Comments on: The NYT on NATO’s Mission

By: dutchmarbel

dutchmarbel — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:21:09 +0000

And besides... if we want to take our rightful place in the community of nations we have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the European people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is our demonstrated ability to build and create.
:^)

By: dutchmarbel

dutchmarbel — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:22:45 +0000

The US spent 48% of the global militairy spending in 2008 and the "free riding" Europeans 20%. Number three on the list spent 8%.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:50:49 +0000

Dave - that's true up to a degree. The Soviets rated their "allies" according to various degrees of political reliability. On one end there were the reliables, which pretty much they could be counted on to do anything Moscow wanted (and more). That would have been the East Germans, who (being typical Prussians) were often more doctrinaire and orthodox Marxists than their Moscow comrades. The Russians looked absolutely reasonable compared to the East Germans. Everybody else was viewed with a degree of suspicion. The Bulgarians and Czechs were relatively trusted, but the Poles and Hungarians weren't.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:40:20 +0000

My all-time favorite Soviet era wisecrack:

The slogan of the Warsaw Pact: “Russian respect for the law, German civility, Polish sobriety [ed. this was told me by a Pole], Czech industrial might, united by a common understanding of the Hungarian language.”

The notion of Eastern European troops following the vanguard of the Red Army against Western Europe was always ridiculous. Russia might well have invaded Western Europe but they wouldn't have received a great deal of help from the rest of the Warsaw Pact.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:19:45 +0000

To pick up on James's point, the alliance will continue to let us do the heavy lifting as long as we insist on being the top dog and providing the bulk of forces. I argued long ago that NATO became an anachroism when the Warsaw Pact dissolved along with the USSR. It should have become a European entity under some kind of political umbrella like the OSCE. I guess we still found it useful to keep it under our control in the 90s. But I can't see the point now. I would recommend that we give up the monopoly on military leadership of the alliance in favor of it going to whomever ponies up the largest military contribution (personnel and resources) to the alliance. If France wants the SACEUR slot, let them do the heavy lifting.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:02:05 +0000

It's a classic free rider problem, Dave. The Allies know we're prepared to make up the difference and cover them under our security umbrella. They realized this even during the Cold War and got away with it.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:57:22 +0000

You could ask the question, including of the US, are we "in it to win it" concerning Afghanistan?

As far as victory conditions, I think the answer is similar to Iraq. A minimal win is one where the conditions in the country make it no better than say France for being a terrorist launching site. A decisive win would be to establish a functioning and prosperous democracy as a alternative to the terrorist vision which could then help lead the region.