Posted on 02/27/2017 2:56:41 PM PST by mandaladon
You may recall from the 2016 campaign trail that many of our media mavens lectured then candidate Donald Trump about his plans to bully our NATO allies into paying their fair share of defense costs. This was widely viewed in liberal circles as an unreasonable attitude, with some even suggesting that it could discount America’s place as a global leader. It turns out that, yet again, President Trump decided to make good on his promise when he sent his new Secretary of Defense across the pond to deliver precisely that message. (Washington Post)
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis issued an ultimatum Wednesday to allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, warning that if they do not boost their defense spending to goals set by the alliance, the United States may alter its relationship with them.
“I owe it to you all to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country’s people in concrete terms,” Mattis said. “America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense.”
If the predictions were true this should have resulted in Europe’s wealthier nations pushing back hard. But then a funny thing happened on the way to Brussels. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, given a bit of time to reflect on the situation, decided that maybe this wasn’t such a crazy idea after all.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Saturday her country needs to meet its NATO obligation to spend 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Armed Germans. What could go wrong.
Yeah, I've wondered about this for years. According to the article, Germany is only paying 60% of what they should be paying. I wonder how much the UK pays?
“...bully our NATO allies into paying their fair share of defense costs...”
Whatever it takes.
Them people is mooches...
Don’t trust that potato sack,she’s saying things to win an election.
If I’m Trump, I’d tell them they need to go to 2.5% until they pay off the shortfall they created in previous years, plus interest!
Thanks to Merkel, Germany now needs to spend its defense budget on interior defense.
The one exception to this should be Britain. The US should work closely with their government to recreate their shipbuilding industry. Especially warships.
The US is vulnerable to military draw downs by Democrat presidents. Not too long ago for a time the US had no aircraft carriers at sea. And now both China and Russia have the intent to regularly deploy blue water fleets.
Aircraft carriers cannot be everywhere, and are often sent on priority missions leaving vast areas without. But if Britain again had warships, granted smaller ones, it would go far to filling in unavoidable gaps.
I’m not talking a permanent subsidy to Britain to have a Navy, just a jump start. And hopefully they could sell much of their production to other friendly countries.
Britain is good. 2.21%
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/
Canada is PATHETIC!
Better idea: Have Germany subsidize Britain to build gear for other responsible NATO members like Poland, or Britain. Or, Germany can distribute the gear directly, built to other countries’ specs, if so desired.
This way, Germany can “make up” it’s .8% of GDP deficit, while not alarming those fearful of a German buildup.
See my Post 11.
The biggest reason is to increase ties between Britain and the US. Germany through the EU used Britain as a “cash cow”, sucking money out of them, so I doubt it will be wanting to give them money post Brexit.
But the US encouraging Britain to have an effective navy helps the US in many ways. One of the most important is that we have a quality vs. quantity problem. A handful of essential supercarriers and a shortage of expendable ships. But this gap could be filled if Britain had a whole bunch of these smaller ships.
Before WWI, there was a worldwide buildup of battleships, which made it easier for the world powers to be belligerent. Today the build up is in submarines, to the same effect.
Supercarriers are actually pretty vulnerable to submarines, but small warships are highly effective in hunting and eliminating them.
I do not disagree about the subs, or the need for more small ships.
As for Germany though, well, if Germany is agreeable to spending more money on defense / NATO (the original premise of the article), but, the rest of the West doesn’t want to see a big German military buildup, then where do you propose that money go?
Strictly to the UK, at least as long as the EU exists. Any money sent to Germany will be automatically diverted for the alleged purpose of an “EU military”, but the greedy and useless bureaucrats will actually divert it for their own purposes.
Which amounts to American money funding more Muslim invaders and welfare states in Europe. I’d sooner give pocket change to a street junky, as there is at least a slim possibility that he would use some of it for food.
On the other hand, supporting a naval buildup of the UK would have all sorts of good benefits for both of us.
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.