Xequecal wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
I'd be fine with that as long as we don't go crawling back the second we want them to pitch in on something.
Yes, the U.S. clearly needs to go begging to Europe in search of military power.
We tried really hard to get the rest of NATO to sign on to the Iraq war, and only pulled out the "NATO/The UN is useless" and "we should get out of NATO/The UN" when they rejected us.
Ok, first of all, the U.N. has nothing to do with NATO. The U.N. being useless has been a problem for a lot longer and has nothing to do with the reasons NATO is falling apart.
Second, We did not try to get NATO to sign on for Iraq; we tried to get individual NATO countries involved. NATO's treaty terms did not apply to Iraq. They did apply to Afghanistan and they were for the most part met - except that some nations like Britain, France, and Canada ended up actually fighting alongside the U.S. while other NATO nations demonstrated their soldiers were too fat, lazy, and ill-trained to do much fighting. Others were simply so worried their soldiers might actually shoot someone, or basically do anything other than put band-aids on the natives that they essentially refused to do anything that might involve combat.
Third, the Iraq war began 8 years ago and this is coming up now. We didn't "only pull out this line" because of the Iraq war at all; the issue of who was going to get involved and who wasn't is long dead.
Fourth, at the time of the Iraq war, the Cold War had only been over 12 years. At the time of Afghanistan/ 9/11 it had only been over 10. It has now been 20 years since the end of the cold war, so the amunt of time to gain perspective on the status of an alliance originally formed to stop the Soviets from pouring through the Fulda Gap has increased greatly.
Finally, we have the most recent example, for which there is a thread going on right now, of NATO wanting deal with Ghaddaffi, but being unable to do so without coming begging to the U.S. The U.S. had to take the lead on Kosovo and on the original Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia issue in the 1990s.
As a nation, evidence has been building for the U.S. that, apart from a select few countries, NATO isn't interested in taking its own defense seriously, and even among those countries, (namely Britain) the defense budget has been used as an endless source of alrgesse for social programs to the point that it's defense chiefs are warning there is nothing laft to cut. We already discussed this in a thread a whiel back.
In fact, even in 1985 at the height of the cold war, the U.S. spent 6.7% of its GDP on defense while European NATO members collectively spent about 3.5%. As of 2001, the U.S. spent about 3.5% of GDP on defense while European nations spent about 2.3%, which not only means that the spending gap, absurdly, narrowed after the Cold War but that the U.S. actually cut ore on a percent of GDP basis than the NATO nations that include so many whiners about U.S. defense spending.
Here and
hereSo, no, we did not jsut break out this idea because of the Iraq war; this is an issue that has been building for a long time, and has its roots before the cold war even ended. By and large, European countries are unwilling to contribute to their own defense beyond a token effort, but want to help call the shots.