• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Has NATO become a paper tiger?

  • Thread starter CrazyCanuck
  • Start date
C

CrazyCanuck

Guest
    Afghanistan is NATO's first major combat mission and the attitude of some nations has been less than stellar. Now would this attitude be any different in any other combat mission? Probably not, the fact is that NATO is European centric and most of those Nation's have a difficult time selling a mission that is not in their own backyard. The reason for this is that because the people of Europe do not feel directly threatened by a conflict that is thousands of miles away as opposed to one that is happening in a nearby country. The vast majority of Europe only wants Afghanistan to be a blurb on the last page of their newspaper, they have no reason for it to be screaming out at them on their front page. Afghanistan and NATO are casualties of desensitization, nobody really gives a damn about a little war happening halfway around the world, and the less they have to do with it the better. Much of the major NATO countries have lived in relative peace for the last fifty years and would prefer not to have anything to do with war.
    So here's the problem in a nutshell; war has become so unpalatable to the European public that it is pretty much political suicide to try and sell it. Due to this NATO has been pretty much detoothed, when an actually fight came along only a few countries were willing to step up to the plate, with the rest deciding to cheer from the sidelines. Well cheering from the sidelines is great in a hockey game but it is pretty much pointless in a war, these nations have proved that they are unreliable allies who are not politically capable of a combat mission.
    Now i know that there will be those who will say that we are guilty of the same, and I am ready to agree with them; to a point. Firstly most occasions when we have placed caveats on our troops has been during peacekeeping missions, not during combat roles. We actually have a rather decent record when it comes to the combat roles, such as the current mission and our bombings over Kosovo. Secondly war or a combat action is not as unpalatable here than in Europe. Sure the polls say that the country is divided by this mission but there appears to be more seats occupied by the NDP than there have been war protests or even protesters for that matter. And the NDP the only national party that openly opposes the war has actually seen a drop in support while if this war were as unpalatable as some say that support should be on the rise.
    So here's the question that I'm going to put forward; has NATO become a paper tiger? and if so is it time for something new?
 
If we're going to have limitations on the uses of troops, I would agree it's become mostly a paper tiger. If we're in it together, work together and not pick and choose the how and when. Just my two cents.
 
Why is this in radio chatter? Shouldn't it be in the "Current Military Affairs and News" section or the "Canadian Military section threads"? Or is it here because mainly opinions are expressed?   ???
 
CougarDaddy said:
Why is this in radio chatter? Shouldn't it be in the "Current Military Affairs and News" section or the "Canadian Military section threads"? Or is it here because mainly opinions are expressed?  ???

Was hoping to generate a debate, hence I put it in Radio Chatter. If the mods feel it's in the wrong place they're free to move it.
 
Jason,
Kossovo was mostly an air war.
Air assets of a limited number of countries contributed to the Armada... Not a all out effort there either.
 
Boater, considering that NATO is now conducting operations on behalf of the UN in Afghanistan which is notably outside of the Alliance's chartered area of responsibility, I don't think it's deserving of the "paper tiger" title.

G2G 
 
True enough it is operating with a UN mandate but how effectively as an alliance is it operating on behalf of the UN? I mean it can hardly get all the member states to agree on how exactly to deal with poppy eradication and strategies differ from region to region. There's really a lack of cohesiveness within the organization itself. I really got the paper tiger label from an article I read the other day which stated that NATO has close to two million troops under it's command but can only get about thirty-five thousand for Afghanistan.
 
Frankly, short of ABCA (America, Britain, Canada and Australia) doing something on their own, NATO is as good as it's going to get...

G2G
 
At least until some of the member nations, like Germany, can rewrite their constitutions, which isn't likely.
 
Boater said:
True enough it is operating with a UN mandate but how effectively as an alliance is it operating on behalf of the UN? I mean it can hardly get all the member states to agree on how exactly to deal with poppy eradication and strategies differ from region to region. There's really a lack of cohesiveness within the organization itself. I really got the paper tiger label from an article I read the other day which stated that NATO has close to two million troops under it's command but can only get about thirty-five thousand for Afghanistan.

I think getting 26-member nations (a total of 39 countries there now) involved is pretty significant.  The paper tiger moniker is more often used for the US and Iraq. 

The original Bonn Agreement laid out specific responsibilities.  The United Kingdom is the lead-nation for counternarcotics, the Federal Republic of Germany is the lead-nation for police programs, and Italy is the lead-nation for justice programs.

http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/rm/53967.htm
Afghanistan.http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/bonn_agreement_2001.html
 
CesarNostradamus said:
Ya your rite im probably demanding too much. just give me the tank for starters then

Cesar,

Ya thinkkk?  ::) For God's sake, stop hijacking this thread, stop smelling the glue and get yourself down to rehab pronto!



Boater,

I'm sorry to see your thread get abused like this.

Anyways, I sort of agree with you when it comes to NATO becoming a paper tiger; although Russia obviously seems to be resurgent nowadays under Putin, they seem to be more wary of a US-led organization than in need of protection from a resurrected Russian bear.

I take it you must have heard of the EU's Rapid Reaction Force- their version of NATO, but without US military participation?

http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP37.htm

I know this article link is dated and other members are probably more informed about this organization/arrangement since 2001, but it could be part of a reason why NATO is less of a priority, especially with regards to assisting the "ABCA" nations' troops engaged in Southern Afghanistan.


 
Thanks for the link rather interesting, though it says the ERRF is not going to replace NATO one can't help but wonder as this does show that to a certain extent Europeans are loosing an interest within the organization itself. Now when we look at the formation of the EU it was conceived as an economic counter balance to the US. As the US is definetly the dominant player in NATO and maybe some European countries are unhappy with this and would prefer to see a European defense organization that is Euro-centric?
I'm not saying they are purposely trying to sabotage NATO but are possibly in the market for something newer and more relevant to them.
Just a thought.

However this does contradict this to a certain extent:

Ultimately, EU leaders do not intend to use the ERRF to create a European standing army, and have formally announced this repeatedly at the EU summits in an effort to quell the concerns of NATO.  The ERRF will come from national forces that will be earmarked for the use of the ERRF.  A standing army will be far from possible with the current commitments of the EU Member States, especially when taking into account their ability to live up to those obligations.  The ERRF will not be a defensive alliance as is NATO.[32] Essentially, the ERRF might intervene where NATO will be unable or unwilling to act.

I find the bold part rather amusing and am wondering if the Europeans would be willing to send this force to places in Afghanistan where parts of NATO are unable or unwilling to act

 
Boater said:
However this does contradict this to a certain extent:
I find the bold part rather amusing and am wondering if the Europeans would be willing to send this force to places in Afghanistan where parts of NATO are unable or unwilling to act

Surely you jest!
Anything short of the Soviet hordes coming thru the Fulda gap on it's way to the coast - Euroforces shall not stand together.... xcept possibly stanidng on the sidelines watching the loose "anglo alliance" go thru it's paces.
 
As anyone ever worked in the AMF (L) Bde can attest, the British and Canadian battalions were always put on the big, important reserve demolitions while the rest used to flit about doing whatever. This obviously reflected who could be trusted to stand and fight to the last. Nothing seems to have changed much.

At least it was  good having an Italian Bn in the Bde as you could trade cans of bacon grill for wine and grappa!
 
Nato at pains to dismiss Afghan tensions  (a.k.a. Kiss & Make Up)


Nato defence ministers have dismissed talk of a crisis over their operation in Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7233971.stm
 
Thomas Raabe, the German defence ministry spokesman, amplified that message in an interview with the BBC.

"Our allies might think we should do more in Afghanistan, but our message is that we are already the third largest troop-contributing nation and we are doing other things for the whole of Afghanistan," he said.

"I think people in Britain should be aware that we lost two world wars, and we have a different attitude to the question of soldiers, wars and blood."

I think the german defence minister should be aware that they started two world wars... they certainly had a different attitude to the question of soldiers, wars and blood.

Third largest troop contingent?... sure BUT, given that their area of operation is a lot more quiet than the south... what do they have to show for it?

 
geo said:
I think the german defence minister should be aware that they started two world wars... they certainly had a different attitude to the question of soldiers, wars and blood.

+1

Geo, excellent point!  I'd love to see that one hit the airwaves!  :eek:
 
Back
Top