No NATO member that spends less than 2% of their GDP on defense should be invited to attend US military schools. Don't spend 2%? We don't take you seriously and you can't send military students to CGSC or War College.
Disagree with that approach: because not bringing foreign mil reps to US for education and training punishes the wrong people. Seems like we should want as many professional mil (and civilian staff) cadre as possible to go through US schools. Then they go home and bang the drum to advocate for larger budgets. Plus, it gives our mil & diplomatic side long-term acquaintances in other nations. Makes it easier to pick up the telephone in the future. Point is, access to US education complex (mil and other) is some of the cheapest, and longest term defense investment we can make.
I agree with your reasoning. As a matter a fact, I am sponsoring a Dutch officer and his family as I write this. There would be some major consternation in NATO when the French and Poles get invited to American schools while the Dutch, and most importantly, the Germans don't get to come. I realize that we send officers to their schools but what would be their excuse for not letting us come? We are holding up our end and always have. Meanwhile the Germans can barely field a sub or two and the majority of their armored vehicles and aircraft are not fully operational. They are coasting on our dime. Shame them.
Mark, I feel your pain, per the imbalance of national commitments to paying for defense. But over & over, through my past 40+ yrs of association w our beloved Sea Service (active, reserve, retired), I have encountered overseas people... and every now & then, we talk about their olden days at (Army/Navy/Air) War College, or Leavenworth, or Nat Defense U, or Naval Postgrad... etc. It's a quick way to have common bonds. Speak at least some of the same language.
.
Quick personal story: Once upon a time I had some business to conduct in an African nation, and nobody wanted to speak with me... Total blow-off... Until the country's VCNO saw my emails. And it turns out he was a Naval War College grad. And he invited me to HQ for a sit-down (half an hour scheduled, which lasted about three), and he wore his NWC necktie! After which meeting, and a pleasant walk-through the defense establishment, things went very smoothly. You just never know who is behind Door Number 2.
The good news is that we would still invite Africans, S. Americans, Asians, etc. as they are not bill paying members of NATO. I would have the same "no invite" policy for SEATO members if there is a GDP requirement for membership. The intent is to get everyone to pull their weight. If they don't, they don't get to sit at the big kid's table.
The proper solution for Belgium and Luxembourg is quit pretending they should remain as countries. France gets the French speakers, Netherlands the Flemish speakers.
But how much convincing will it take to force France to take in the Walloons? Does France need any more assimilation problems? The answers are "Lotsa" & "No". Handy justice might best be served by letting République démocratique du Congo have a hand in detaching Belgium's nationhood.
I like that the article is upbeat, but have some doubts. If spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense is only treated as a kind of gentleman's agreement and not a hard and fast by-law of NATO, I would not expect to see the worst of the long time slackers to ever reach a 2% goal. Where is the incentive to the shirkers without some Right Now consequences? I say "Right Now consequences" because you can be sure they'll be caterwauling for rescue and promising to pay up their arrears just as soon as they are liberated and get a Marshall Plan, only then to shoot for that 2% goal as soon as they are on their feet again. How about "You are either a NATO member in good standing or you're out?" It's a grasshopper and ant thing. NATO and the world needs some tough love.
It's time to add Japan, South Korea and Australia and NZ. Geography and name be damned. If the ACC can add SMU and Stanford and Cal (Atlantic Coast what/where/why?), then NATO should invite any and all desiring to join the ranks. Those 4 would have no problems meeting the 2% goal.
As an aside, I'm not sure if Sweden moving to 2% is due to its biggest external threat or its more current and growing internal threat.
Babe, we can't get homeowner's insurance here in Florida. Not the day before, nor the year before.
But seriously, we have "the box." Nobody can buy insurance when there is a storm "in the box." Where it hurts folks is when they are trying to close on a house. It makes the lives of title insurance clerks very difficult. The mortgage company won't close without insurance, and you can't get insurance when a storm is in the box. So, the closing gets pushed off, the Seller gets pissed off, and the Buyer has no place to live.
So, if you buy a house, and set closing 45 days off, a storm in the box can ruin your day, when you can't get insured.
Maybe an amendment to the charter suggesting that non-2% members can participate in exercises and whatnot, but arent entitled to article 5??? Geographically that wouldnt have equal implications for all, for instance, Spain isnt likely to be Putins next object of desire, but it still makes a point...
"You have small friends, you have large friends. You have rich friends, you have poor friends. You have friends who are naturally good in one area, other friends who are better in another."
... and you have generous friends and freeloading friends. Friends who will pick up the bar tab and others who will cover the tip. Friends who are on solid financial ground and those who are going through a bumpy patch. And then you have LUX. :</
It only took 30 years (since the fall of the USSR) for Europe to reverted back to its roots of petty territorial disputes and tribal enmity. The USA should follow Washington's advice, step back and buy lots of popcorn. We need to look after our own self interest.
A 2% of GDP defense budget budget is a good starting point, but I am more interested in the capabilities being bought with this money. A couple of F35s, a submarine, or a half-a-dozen land attack cruise missiles really doesn't impact the defense picture.
Nor does redefining social spending as defense-related, as I vaguely recall Germany doing in the past.
Never mind the military being used for the various pseudo-justices (social, environmental, etc), as is happening in the US, at the expense of traditional military capabilities (to break things and kill people on a grand scale, or present a credible threat of same).
The one that breaks my heart most is Canada. Have friends in the RCN, from back when it was just Canadian Forces. Tough, extremely efficient, did the work-around when widgets weren’t in the budget, and folks I would be proud and happy to see standing with us when the feces hit the fan. And they would, with everything they had. Sadly, they didn’t have much. But the spirit? Outstanding.
In this regard I am deeply ashamed of my Canada. Our military personnel are second to none but generations of neglect and underfunding have left the army, RCN and RCAF all woefully ill equipped.
It seems that the politicians believe that if the security of North America was threatened by an attack on Canada our neighbour, the USA, would bail us out. Therefore, no need to maintain the military beyond lip service.
What is the structure around the tiny countries like a Luxumbourg, Slovenia, Slovakia and Albania...given their population size & economy, should they even field a complete army/air force but, instead focus their military-NATO contributions on specialty areas like CSAR, electronic warfare, logistics, medical, engineering?
The Albanians could field some good Combat Engineers as an example. Been out of the NATO game for many years now and my experience did not engender the same enthusiasm as Sal has. I think the best thing about NATO is STANAG or whatever the term may be for common standards for construction, comms, et al.
Have to agree. I don't know where Sal was or at what level staff he was on, but my experience down at the level equivalent to a submarine group wasn't good. The CO was a USN CAPT, OPS and Plans were a Greek and Turk. There was an Italian CDR, along with a German Kapitanleutnant and a Brit LT. All good people. A Brit Chief ran the OPCON and I worked for him. There were also supposed to be a Greek and Italian CPOs there, but in the three times I worked at that command, they were always on leave. There was a German junior sailor there and he acted like someone was going to eat him. The comm center was run by the Italians and they were a pain. The Italian officer finally had to go up there and fix their attitudes. The US footed the bill for the command and made things happen, with the Brits providing forceful backup. It was obvious that the Mediterranean allies didn't take things seriously. The same appeared to be the case next door on the air side. That was in the mid-90s, hopefully things have changed.
No NATO member that spends less than 2% of their GDP on defense should be invited to attend US military schools. Don't spend 2%? We don't take you seriously and you can't send military students to CGSC or War College.
Disagree with that approach: because not bringing foreign mil reps to US for education and training punishes the wrong people. Seems like we should want as many professional mil (and civilian staff) cadre as possible to go through US schools. Then they go home and bang the drum to advocate for larger budgets. Plus, it gives our mil & diplomatic side long-term acquaintances in other nations. Makes it easier to pick up the telephone in the future. Point is, access to US education complex (mil and other) is some of the cheapest, and longest term defense investment we can make.
I agree with your reasoning. As a matter a fact, I am sponsoring a Dutch officer and his family as I write this. There would be some major consternation in NATO when the French and Poles get invited to American schools while the Dutch, and most importantly, the Germans don't get to come. I realize that we send officers to their schools but what would be their excuse for not letting us come? We are holding up our end and always have. Meanwhile the Germans can barely field a sub or two and the majority of their armored vehicles and aircraft are not fully operational. They are coasting on our dime. Shame them.
Mark, I feel your pain, per the imbalance of national commitments to paying for defense. But over & over, through my past 40+ yrs of association w our beloved Sea Service (active, reserve, retired), I have encountered overseas people... and every now & then, we talk about their olden days at (Army/Navy/Air) War College, or Leavenworth, or Nat Defense U, or Naval Postgrad... etc. It's a quick way to have common bonds. Speak at least some of the same language.
.
Quick personal story: Once upon a time I had some business to conduct in an African nation, and nobody wanted to speak with me... Total blow-off... Until the country's VCNO saw my emails. And it turns out he was a Naval War College grad. And he invited me to HQ for a sit-down (half an hour scheduled, which lasted about three), and he wore his NWC necktie! After which meeting, and a pleasant walk-through the defense establishment, things went very smoothly. You just never know who is behind Door Number 2.
The good news is that we would still invite Africans, S. Americans, Asians, etc. as they are not bill paying members of NATO. I would have the same "no invite" policy for SEATO members if there is a GDP requirement for membership. The intent is to get everyone to pull their weight. If they don't, they don't get to sit at the big kid's table.
The proper solution for Belgium and Luxembourg is quit pretending they should remain as countries. France gets the French speakers, Netherlands the Flemish speakers.
And great shooting by the Ukrainians!
But how much convincing will it take to force France to take in the Walloons? Does France need any more assimilation problems? The answers are "Lotsa" & "No". Handy justice might best be served by letting République démocratique du Congo have a hand in detaching Belgium's nationhood.
The term "BENELUX" was invented for a reason.
I like that the article is upbeat, but have some doubts. If spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense is only treated as a kind of gentleman's agreement and not a hard and fast by-law of NATO, I would not expect to see the worst of the long time slackers to ever reach a 2% goal. Where is the incentive to the shirkers without some Right Now consequences? I say "Right Now consequences" because you can be sure they'll be caterwauling for rescue and promising to pay up their arrears just as soon as they are liberated and get a Marshall Plan, only then to shoot for that 2% goal as soon as they are on their feet again. How about "You are either a NATO member in good standing or you're out?" It's a grasshopper and ant thing. NATO and the world needs some tough love.
What one buys is just as important as how much
It's time to add Japan, South Korea and Australia and NZ. Geography and name be damned. If the ACC can add SMU and Stanford and Cal (Atlantic Coast what/where/why?), then NATO should invite any and all desiring to join the ranks. Those 4 would have no problems meeting the 2% goal.
As an aside, I'm not sure if Sweden moving to 2% is due to its biggest external threat or its more current and growing internal threat.
Sweden et al. remind me of the Florida residents who decide they need more homeowners insurance when the hurricane is a day away.
Babe, we can't get homeowner's insurance here in Florida. Not the day before, nor the year before.
But seriously, we have "the box." Nobody can buy insurance when there is a storm "in the box." Where it hurts folks is when they are trying to close on a house. It makes the lives of title insurance clerks very difficult. The mortgage company won't close without insurance, and you can't get insurance when a storm is in the box. So, the closing gets pushed off, the Seller gets pissed off, and the Buyer has no place to live.
So, if you buy a house, and set closing 45 days off, a storm in the box can ruin your day, when you can't get insured.
Maybe an amendment to the charter suggesting that non-2% members can participate in exercises and whatnot, but arent entitled to article 5??? Geographically that wouldnt have equal implications for all, for instance, Spain isnt likely to be Putins next object of desire, but it still makes a point...
"You have small friends, you have large friends. You have rich friends, you have poor friends. You have friends who are naturally good in one area, other friends who are better in another."
... and you have generous friends and freeloading friends. Friends who will pick up the bar tab and others who will cover the tip. Friends who are on solid financial ground and those who are going through a bumpy patch. And then you have LUX. :</
I'm impressed most by Greece.
That is mostly designed to counter the Turks, but yes.
Why should an Islamist country which is not paying its fair share and threatening the US be given veto power over new members?
I like this one! Don't pay 2%? Don't get a vote. An idea so crazy it might just work!
Great article, Sal.
Big fan posted you to Insty often...they are paying attention.
It only took 30 years (since the fall of the USSR) for Europe to reverted back to its roots of petty territorial disputes and tribal enmity. The USA should follow Washington's advice, step back and buy lots of popcorn. We need to look after our own self interest.
Remind the Germans that both the Poles now have 4 times their tank force, 1000 versus 250, and haven't forgotten Warsaw..
A 2% of GDP defense budget budget is a good starting point, but I am more interested in the capabilities being bought with this money. A couple of F35s, a submarine, or a half-a-dozen land attack cruise missiles really doesn't impact the defense picture.
Nor does redefining social spending as defense-related, as I vaguely recall Germany doing in the past.
Never mind the military being used for the various pseudo-justices (social, environmental, etc), as is happening in the US, at the expense of traditional military capabilities (to break things and kill people on a grand scale, or present a credible threat of same).
The one that breaks my heart most is Canada. Have friends in the RCN, from back when it was just Canadian Forces. Tough, extremely efficient, did the work-around when widgets weren’t in the budget, and folks I would be proud and happy to see standing with us when the feces hit the fan. And they would, with everything they had. Sadly, they didn’t have much. But the spirit? Outstanding.
In this regard I am deeply ashamed of my Canada. Our military personnel are second to none but generations of neglect and underfunding have left the army, RCN and RCAF all woefully ill equipped.
It seems that the politicians believe that if the security of North America was threatened by an attack on Canada our neighbour, the USA, would bail us out. Therefore, no need to maintain the military beyond lip service.
Absolutely second to none.
Rick Mercer from 2010. Right on the money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS3TsqySbw
What is the structure around the tiny countries like a Luxumbourg, Slovenia, Slovakia and Albania...given their population size & economy, should they even field a complete army/air force but, instead focus their military-NATO contributions on specialty areas like CSAR, electronic warfare, logistics, medical, engineering?
The Albanians could field some good Combat Engineers as an example. Been out of the NATO game for many years now and my experience did not engender the same enthusiasm as Sal has. I think the best thing about NATO is STANAG or whatever the term may be for common standards for construction, comms, et al.
Have to agree. I don't know where Sal was or at what level staff he was on, but my experience down at the level equivalent to a submarine group wasn't good. The CO was a USN CAPT, OPS and Plans were a Greek and Turk. There was an Italian CDR, along with a German Kapitanleutnant and a Brit LT. All good people. A Brit Chief ran the OPCON and I worked for him. There were also supposed to be a Greek and Italian CPOs there, but in the three times I worked at that command, they were always on leave. There was a German junior sailor there and he acted like someone was going to eat him. The comm center was run by the Italians and they were a pain. The Italian officer finally had to go up there and fix their attitudes. The US footed the bill for the command and made things happen, with the Brits providing forceful backup. It was obvious that the Mediterranean allies didn't take things seriously. The same appeared to be the case next door on the air side. That was in the mid-90s, hopefully things have changed.
So the Swedes, like the Germans, pinky swear to increase their defense spending to 2%. Really. This time they mean it.