Posted on 11/22/2016 10:37:47 AM PST by Kaslin
We don’t.
Next question !!
Then: Because commies....
Now: Because Russia and islam...
KYPD
If the purpose of NATO is to contain global communism they need to look no further than the democrat party in the US.
,
One of the advantages is to provide an overall plan. One of the reasons World War One started was the multiplicity of bilateral and trilateral treaties that were negotiated without taking into account other commitments. That is, for example, why Great Britain was dragged into a war over Belgium's neutrality when the real casus belli was at the other end of Europe and between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, whose treaties dragged in Germany and Russia, whose treaty dragged in France, the invasion of which dragged in Belgium, and then Great Britain.
A more comprehensive system of collective security might have avoided that (or not, it remains one of military history's hottest controversies a century later). But "more comprehensive" has, in my view, become bloated out of recognition when we consider NATO's current form, and when that happens the same vulnerability isn't really guarded against. Does Denmark march when the Turks and the Russians decide to trade blows in Syria? In that scenario NATO is no protection at all from the same sort of interlocking commitments that started WWI.
A second question is: does the United States necessarily have to play? Can the European Union be trusted to take the place of the U.S. as a guarantor of the liberty of small nations against the large? (I realize I risk laughter by asking, but their present self-indulgence isn't necessarily permanent. I hope). Certainly the economy of the EU is up to the task if certain priorities (1.2% of German GDP dedicated to defense? Seriously?) are realigned, and Mr. Trump is absolutely within his capacity to question the current alignment, in fact, it's long, long overdue. That is not to say the U.S. has no place in the game, because our interests are very much in play, but in fact they do live there and we do not.
I think, therefore, that NATO needs an overhaul, a breakup into organizations more suited to the new geopolitical landscape, and that it is neither isolationist nor unreasonable to propose it. Nor should it be threatening. The best time to prepare for war is during a relatively peaceful period when the countries involved don't need to launch into crash industrial programs and total war. Things get out of control when that becomes the only option, as the Europeans know all too well.
NATO’s mission ended 25 years ago.
its now just another statist, globalist organization - which stands guard over socialist Europe’s crazy social-engineering and immigration schemes. Is anyone seriously going to argue that Montenegro and Albania are serious military allies? NO - NATO’s purpose now is purely political, and not a favorable one for the USA either
NATO has turned into a force for evil.
NATO is a relic of the Cold War, at a time when the Europeans were allies arrayed against the Soviet Union rather than aspiring Marxists with endless nasty things to say about America.
We’ve never needed NATO. It was the Euro-weenies who needed it.
We don’t need NATO, nor do we need the UN.
Excellent post sir.
We need a formal platform to engage with Germany, France and the UK. And Russia - if we can get them to moderate their nuclear technology proliferation and engagement with Tehran.
We need a security alliance with European nations not intent on committing cultural suicide. This could, again, include Russia but at present would not include Germany, France or the UK.
IMHO we should withdraw from NATO, if by doing so we can get some foreign policy shifts from Russia.
We should withdraw from the UN, stop paying its bills, and let it collapse. It is no longer a force for good and has not been for some time.
NATO needs us, but we have no need for them.
That allows for some favorable deal making. But, no deal of any kind until every member state is spending the NATO minimum of 2% of GDP on defense.
Bottom line: NATO is too big to in any way augment or support US interests.
Why would the US undertake existential war over Bulgaria, Latvia or Romania? How, in any universe, is that in our interests?
And to think there was substantial pressure to add Ukraine and Georgia.
Sheer hubris.
As it stands today NATO is a net detraction from US security interests.
Agreed. If war came between Turkey and Russia, I would side with Russia.
Sounds like the UN as well.
I believe that there is a number of U.S. Troops stationed in Turkey.
great synopsis
the original diplomacy is stale and needs rework with an eye towards the future
Believe it or not even the U.S. Coast Guard is/was in Turkey. They run/ran a few of the listening stations.
Even Barky wants the Euroweenies to pay more. He has told them he wants them to try to achieve 2% of GDP for defense.
And nukes, neither one of which were a good idea post-Iraqi Freedom, especially the latter. Dubya should have seen the handwriting on the wall and pulled both out, but especially the nukes at Incirlik.
Pull them out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.