US Sec Def sends a shot across NATO Bow.

[FSTO]

Mattis telling NATO there is a limit to the amount of freeloading going on.

My worry that if Canada heeds the warning and ups our spending we wouldn't know how to do it!
https://blog.usni.org/2017/02/15/secdef-mattis-to-nato-sober-up

 

[jollyjacktar]

Not so much how to do it, more like do it within the handcuffs, Chasity Belts, Iron Maidens, and other assorted dungeon torture devices of the procurement system we're using that is TB and PSPC.  Believe me, I could spend money very easily if it was that easy to spend it and I'm a small potatoes guy when it comes to systems I take care of when set against the real money pits.

 

[QV]

Finally.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the Support of the American Citizenry for NATO and Foreign Intervention. ---- It ain't there.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/02/17/new-poll-finds-dc-touch-americans-foreign-policy/

Poll Finds DC Is Out Of Touch With Americans On Foreign Policy
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 By Jeremy Lott

The foreign policy consensus in Washington DC is so stubbornly pro-intervention that our most recent president—who dragged the country into several foreign entanglements and whose military dropped 26,171 bombs last year alone—is seen as, at best, a ditherer. The World Politics Review summed up his legacy by saying, “The problem with Obama’s foreign policy has been inaction, not weakness.”

Get outside of DC and the estimation of what we ought to be doing is much different. Americans who are actually stretched to pay for those wars and whose children may be serving in the military are not as gung-ho about going there.

That is my takeaway from the latest Charles Koch Institute/Center for the National Interest poll of American attitudes toward foreign policy. A majority of those surveyed in late January turned out to be deeply skeptical that what America has been doing has been working. It’s hard to argue they don’t have a point.

For instance, when asked if America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has made us more or less safe, a non-dangling-chad majority (51 percent) said “less safe.” Only 11 percent thought we were safer after two costly large-scale wars involving nation-building and countless smaller interventions across the Middle East and Arica.

Intervention Hasn’t Gone So Well

They thought that what was true for America was probably true for the larger world as well. A huge plurality (47 percent) said we had made the world “less safe” versus only a tiny minority (9 percent) who said we’d made things any better.

Our country’s national interest is what ought to drive our foreign policy going forward, a supermajority (69 percent) in the poll believe. They don’t necessarily like the ring of “America first” (only 30 percent signed on to more exclusive language), but they’re not okay with most of the things our country is doing that fall outside of a national interest framework.

Democracy promotion through military power? A plurality of 41 percent thought we should knock it off versus 24 percent who said full speed ahead. Only 11 percent thought the country ought to deploy more troops to Europe, and 27 percent said even our current garrison levels are too high.

We’re Not Getting What We Want

Although they are not typically aware of just how much America is spending on defense, Americans by and large do not want more spending for more wars. Fully 79 percent said that any additional tax dollars that come in should go toward domestic spending, not a military buildup. They think the amount of money we budget for military now is enough for a truly national defense.

In sharp contrast with DC, they’re also not wild about poking Russia or China. Only 12 percent said Russia was America’s greatest security challenge, and only 17 percent said that Russia should mainly be viewed only as a rival. Large numbers thought Russia should be viewed either mainly as a partner (29 percent) or as a realistic mix of partner and rival (35 percent). And only 5 percent signaled that they wanted confrontation with China.

These numbers are not flukes. They’re mostly consistent with two polls the same two groups commissioned in October and December of last year. If they persist, and if American foreign policy under President Trump does not significantly change, we may have a long-term democracy problem on our hands.

What the people want is not what we are getting. Our leaders need to know this, and either change course or tell us in convincing words why they are right and we are wrong.

Jeremy Lott is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities.

 

[Kirkhill]

NATO on Trump's (And Mattis's And Pence's) Call for Support and Renewal - Yes.

On the other hand - they have agreed to a lot of stuff in the past.

Candidate Donald Trump set off a furious controversy when he said NATO countries should pay their "fair share" of mutual defense costs and, later, that the treaty organization was "obsolete" because not enough of its efforts were directed against radical Islamic terrorism.

On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence took the Trump message to NATO headquarters in Brussels. And after all the controversy and complaining, NATO's response could be boiled down to a single sentence: Yes sir, Mr. Trump.

News reports from Pence's news conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg focused on Pence's effort to "reassure" nervous NATO officials that the U.S. will stand behind its treaty commitments. "It is my privilege here at the NATO headquarters to express the strong support of President Trump and the United States of America for NATO and our transatlantic alliance," Pence said. "I can say with confidence, America will do our part."

But at least as newsworthy was what happened next. Pence dropped the hammer of Trump's demands, and NATO quickly went along

"Europe's defense requires Europe's commitment as much as ours," Pence said. He reminded the group that in 2014 all 28 members of NATO promised to try to spend two percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. Only four countries, in addition to the U.S., are now meeting that standard. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly called for NATO to pay more, Pence noted.

And now Trump is president. "So let me say again what I said this last weekend in Munich," Pence said "The president of the United States and the American people expect our allies to keep their word and to do more in our common defense, and the president expects real progress by the end of 2017. ... It is time for actions, not words."

Just in case anyone missed the message, Pence encouraged the NATO countries that don't spend two percent on defense to accelerate their plans to get there. "And if you don't have a plan," Pence said, "get one."

To which NATO quickly acceded. "I fully support what has been underlined by President Trump and by Vice President Pence today, the importance of burden sharing," Stoltenberg said. "I expect all allies to make good on the promise that we made in 2014 to increase defense spending and to make sure to have a fairer burden of sharing."

On the issue of terrorism, Stoltenberg said yes again. First, he noted that NATO is helping train security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and is contributing surveillance planes to the fight against the Islamic State. Then he added what Pence wanted to hear: "But we agree that the alliance can, and should do more, in the fight against terrorism."

It's hard to overstate the near-hysteria that met Trump's "fair share" and "obsolete" comments. But the fact is, burden sharing is an old idea, and a non-controversial one. Modernizing NATO's approach in the age of the Islamic State is also eminently reasonable. And now NATO, facing the reality of a Trump presidency, has little choice but to go along.

The bottom line is that Donald Trump moved the NATO debate. After much fretting, and complaining, and denouncing, NATO did the simplest thing: It went along.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-nato-to-us-yes-sir-mr.-trump/article/2615336

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The US can "do it's part" by responding to an invasion of a NATO member, however standing up to the Russian bear and providing deterrence is the duty of the European members. Canada and the US can respond to a impending threat and assist in securing the sea lanes. The initial response and border protection should be European.   

 

[Kirkhill]

They're not exactly broke, nor are they without material resources.  It isn't 1945 anymore.

Also with respect to the EU: I think an economically cohesive, but politically fragmented entity would suit everybody but the Eurocrats just fine.

Some thoughts on groupings by Corporate Tax Rate

Malta 35%
Belgium 34%
France 33%
Germany 33%
Luxembourg 29%
Greece 29%
Italy 28%
Spain 28%
Austria 25%
Netherlands 25%

The Original 6 plus the client state of Greece and Malta and Spain (culturally akin to Italy) - also the territory that was fought for by the Hapsburg-Valois-Bourbons (Greece excepted)

Norway 22%
Sweden 22%
Denmark 22%
Portugal 21%
Iceland 20%
Finland 20%
Estonia 20%
Latvia 15%
Lithuania 15%

Slovakia 22%
Czech 19%
Poland 19%
Hungary 9%

Slovenia 19%
Romania 16%
Serbia 15%
Albania 15%
Croatia 12%
Bosnia - Herzegovina 10%
Macedonia 10%
Bulgaria 10%
Montenegro 9%

Ukraine 18%
Georgia 15%

Switzerland 16.5%
Liechtenstein 12.5%
Cyprus 12.5%
Ireland 12.5%


And the UK is at 18%, heading for 15% and threatening 10%.

I suggest that each of these groups internally share not just similar outlooks on economics, politics and culture but also geopolitical realities.  Each of the blocks is naturally cohesive but not good fits for a single supra-national government.

The people with the biggest problems are likely to be the Irish - as their 12.5% tax rate doesn't buy them many friends in Brussels and nor does their neutral stance.

 

[tomahawk6]

Getting our NATO partners to help finance  their own defense is an old problem that isnt going away. From the US standpoint having an alliance meant the US wasnt alone.The US was willing to pay the freight so to speak.The reliability of the alliance partners has always been a key question mark for me. A number of our NATO partners have done yeomans work in Afghanistan. Unfortunately ISIS has duped Europe into taking in millions of muslims which undermine the very security of the host nations.Their are unable at least to this point to send the migrants packing.It will happen but I hope it happens before they are undone.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Getting our NATO partners to help finance  their own defense is an old problem that isnt going away. From the US standpoint having an alliance meant the US wasnt alone.The US was willing to pay the freight so to speak.The reliability of the alliance partners has always been a key question mark for me. A number of our NATO partners have done yeomans work in Afghanistan. Unfortunately ISIS has duped Europe into taking in millions of muslims which undermine the very security of the host nations.Their are unable at least to this point to send the migrants packing.It will happen but I hope it happens before they are undone.

On the upside, they seem to be abandoning conscription, which was pretty much a guarantee that the UK, USA and Canada would have been left at the FEBA looking around and wondering where all their 'allies' went if the balloon went up for real.

 

[Rifleman62]

The important part of the Vice President's remarks should be highlighted. Are you listening Gerald Butts, I mean PM Trudeau?

“Europe’s defense requires Europe’s commitment as much as ours,” Pence said. He reminded the group that in 2014 all 28 members of NATO promised to try to spend two percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. Only four countries, in addition to the U.S., are now meeting that standard. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly called for NATO to pay more, Pence noted.

And now Trump is president. “So let me say again what I said this last weekend in Munich,” Pence said “The president of the United States and the American people expect our allies to keep their word and to do more in our common defense, and the president expects real progress by the end of 2017. … It is time for actions, not words.”

Just in case anyone missed the message, Pence encouraged the NATO countries that don’t spend two percent on defense to accelerate their plans to get there. “And if you don’t have a plan,” Pence said, “get one.”

 

[Old Sweat]

The important part of the Vice President's remarks should be highlighted. Are you listening Gerald Butts, I mean PM Trudeau?

I just commented to a friend who is studying the planning for Desert Storm as part of his master's program that the Americans have difficulty understanding that coalition negotiation is more than standing up and delivering an ultimatum of the "my way or the highway" genre in a loud voice.

 

[Rifleman62]

It is not the US ultimatum "my way or the highway", it is an NATO agreement, signed by all partners, announced by the US VPres/Secretary of Defence in a loud voice.

Canada also has NORAD to be concerned about getting a plan. Purchased 60-80 F-35's should bring our expenditures up.

 

[jmt18325]

It is not the US ultimatum "my way or the highway", it is an NATO agreement, signed by all partners, announced by the US VPres/Secretary of Defence in a loud voice.

It's a guideline.  Nothing more.

 

[Rifleman62]

Agreement is a mutual understanding. A guideline is a statement to determine a course of action. In this case I believe it was signed by all the country representatives of NATO. Thus this guideline, if that's what you call it, having been signed by all, was an agreement.

 

[jeffb]

I just commented to a friend who is studying the planning for Desert Storm as part of his master's program that the Americans have difficulty understanding that coalition negotiation is more than standing up and delivering an ultimatum of the "my way or the highway" genre in a loud voice.

Loudership is a recognized method of leadership is it not?

 

[Journeyman]

First off, it was a "pledge," hence merely a guideline.  The agreement does state that:

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level [2% GDP] will:
- halt any decline in defence expenditure;
- aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
- aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls. 1

Tossing about the term "2% GDP" is meaningless without considering "NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls."

The other point is, the agreement stipulated "within a decade," ie - 2024 is the agreed timeline, not Trump's tweets.


I do not envy HR McMaster or James Mattis. 



ps - there's not a hope in hell that all 28 NATO nations will ever  reach 2% GDP defence spending. Ever. Regardless of the bombast.


1.  North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Wales Summit Declaration,” press release, September 5, 2014, www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm.

 

[daftandbarmy]

First off, it was a "pledge," hence merely a guideline.  The agreement does state that:
Tossing about the term "2% GDP" is meaningless without considering "NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls."

The other point is, the agreement stipulated "within a decade," ie - 2024 is the agreed timeline, not Trump's tweets.


I do not envy HR McMaster or James Mattis. 



ps - there's not a hope in hell that all 28 NATO nations will ever  reach 2% GDP defence spending. Ever. Regardless of the bombast.


1.  North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Wales Summit Declaration,” press release, September 5, 2014, www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm.

NATO countries could spend 50% of GDP on their defence and still fail to prevent the invasion of, oh I don't know, the Crimea etc, because of rotten leadership and poor diplomacy.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's a guideline.  Nothing more.

For a lot of things in life, the guideline is what keeps you from breaking the law, in example guidelines to avoid destruction of fish habitat, if you don't follow the guideline chances are you get charged.

In this case if you don't meet the 2% without a good excuse, there will be political consequences.

 

[jmt18325]

In this case if you don't meet the 2% without a good excuse, there will be political consequences.

Almost no one is meeting it.  What are the consequences?

 

[tomahawk6]

Almost no one is meeting it.  What are the consequences?

The consequence wont be known until the Russians head west. Or until the mullah's figure out a way to instigate their fifth column to attemp to seize control of the EU state by state. AS this would be an internal matter is NATO still obliged to come to the defense of a member facing cicil war ?