Posted on 02/15/2017 10:54:43 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Of all Trump’s policy unorthodoxies, demanding that Europe boost defense spending is the most justifiable. Among 28 members, just five — five — complied with the NATO guideline last year of devoting two percent of GDP to defense.
Now here’s Mattis earlier today in Brussels with a message that came straight from the boss:
“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.”…
Mattis, a retired Marine general, recalled Wednesday that when he was NATO’s supreme allied commander of transformation from November 2007 to September 2009, he watched as then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned NATO nations that Congress and the American people “would lose their patience for carrying a disproportionate burden” of the defense of allies.
That impatience, Mattis said, is now a “governmental reality.”
“No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values,” Mattis said. “Americans cannot care more for your children’s security than you do. Disregard for military readiness demonstrates a lack of respect for ourselves, for the alliance and for the freedoms we inherited, which are now clearly threatened.”
The criticism of that position is predictable and understandable, but so is the response:
The timing of this could hardly be worse. The US threatens to retreat from most important alliance that checks Russian aggression? Today? https://t.co/28N0ym8OWD
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) February 15, 2017
Okay, but if not now, when? What better time could there be to concentrate Europe’s minds on defense spending than with Putin looking west to Ukraine and beyond, installing intermediate-range missiles aimed at Europe inside Russia in violation of a treaty, and engaging in petty provocations against the U.S. to test Trump’s resolve? If you want to squeeze NATO members to pony up, choosing a moment to do so when they’re more worried about Russia than they’ve been in years seems opportune.
On the other hand, there’s a reason (well, two reasons) that the U.S. has traditionally let Europe slide in missing its target on NATO spending. One, of course, is the fear of re-militarization. WaPo noted in passing in its story about Mattis’s speech that if an economic powerhouse like Germany were to boost defense spending to two percent of GDP, its military would suddenly be better funded than Great Britain’s, historically not a harbinger of lasting peace and perhaps especially dangerous with nationalist movements gaining traction across the continent right now. In theory a militarily muscular Europe is bad for Russia; in practice, European nationalists tend to be Putin sympathizers and may encounter more antagonism among themselves than with Russia. Reducing the risk of war in eastern Europe with Moscow needs to be weighed against increasing the risk of war long-term between European countries.
The other reason the U.S. has traditionally let Europe slide is that there’s never really a good time to have this standoff. Trump has now made an ultimatum, with which NATO members will hopefully comply. If they don’t, though, and end up calling Trump’s bluff, the U.S. will be in a jam in which Trump will either have to lose face by maintaining America’s NATO commitment despite the defiance on spending from fellow members or he’ll have to show he means business by ratcheting down America’s contributions to NATO, which is sure to tempt Russia westward. Meanwhile, some members are destined to complain that they “can’t” meet the two-percent guideline, or at least not yet; their money’s tied up in welfare-state obligations at the moment, and while they’re happy to undertake the process of re-budgeting, that’ll take time. Is Trump willing to accept a promise to meet the guideline down the road as fulfillment of each member’s obligation or do they need to pony up ASAP? Can they “pay” their obligation to NATO in the form of indebtedness to the United States? It’s fine to shrug here and say “if they can’t or won’t pay, let ’em enjoy Russian occupation,” but Russian expansionism westward comes with costs for the United States too. That’s … why NATO exists in the first place.
Here’s Mattis today with NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg emphasizing again that member nations need to pay up. Russia seems increasingly sour towards Trump, especially now that Mike Flynn is gone, but the prospect of a rupture in NATO over spending should brighten their day a bit.
I thought it was agreed upon that NATO was obsolete and better just to dismantle it and everyone fend for themselves.
Many of these NATO countries are on track to becoming de facto muslim anyway, aren’t they?
Many of these NATO countries are on track to becoming de facto muslim anyway, aren’t they?
The EU has a population of 500 million, a gdp of 20 trillion and spends 240 billion on defense.Russia on the other hand has a population of 145 million, a gdp of 2 trillion and defense spending of 85 billion annually.And the EU cannot defend itself against Russia why?
RE: The EU has a population of 500 million, a gdp of 20 trillion and spends 240 billion on defense.
Something tells me the money going to “defense” is being used somewhere else ( much like the so called trillion dollar Obama “stimulus” for “shovel ready” jobs ).
“The EU has a population of 500 million, a gdp of 20 trillion and spends 240 billion on defense.Russia on the other hand has a population of 145 million, a gdp of 2 trillion and defense spending of 85 billion annually.And the EU cannot defend itself against Russia why?”
Why? Because we’ve been all too willing to shell out to defend these worthless a$$holes while they have used their money instead to fund their respective welfare states. The idea that somehow they can “force” us to defend them needs to be pushed aside immediately. The Europeans can well afford to fund their own defense, and FWIW we should let them start building their own militaries so if Russia does come their way, they can defend themselves against any attempted incursion with the blood of their own citizens. I am damned tired of the United States willingly offering up our young men and women as cannon fodder for these ingrates.
The ruskies have balls.
Playing with those numbers, it’s very clear what Russia’s priority is. And that the EU should have the capacity to similarly invest.
The same holds true for the UN.
Cheap labour :p
Overrated. They got their ass handed to them in Afghanistan.
Well, the post ww2 world order was very benefical to America.
Then, again new times calls for new polices.
Nothing is static.
I find it hilarious that they can’t meet the 2% commitment to defend themselves but they are willing to make more commitments in the form of Paris accords and other climate lies. What assurances are there that they’ll ever meet THOSE commitments?
“Nothing is static.”
Well, it’s been “static” for 70 years, and thats probably 50 years too long! And we’ve had it with the rest of the world wanting to live off of us and send us their $hit “citizens” to care for. There was a time when people who wanted to emigrate here, came because they wanted to participate as productive American Citizens, but now they come here just as “takers” who see us as a soft touch. We saved Europe from Hitler at a cost of 420,000 of our young men and women. Beyond that, we helped to rebuild both our adversaries, Germany and Japan, who have enjoyed kicking our ass economically with the new factories we helped them to build and a sad succession of governments here that allowed them to get away with it. And then there was the Marshall Plan, and the Berlin Blockade. And after the dust settled, Europe decided that it was a “neat deal” to have America protect it with not only our money, but our troops as well. And I know first-hand that Germany $hit on our troops who were there to protect them. Gouging them on off-base housing and the like and generally treating them with disrespect.
As far as I am concerned, Europe is on it’s own, because the protection of the US isn’t really tied to keeping Europe “safe at our expense” any longer. And it pisses me off o no end to see Europeans taking “mandatory” month-long vacations every year while we pony up to allow you to do it. You’re not our friends, you’re just another bunch of remoras attached to our wallets. I just hope that President Trump makes you a deal you can’t refuse. Eff all of the lot of you, you Socialist pr!cks!
Not really, the Russian experience in Afghanistan is not a very different experience than we have had. They had more dead than we did, but they were also had us and Pakistan heavily supporting the jihadis.
The differences in our experiences are attributable to no nation state materially helping the Taliban, and in modern battlefield medicine. But Russia was collapsing internally about then financially, and after a decade, Afghanistan was no closer to civilized than it was the day they rolled in. So they packed up and left.
They were smarter than us, we are now on year 15, and no closer than we were on day one to a functioning society there. If we leave next week, or in the year 2030, it will collapse into tribal Islamic anarchy within a week.
In 2001, the Russians warned us as friends, not to get into a ground war there.
We exceed them in capability tech and in refined operational ways, but in honesty, the average Russian soldier does have more balls than ours today in all but a few top shelf units. And with women and trannies, many of ours quite literally have ZERO balls.
Because we are in Afghanistan, Pakistan survived and now leader in Terrorism.
In brief: there is no and never has been any conflict on NATO policy between Mattis and Trump, despite all the fake news to the contrary.
RE: In brief: there is no and never has been any conflict on NATO policy between Mattis and Trump, despite all the fake news to the contrary.
Trump would never have nominated Mad Dog had this been a strong point of disagreement.
Well that's the problem created by Bush: our goal should never have been a "well functioning society" in Afghanistan, merely one that was no longer a threat to us by harboring terrorists.
In fact, it was the Afghan Communist Party's attempt to create a "well functioning" socialist society (including the emancipation of women) that kicked off the Islamist insurgency BEFORE the Soviet invasion.
Things were good when we had a few thousand mainly special-ops types arbitrating disputes and backed by airpower. It was our attempt to create a strong central government in Kabul that kicked off another round of insurgency.
Night and day. The Russians had no stomach for the fight. The enemy had them terrorized showing their disdain by beheading their soldiers. The Russian military performed poorly in Afghanistan. We have done much better militarily. We lose our wars due to our politicians, not due to being defeated on the battlefield.
They were smarter than us, we are now on year 15, and no closer than we were on day one to a functioning society there. If we leave next week, or in the year 2030, it will collapse into tribal Islamic anarchy within a week.
The mission was to defeat the Taliban and prevent Afghanistan from returning to be a sanctuary for Islamic terrorist targeting the US. It was not to create a functioning society. It remains to be seen how it all turns out. We still have troops in Korea, Japan, and Germany.
In 2001, the Russians warned us as friends, not to get into a ground war there.
The Russians were never our friends even during WWII when they were our ally in defeating Hitler. The evil empire still exists even though it is a shadow of its former self.
We exceed them in capability tech and in refined operational ways, but in honesty, the average Russian soldier does have more balls than ours today in all but a few top shelf units.
What a bunch of BS. You seem to have a low opinion of the US military and the volunteers who inhabit it. America certainly has a more combat tested and proficient military force compared to the Russians. During the past few decades we have witnessed a decline in Russia. It has a negative population growth (-.06% in 2016, which is the 207th lowest in the world); life expectancy at birth for males is 65 and women 76.8 years with the average being 70.8 years making Russia 153 in the world rankings; and the fertility rate in 1.61, well below a replacement rate of 2.1 Alcoholism is rampant. The life expectancy for males has been declining and is among the lowest of any developed country.
The Russian military depends upon the draft. 18-27 years of age for compulsory or voluntary military service; males are registered for the draft at 17 years of age; 1-year service obligation (conscripts can only be sent to combat zones after 6 months of training); reserve obligation for non-officers to age 50; enrollment in military schools from the age of 16, cadets classified as members of the armed forces.
The chief of the General Staff Mobilization Directorate announced in March 2015 that for health reasons, only 76% of draftees called up during the spring 2015 draft campaign were fit for military service (2015).
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.