NATO is a Bargain for the U.S.

[Jack Hays]

The Know-Nothings want the U.S. out of NATO. That would be a bad deal.

President Obama and Donald Trump rarely agree on foreign policy. Yet they share one core belief: Our closest allies in Europe are exploiting U.S. military might.
Trump says NATO should be renegotiated: It is “obsolete” and “unfair . . . to the United States . . . because we pay a disproportionate share.”
Obama has criticized Trump’s stance. Yet for years the president has been conducting his own NATO renegotiation — including demanding European leadership in the Libyan operation and telling Prime Minister David Cameron that if Britain wants to maintain the Anglo-American “special relationship,” it must increase defense spending to the recommended NATO minimum of 2 percent of gross domestic product. His explanation? “Free riders aggravate me.”
But Trump and Obama are both wrong. Although more foreign policy spending is always welcome, Europe already assumes more than its fair share of the regional security burden. It invests not only in its military but also in crucial geo-economic and institutional instruments that the United States does not possess — but needs. In this respect, the United States freerides on European power. . . .



The United States is riding Europe’s superpower coattails


It’s a misperception that allies are exploiting U.S. military might.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Only Poland this year joined the four other countries, out of 28 total NATO members, that are meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. The other four are the U.S., Great Britain, Greece and Estonia.

Just Five of 28 NATO Members Meet Defense Spending Goal, Report Says - WSJ

Clearly Europe is not paying enough, and if it is not the US that us subsidizing them then tell me who is. In any case they can and should pay more.

 

[Chagos]

Just Five of 28 NATO Members Meet Defense Spending Goal, Report Says - WSJ

Clearly Europe is not paying enough, and if it is not the US that us subsidizing them then tell me who is. In any case they can and should pay more.

Is there any particular reason you completely ignore the article?

 

[Carjosse]

Even if most of the European countries paid the 2% it would still just completely pale in comparison to US defense spending no matter you are goign to do, all it would be is a symbolic gesture. I do not understand why Trump cares so much about it.

 

[Chagos]

Even if most of the European countries paid the 2% it would still just completely pale in comparison to US defense spending no matter you are goign to do, all it would be is a symbolic gesture. I do not understand why Trump cares so much about it.

I don't think that's what the article is about.

 

[Jack Hays]

Just Five of 28 NATO Members Meet Defense Spending Goal, Report Says - WSJ

Clearly Europe is not paying enough, and if it is not the US that us subsidizing them then tell me who is. In any case they can and should pay more.

Is $250 billion too little? Like Obama, the U.S. foreign policy establishment rejects Trump’s bluster yet almost unanimously embraces his underlying premise. A common complaint inside the Beltway is that European spending falls short (by roughly $75 billion) of the 2 percent of GDP that NATO leaders have pledged to spend.
Yet all such criticism of low European defense spending rests on a misleadingly narrow conception of national security. When Americans think about global influence, they tend to calculate only military power. Yet in world politics, nonmilitary instruments are often more effective. And Europe is the world’s preeminent civilian superpower.
Europe is the world’s largest trading bloc, provides two-thirds of the world’s economic aid and dominates most international organizations. It has invested heavily in the European Union, which spreads peace and market economics across the continent, and permits Europeans to negotiate as a bloc.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Even if most of the European countries paid the 2% it would still just completely pale in comparison to US defense spending no matter you are goign to do, all it would be is a symbolic gesture. I do not understand why Trump cares so much about it.

Because as a failing superpower with massive debts be need to make adjustments. The sooner the better.

 

[Jack Hays]

Because as a failing superpower with massive debts be need to make adjustments. The sooner the better.

The only thing failing is our leadership.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Is $250 billion too little? Like Obama, the U.S. foreign policy establishment rejects Trump’s bluster yet almost unanimously embraces his underlying premise. A common complaint inside the Beltway is that European spending falls short (by roughly $75 billion) of the 2 percent of GDP that NATO leaders have pledged to spend.
Yet all such criticism of low European defense spending rests on a misleadingly narrow conception of national security. When Americans think about global influence, they tend to calculate only military power. Yet in world politics, nonmilitary instruments are often more effective. And Europe is the world’s preeminent civilian superpower.
Europe is the world’s largest trading bloc, provides two-thirds of the world’s economic aid and dominates most international organizations. It has invested heavily in the European Union, which spreads peace and market economics across the continent, and permits Europeans to negotiate as a bloc.

And as the big trader they are they need a stable global security situation, and they need to start paying their fair share of these costs because we are a failing superpower who can no longer pull their share of the load plus our own.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The only thing failing is our leadership.

We are bankrupt and coming apart as a society.

 

[Jack Hays]

And as the big trader they are they need a stable global security situation, and they need to start paying their fair share of these costs because we are a failing superpower who can no longer pull their share of the load plus our own.

We're not failing, and they're a bargain.

 

[Jack Hays]

We are bankrupt and coming apart as a society.

Nonsense.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Even if most of the European countries paid the 2% it would still just completely pale in comparison to US defense spending no matter you are goign to do, all it would be is a symbolic gesture. I do not understand why Trump cares so much about it.

Because the rest of NATO has been given a free ride for the past 50+ years?

 

[Carjosse]

Because the rest of NATO has been given a free ride for the past 50+ years?

Unless the European countries start spending like 50% of their GDP on defense and institute conscription there is no way they are goign to contribute monetarily and force wise anything near what the US is. The US even got mad when they were doing that before. Like the article states, they do plenty for defense just not thorough military force.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Europe needs to learn how to fend for itself! They want to cry about Obama losing the Ukraine, and Crimea, while they all stand back at a safe distance and criticize without any skin in the game.

Same for Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia. If the Euro's really gave a ****, they would of let them into the European union right away and intervened in the fighting!

Screw Europe.............. as far as NATO goes.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Unless the European countries start spending like 50% of their GDP on defense and institute conscription there is no way they are goign to contribute monetarily and force wise anything near what the US is. The US even got mad when they were doing that before. Like the article states, they do plenty for defense just not thorough military force.

Pull the USA money out of the NATO and see how long the Euro's last.

 

[Jack Hays]

Pull the USA money out of the NATO and see how long the Euro's last.

Did you read the OP?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Unless the European countries start spending like 50% of their GDP on defense and institute conscription there is no way they are goign to contribute monetarily and force wise anything near what the US is. The US even got mad when they were doing that before. Like the article states, they do plenty for defense just not thorough military force.

The USA never got mad for any contribution, they have been harping on the Euro's for years and got the "war monger" thingy thrown back at them in return.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

NATO should be disbanded. Either that, or we allow Russia to join. We can't have both and we must have at least one of those.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Did you read the OP?

I did, and it doesn't change a thing. The Euro's love boasting about unified healthcare and all that crap, then brag about it while the USA is pulling the heavy weight monetarily for their defense.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Even if most of the European countries paid the 2% it would still just completely pale in comparison to US defense spending no matter you are goign to do, all it would be is a symbolic gesture. I do not understand why Trump cares so much about it.

I gotta agree with you completely on this one. NATO is a good deal for the US, regardless of whether the other countries spend 2% of their GDP on defense or not. Trump is ill informed on this, as he seems to be on many subjects dealing with International Relations.

 

[Jack Hays]

I did, and it doesn't change a thing. The Euro's love boasting about unified healthcare and all that crap, then brag about it while the USA is pulling the heavy weight monetarily for their defense.

They bring more to the table than we invest.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Did you read the OP?

Those of us who dont pay only get 10 looks a month. I burned one for this thread. The piece starts from the premise that we are a superpower which is going to stay a super power, so everything that comes after is deeply flawed. We also need to talk about what the point of having a huge spread far and wide military machine is when the political leadership that runs it is as incompetent as it clearly is, with our massive debts, and when the US people who are going to have to pay for this miliary some day ( more so our kids and grandkids) are either against the project or have not had a say in the project.

 

[Carjosse]

The USA never got mad for any contribution, they have been harping on the Euro's for years and got the "war monger" thingy thrown back at them in return.

Yeah they did, they got mad at the Netherlands and threatened to take away aid form them when they were spending 50% of their budget to fight the war in Indonesia.

 

[Jack Hays]

Those of us who dont pay only get 10 looks a month. I burned one for this thread. The piece starts from the premise that we are a superpower which is going to stay a super power, so everything that comes after is deeply flawed. We also need to talk about what the point of having a huge spread far and wide military machine is when the political leadership that runs it is as incompetent as it clearly is, with our massive debts, and when the US people who are going to have to pay for this miliary some day ( more so our kids and grandkids) are either against the project or have not had a say in the project.

The US is a maritime trading nation. A stable international order serves our interests.