Posted on 07/26/2018 9:36:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Donald Trump recently ignited yet another firestorm by hedging when asked whether protecting the newest NATO member, tiny Montenegro, might be worth risking a war.
Of course, the keystone of NATO was always the idea that all members, strong and weak, are in theory equal. A military attack against one member, under Article V of the NATO charter, meant an attack on all members.
Such mutual defense is the essence of collective deterrence. An aggressor backs off when he realizes his intended target has lots of powerful friends willing to defend it.
But what happens when an alliance becomes so large and so diverse that not all of its members still share similar traditions, values, agendas or national security threats?
NATO's original European members considered themselves kindred neighbors under the nuclear umbrella of the United States.
With the inclusion of West Germany in 1955, NATO's original mission was altered somewhat. It was no longer tasked just with keeping the U.S. in and the Soviet Union out, but also with raising Germany up rather than keeping it down.
NATO collective defense was designed to offer breathing space against the superior forces of the Soviet Red Army -- until the United States could bring in reinforcements or threaten to use its superior nuclear forces against would-be aggressors.
The alliance worked because the United States accepted that Europe needed American help to deter enemies in order to avoid repeats of the disasters of 1914 and 1939. With the exception of Turkey, the older members of NATO were generally seen as sharing the geographical space of Western Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Our CEO is on it.
There is no point to NATO. Dissolve it. Europe needs to take care of its own defense, and Russia is not the problem. Islam is the problem. That is what will destroy Europe.
I think Trump knows this.
EUrope apparently doesn’t.
Even the Rooskies are unclear on the topic.
Hard Lessons ahead.
Unfortunately, our defense contractors are the ones who want to keep NATO alive, as well as keep these absurd conflicts going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a lot of clot with Congress.
Why save NATO?
Western Europe is no longer free, with draconian ‘thought crime’ laws suppressing any population that opposes EU or government policy.
It is set on committing demographic suicide.
There is no Soviet Union or Warsaw pact from which they need protection, and they are not worthy of such protection (see above).
Pack up our troops and equipment and go home.
Yup, he sure is.
It should have been wrapped up and America should have withdrawn when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The Yurps are not real allies - we all know they cannot be counted on in the event of war. We have no interest in subsidizing their defense.
repurpose it to the greatest threat today.... the OIC embedded in the UN
“:^)
I agree. We ARE NATO and have been pretty much since it’s inception. As things are today, the state of Britain’s and Germany’s military are concerned , both are in serious decline. I saw a study done some years ago, I think it was Jane’s (pretty much the bible on things military) stating the the British military was no longer capable of conducting military operations outside the UK. And more, the study said the ability of the UK’s military to even defend the island was in doubt.As it is I recently heard the Brits could field, at best, a brigade. Which is about 2,500 to 4,000 soldiers. Germany’s military is falling apart and oddly the German people are kind of bemused about it all. They see it as an affirmation that their militaristic past is gone. 73 years of defending Western Europe from a non-exist threat is enough. They hate us anyway. Bring our troops home.
Leave and let it crumble. Then do the same with the UN.
Your comment goes to prove the theory that subsidies hurt those who receive them. It keeps them from making tough decisions and shields them from the consequences of bad decisions. This applies to farmers and welfare recipients, too, but unfortunately, people still believe that the laws of economics can be ignored.
The laws of economics can be ignored. But the consequences of ignoring those laws can’t.
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.