[1rudeboy]

You are pounding a square peg into a round hole. These are sovereign nations with a legitimate concern for their safety. The Lithuanians have gotten over being sold down the river time and time again, including by the Americans. They aren't whining even a bit as loud as you are. You expect them to go quietly because they owe us?

Let's cut to the chase: are you in the middle of some Pat Buchanan paleotard foreign policy fantasy? Because it would explain a lot.

[kabar]

The Lithuanians have gotten over being sold down the river time and time again, including by the Americans. They aren't whining even a bit as loud as you are. You expect them to go quietly because they owe us?

You don't seem to get it. I acknowledged the reason why the former Warsaw Pact nations and Baltic countries are concerned about their future and the ability and will of NATO to meet its commitments. And they are also worried about internal forces that might revert back to their days under communism. My point is that they need to address these concerns to their fellow Europeans who are not pulling their weight in meeting the continent's security needs. And they don't need to attack the Bush administration to ingratiate themselves to Obama.

FYI: Lithuania spends 1.14% of its GDP (FY 2008) on defense and has an active duty force of 15,500. It has 5 personnel in Iraq and 141 in Afghanistan. It has lost one person in Afghanistan. It can do more. It is a nation of 3.5 million. It has a negative annual population growth rate of -0.279% and one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at 1.23 children born/woman.

Let's cut to the chase: are you in the middle of some Pat Buchanan paleotard foreign policy fantasy? Because it would explain a lot.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion? I have not advocated disengagement or an isolationist policy. The reality is that the US no longer has the resources to maintain its former level of global presence. We are broke and becoming more so. We must set some priorities on how and where we will use those resources. The Pacific has become more important and more in need of our attention compared to Europe. Russia is less a threat to our strategic interests for the reasons I stated. Europe can and must do more in its own self-defense. They need to increase their expenditures beyond the 1% of GDP they are spending.

NATO must develop a new mission to remain relevant. It must be willing to engage more in security issues outside Europe. NATO went into Afghanistan under Article 5, but most of the member countries are not providing the resources to meet their commitments. The Germans don't want their forces engaging in combat. The Europeans couldn't even handle Bosnia and Kosovo by themselves. The US bore the brunt of those operations.

A revitalized NATO can help the US by sharing some of the defense burden and promote security and democracy around the globe. Otherwise, NATO will cease to be relevant. The current gap between the US and other NATO forces is so great that it raises some basic questions about interoperability and the alliance's ability to function together effectively.