They don't pay their fair share. We're all supposed to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense, right? So we're all capable of contributing to military defense of each other, yeah?

Are they? They are not. We are paying substantially more, they are paying substantially less (as percent of GDP, not simply absolute spending), because they are and have been relying on us to provide an umbrella of safety. That's what's known as "not paying their fair share."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Two different things. There's a NATO budget, and we're all supposed to contribute. We all have a share. Whether or not it's a "fair share" or not is a reasonable question. Whether countries pay their allotted share is also a reasonable question.

Separate from our share of the NATO budget is the agreement to spend 2% of national budgets on defense. That's a part of the agreement, but not related to our "fair share" of NATO budget or spending.

Given how ardently you are holding the press to account in the Benghazi thread, it's interesting that you're willing to be fairly casual with your use of language in this situation. My point is specifically that people don't know what "fair share" means, because they've been duped into thinking the national defense spending target is somehow part of that, when it's really not.


When we talk about American citizens paying their fair share in taxes, we're not talking about how much of their personal budgets they spend of clothes or food or whatever. We're talking about how much they pay into the fund we're all supposed to contribute to. It's funny how people decide to apply an entirely different meaning when it's convenient.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Fair enough. I have no idea what the NATO budget is, or how much we contribute to it, and how much other nations contribute to it.

The discussion for as long as I've known has centered around defense spending, not NATO's actual budget. The argument has been that over-reliance on US defense spending has allowed Europe to essentially get a free ride. And that's largely true. There was a time when that made sense and was more clearly in our national interests. That's not the case today.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Precisely my point. Most Americans don't know how NATO is funded. So it's easy for people to toss out the 2% number and call it "fair share." In truth, we pay a heavy portion of the NATO budget (just under 23% if I remember correctly) because the agreed upon formula for share is based on GDP. Germany pays in the neighborhood of 16%, France and the UK around 12% each, etc. As I said, whether that's fair or not is as reasonable point of discussion.



But when someone claims that a few countries or groups aren't paying their fair share, the implication is that someone else if paying more than their fair share to make up for the deficit, or that the group can't do all the things it needs to do because of lack of funds. It's not like we're spending more of our budget to make up for the part those countries aren't spending. We're spending the amount of our budget that we want to spend on Defense, and how much France or Iceland spend on their own National Defense doesn't really have much to do with that number. Yes, Europe heavily relies on the US. But quite frankly, we've been very happy to spend and station troops and materiel forward in Europe (and around the globe). I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment that suddenly it's not clearly in our national interests to have those forces where they are, or to be participating in the operations or exercises, etc.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 
Precisely my point. Most Americans don't know how NATO is funded.

Maybe not, but that's not really the issue in the first place.


Maybe so, but it's not like we're spending more of our budget to make up for the part those countries aren't spending. We're spending the amount of our budget that we want to spend, and how much France or Iceland spend on their own National Defense doesn't really have much to do with that number.

We're spending that much because we have grown accustomed to the notion that it's our job to protect the world order, and protection of Europe via NATO is the central plank in that program. And the fact that we spend so much and are so willing to extend the benefit of our spending is exactly what has allowed much of Europe to get that free ride. Why spend an adequate amount on their own defense when we're willing to do it for them?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well it was part of the issue I commented on when I objected to the use of the 2% Defense spending number as representative of "fair share."



We're not spending defense dollars in Europe out of altruism. We're doing so because we think it serves our national economic, diplomatic, and security interests. Just like why we're spending defense dollars in the Middle East and in Asia, and not so much in South America or Africa.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

We're doing so because we think it serves our national economic, diplomatic, and security interests.

And I'm saying it doesn't anymore, hence why our commitment is obsolete. It serves Europe's economic, diplomatic, and security interests FAR more than ours, and they can't be bothered to pay for it. Why shouldn't they have to?

Just like why we're spending defense dollars in the Middle East and in Asia,

Just so. Stellar return on investment we're getting, too.

Tell you what: How about we just scale back defense spending to the NATO target of 2% of GDP?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Basically everything we participate in benefits others more than us. That's how it works when you're the richest kid on the block. I think if you dig a bit, it's not hard to find ways in which NATO benefits us and our interests.


Because somehow that extra 1.5% or so is all spent on stuff we don't care about, and all focused in Europe?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 
Basically everything we participate in benefits others more than us.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be held to their obligations. And it begs the question- what's our benefit in participating, and is it worth what it costs us?

And it isn't simply a function of being the rich kid, either. It's a function of Europe having more to gain from the alliance than we do in the first place.


Because somehow that extra 1.5% or so is all spent on stuff we don't care about, and all focused in Europe?

No, like I said, it's largely a function of our desire to protect and maintain some global "order." But yeah, our presence in Europe is a big part of that, as is our continual projection of power in the Middle East.

Let's pull back to 2% of GDP and see what shakes out. Would still meet our NATO commitment, which is more than what most of NATO can say.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Of course not. I'm certainly not arguing against putting pressure on all the countries that aren't meeting their treaty obligations, although I will point out that the 2% Defense spending number is a "goal" not a requirement. Nations are supposed to aim for that number, but of course each country has it's own politics to consider and getting to 2% is simply not realistic for many of them. Iceland for instance, will never get to 2% defense spending.


Directly, certainly. But the consequences of Europe falling into disarray would be pretty steep for us as well.


It would still meet that target number, but it might very well result in us to missing other treaty obligations or expectations. Unless you want to pull the excess defense spending only from other areas of the world.

What you seem to want is an entire new assessment of our national interests, our role in the world, and our strategies for accomplishing a new set of goals, along with an entirely new budgetary approach to our revised view of our global position and responsibilities.

Ok, well that's a pretty major undertaking, but it really has not much to do with NATO's relevance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What you seem to want is an entire new assessment of our national interests, our role in the world, and our strategies for accomplishing a new set of goals, along with an entirely new budgetary approach to our revised view of our global position and responsibilities.

It's long overdue, and it has quite a lot to do with NATO.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

NATO certainly has to figure into the calculus, but our view of our role in the world doesn't figure into whether NATO is obsolete or not. Either the mission (or a mission) for NATO remains, or it doesn't. Whether we want to be part of it is a separate question.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

NATO certainly has to figure into the calculus, but our view of our role in the world doesn't figure into whether NATO is obsolete or not.

Sure it does. Like I said, it's a Cold War relic. It's part of the old order, and a piece of our old strategy for dealing with that order. It served its purpose, and was mutually beneficial to Europe and to us. But that order no longer exists. NATO and the costs associate with it no longer serve our national interests, and certainly not the the degree that we invest in it- and our commitment to NATO is representative of our global strategy and commitments.



Either the mission (or a mission) for NATO remains, or it doesn't.

NATO was a great hammer. There's no nail anymore. And just because we can use the hammer as a paperweight doesn't mean we should.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It certainly adds an ability and structure to fight in a combined (coalition) manner. Also adding some international legitimacy to endeavors--although some may scoff at that. Out here in the Stan one of the big consumers of the "ability" I'm out here providing is NSOCC-A. You can google them. I can't really talk much about it on a open net but our allies are out here kicking some major ass. You just don't hear a lot about it

Almost done Making Afghanistan Great Again this tour. Fly home this coming FRI. God willing and the creek don't rise

Take good care

/r

---

Steve

NATO isn't outdated, your view of NATO's role is outdated. Just as many Canadian idea of what peacekeeping actually entails, they still believe the bullshit that was fed to them back in the 70's & 80's. Problem is, it was exactly that bullshit.

Almost done Making Afghanistan Great Again this tour.


Afghanistan is almost great again?

    To yoos guys that may have an informed opinion; how does the possibility of the EU (if ever) getting together it's military force play relative to NATO?

EU is, at least in its current form, basically an economic union. I don't really foresee there being an EU military force anytime soon.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

To yoos guys that may have an informed opinion; how does the possibility of the EU (if ever) getting together it's military force play relative to NATO?


Not surprisingly, this thread got sidetracked from my original point.


I wasn't asking if NATO was good or not, I was pointing out that Trump said he wants out of NATO and Pence is saying the U.S stands 100% behind NATO.


Those stands are polar opposites and could have a big impact on the relationship with Europe and Russia.

Post #9 and/or post #11.

Really not much else to say about it at this point.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Really not much else to say about it at this point.

You mean we're not going to beat that one issue to death?

I don't even know this place anymore...

-
Not just Pence, Mattis and Tillerson are overseas making nice on NATO...so I think Trump is the only one out of the loop.

lol. I'd be more than happy to flog that horse, but there's really not much to talk about at this point. There's nothing to discuss. White House is sending mixed signals. Which is genuine, which is false? Both? Neither? No way to tell.

I wouldn't sweat it too much. I didn't hear the entire press conference the other day, but one part I did catch was Trump talking about his response to various provocations, and he said, "I don't have to tell you what I'm going to do in North Korea, and I don't have to tell you what I'm going to do in Iran, because they shouldn't know." Or something to that effect.

It sounded idiotic when I heard it, but really, after thinking about it, isn't much different from the boilerplate political/diplomatic answer every politician always gives. "We're going to leave all options on the table." It's just that Trump doesn't come off that polished.

I think that applies to the White House statements about NATO.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Doesn't look like there's really all that much daylight between Trump and Pence on this.

http://time.com/...ding-germany-merkel/

At the head of the U.S. delegation to the conference this year was Vice President Mike Pence, whose speech felt at times like that of a barman politely insisting to a roomful of drinkers that happy hour is over. He reminded the European leaders in the audience that, out of 28 members of the NATO military alliance, only four countries other than the U.S. currently meet their obligation to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. (These are Greece, Estonia, Poland, and the U.K. On its own the U.S. spends around $650 billion per year, or roughly 3.6% of its GDP. That accounts for more than 70% of the total defense spending of all the NATO allies.)
“Let me be clear on this point,” Pence said. “The President of the United States expects our allies to keep their word, to fulfill this commitment. And for most, that means the time has come to do more.”
<>
Instead, Merkel went on to argue that mutual security went beyond military spending — that, for example, some types of development aid should count as defense spending, in effect equating the construction of hospitals in Africa to the stockpiling of ammo in Europe. “When we help people in their home countries to live a better life and thereby prevent crises, this is also a contribution to security,” Merkel said from the stage in Munich on Saturday. “So I will not be drawn into a debate about who is more military-minded and who is less.”


lol at Merkel and her alternative facts.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That is BS, they want the military might, they need to foot the bill. What if we turned around and starting giving foreign aid as a means of contribution instead of guns, ammo, equipment and personnel? What would our share be if we started counting that?

Fuck her, this is exactly why Americans are frustrated with the arrangement.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden