share that Washington pays in NATO defense spending.
This meant there was "a real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance," he said
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling (U.S.) appetite and patience ... 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," Gates said.
"If current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders -- those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me -- may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost."
Despite having more than 2 million troops in uniform, non-U.S. NATO states struggled to sustain 25,000 to 45,000 troops in Afghanistan, "not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance."
Gates said the air operations against the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had further exposed limitations, with an air operations center designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150 and the United States having to make up shortages of munitions.
Gates said the problems with defense investment boded ill for ensuring NATO had key, up-to-date common capabilities.
"To avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches."
"DRIFT CAN'T CONTINUE"
Gates said the United States was facing a deep economic crisis and defense would have to be included in dramatic spending cuts.
"Choices are going to be made more on what's in the best interest of the United States going forward," he said.
"My hope is that the fact that the reality is changing in the United States will get the attention of European leaders to realize that the drift of the last 20 years can't continue, not if they want to have a strong transatlantic partnership."
Gates's remarks followed two days of NATO meetings at which he said too few nations were bearing the bulk of the burden in Libya, and singled out five that he urged to do more.
Officials said he asked Spain, Turkey and the Netherlands to fly strike missions in addition to the air operations they currently undertake. He urged Germany and Poland, which are not contributing, to find ways to help, the officials said.
Gates singled out Norway as a small country punching above its weight by joining air strikes in Libya, but Oslo said on Friday its mission would end on August 1 and it would reduce its contribution of six F-16 fighters to four on June 24.
"Our allies should understand that Norway's small air force cannot sustain a great effort over a long period of time," Defence Minister Grete Faremo said in a statement.
NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said alliance Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen shared Gates's concerns.
"There is clearly a long-standing concern about the transatlantic gap in defense spending. There is a risk that European allies may fall even further behind in terms of technological developments," she said.
Former NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer warned the forum the current imbalance was "not sustainable."
"Europe has a rather pale face as we speak," he said, criticizing "totally uncoordinated budget cuts" and urging his own nation, the Netherlands, to join strike missions in Libya.
Gates said non-U.S. allies' $300 billion annual defense budget could buy significant capabilities if spent strategically, but this was not happening.
"Too many allies have been unwilling to fundamentally change how they set priorities and allocate resources," he said.
Gates said just five of the 28 allies -- the United States, Britain, France, Greece and Albania -- spend the 2 percent of GDP on defense required by NATO.
He said more effective coordination of spending would go only so far and allies eventually would need to step up their military investments. "Ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense," he said.
Obama has nominated outgoing CIA chief Leon Panetta to take over from Gates at the Pentagon. |
I for one don't want Canada committing more dollars to this archaic organization.
Out of control defense spending is one of the reasons why the US carries such a massive debt load. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for sharing this, catman. I was unaware that NATO requires members to spend 2% of their GDP on their militaries. It does not seem like this is an onerous requirement!
I just think Gates is awesome. I hate the military-industrial complex, but I love our Secretary of Defense!
Here is the link: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-usa-nato-idUSTRE7591JK20110610) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't know about that 2% either.
Here's another view of Gates/NATO:
The reality is that the U.S. and the U.K. twisted arms to get reluctant members to put the operation under the alliance umbrella. Alliance giants Germany and Turkey, in particular, wanted no part of it. Washington and London knew there was deep division about the wisdom of the intervention but desperately wanted the alliance's imprimatur. From the outside, it appears that there was a tacit deal: Libya becomes a NATO operation but those members uncomfortable with the mission can choose not to participate.
If that's an accurate understanding of the dynamic, isn't it a bit unfair for Gates now to light into those same NATO members for not participating?
http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/10/was_robert_gates_right_to_bash_nato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Bosco wrote: |
| If that's an accurate understanding of the dynamic, isn't it a bit unfair for Gates now to light into those same NATO members for not participating[/i]? |
Ha, whatever. Germany is a big player. This is international relations; "unfair" is a charge individuals can level against nation-states and interventions when they are negatively affected by it. A country itself cannot complain to another country that something is "unfair."
Let's not anthropomorphize nation-states.
[Edit: I just hit quote in the reply function; corrected]
Last edited by Kuros on Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ummm, I did not say that. David Bosco did. Tell him.
(I would however, be willing to take credit for writing that line if I got paid Mr. Bosco's salary.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
