The death of NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 as a combined military force to stem the Communist tide in Europe. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" and for next 40 years that goal was pretty much attained. In 1966, France being France, President Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of NATO's military command and relied on it's own nuclear deterrent to protect them against the Soviet threat. During the decades long Cold War, NATO successfully kept the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact from invading the democratic nations of Europe. In the early 80's, President Ronald Reagan made the controversial decision to place GLCM cruise missiles and the Pershing II missiles in Europe to counter the Warsaw Pact's nuclear capabilities. The first cracks in European support for NATO began to emerge and it wasn't until the USSR shot down a Korean airliner in 1983 did it galvanize support for the missile deployment.

The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO and this was the beginning of the end for NATO. The end of the Cold War caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's military purpose, nature and tasks. In practice this ended up entailing a gradual (and still ongoing) expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, much to the chagrin to the former Soviet Union. The first military operation carried out by NATO was the bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina in August of 1995 to undermine the Bosnian Serb Army. This operation was considered successful in regards to a military fighting unit, as it involved 400 NATO aircraft and 5,000 personnel from 15 nations. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 marked the second major combat operation in its history and again was considered successful by military standards.

In 2001, the United States and the United Kingdom attacked the Taliban led government in Afghanistan to root out the al-Qaeda terrorist network. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established by the UN Security Council at the end of December 2001 to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas. NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003 and the ISAF initially included troops from 42 countries. The military roles and quality of NATO troops has been controversial during this conflict. NATO member states have what is called "national caveats", which is a restriction that NATO members place on the use of their forces in combat. These caveats have created opportunities for the insurgents in parts of Afghanistan, while also causing friction within NATO between those nations willing to send their soldiers to the dangerous parts of the country (to fight), and those not willing to do so.

During the Libyan uprising against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces, NATO was once again called upon to take military action against a non-European threat. NATO began enforcing UN resolution 1973 in March of 2011, which calls for a ceasefire, and authorizes military action to protect civilians from Gaddaf'si troops. Divisions within the alliance have surfaced because only eight of twenty-eight member states have actually participated in combat operations. France and Britain have taken the lead role in combat operations, while the United States military continues to fade into the background. NATO has become weak politically and militarily and it really cannot be seen as a cohesive fighting force any longer. Europe has been underfunding its defense capabilities for more than a decade and their political leadership are becoming more like Neville Chamberlain every day. NATO has a long-standing self-obligation for all members to spend at least 2% of their gross national product (GNP) on defense. Currently, only five of 28 members fulfill that obligation and this trend is expected to continue.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated today (June 10th 2011) that NATO faces a "dim, if not dismal" future. Secretary Gates went on to say, "The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress -- and in the American body politic writ large -- to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense." Without US funding, NATO is finished as a fighting force. There are three budgets within NATO: one civil and two military. Each NATO member country pays an amount into the budgets based on an agreed cost-sharing formula. The United States contributed about $470 million directly to NATO to support its three commonly funded budgets in 1997. In 2010, for the first time in its 60-year history, NATO was operating in the red with a $700 million deficit. Because of a lack of will and funding, the mightiest military alliance in the history of the world will be no more. Rest in peace NATO!

****ITALY BREAKS RANK WITH NATO***** READ STORY HERE

Sphere: Related Content

Afghanistan could be Obama's Mogadishu.

As President Obama dithers with the decision as to whether to increase troop levels, recommended by General McChrystal, Afghanistan and Pakistan are spiraling out of control. After five meetings with his war council, Obama is still said to be weeks away from making a final decision in regards to his war strategy. President Obama is beginning to resemble President Clinton and his failed leadership during the Mogadishu
ambush that saw 18 dead and 77 wounded American soldiers. At that time, it was becoming clear that the situation on the ground was deteriorating and Gen. Thomas Montgomery was requesting reinforcements, air support and armored vehicles which was denied by then Sec. of Defense Les Aspin. The resulting carnage saw the images of dead American soldiers being dragged through Somali streets.

President Obama needs to do more than make a decision of sending forty thousand additional troops, he must change the rules of engagement that are preventing our soldiers from obtaining victory on the ground. Some of these new rules require our troops to break away from fights with militants hiding among villagers and obtain permission of homeowners to search for terrorists that may be hiding in their homes. Reading the Miranda Warning to terrorists on the battlefield will not make a us a safer country and does not help our troops.

Taliban attacks in Pakistan are increasing at an alarming rate and are coinciding with the threatened Pakistan offensive on the Waziristan region. This Pakistani offensive must take place to disrupt Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from cross border raids into Afghanistan against NATO troops. In a perfect world, this offensive would coincide with the additional American forces pushing towards the Pakistani border to eliminate the retreating Jihadists from the Waziristan region. This multi assault would do more to ensure victory for American and Pakistan forces than anything else. Would it end the war that is currently raging on both sides of the border. No it would not, but it would severely damage the offensive capabilities of the enemy and most likely kill or capture the brain trust of the terrorists.

As we wait for President Obama’s grandiose new war plan, NATO troops are losing their lives at an increasing rate and the Taliban are in control of even more territory within Afghanistan. Unless Mr. Obama decides to let the Generals run the war and do what is necessary to win, he will increasingly begin to look like President Clinton and his failure in Somalia. That defeat and others overseen by the Clinton Administration is what emboldened Osama Bin Laden to launch his global jihad against a perceived weakened United States. I don’t have much faith in Obama and his civilian war council, but I pray that they do the right thing and try to win this war. If he is unwilling or unable to allow our military to win this battle and give them the tools to accomplish their mission, I surmise that we should leave the field of battle. Another defeat for America and more terrorist attacks on a perceived weakened nation will surely come if Obama fails to lead.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama and his commitment to the war in Afghanistan

I was impressed when newly elected Barack Obama ordered 17000 new troops to fight in the Afghanistan theater, however my enthusiasm has since been displaced. I think it began when President Obama was quoted as saying, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because you know that invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,” when asked about victory in Afghanistan. Yes, you read that right. Obama is uncomfortable about using the word "victory."

With the prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama's administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there. Obama administration officials have acknowledged that with increasing war causalities and health care and budget debates, Vice President Biden and other officials "are increasingly anxious about how the American public would respond to sending additional troops." Mr. Biden, the American people want us to win in Afghanistan and they expect you and Mr. Obama to do what is necessary to win that war. If General McChrystal and General Petraeus request more troops, then I think it may be a good idea to send more troops.

Spending your time reading polls and trying to placate your base is not leadership. All of the Bush-Derangement-Syndrome fanatics always accused President Bush of not heading the publics will and to surrender in Iraq. Mr. Bush was not swayed by polls when it came to national security and I respect him for that. Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to the media, said Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the U.S. can't make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaida and Biden's office declined to comment.

"I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier," a senior Pentagon official said. "We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war." This is crazy people! According to Newsmax, Monday's Afghanistan assessment initially was to include troop recommendations, but political concerns prompted White House and Pentagon officials to agree that those recommendations would come later. Obama is letting politics get in the way of winning the war. There are more indications that this Administration is not fully committed to the Global War on Terror and victory in that war. Obama has banned the use of Global War on Terror, but has began The Holder/Obama Global War on the CIA. This Administration is more committed to prosecuting the men and women of the CIA than they are at defeating the true enemy.

According to Newsmax, Senior Military officals believe Obama now feels that McChrystal and his superior, Army Gen. David Petraeus , the head of the Central Command, are pressuring Obama to commit still more troops to Afghanistan and Obama's national security adviser told McChrystal last month not to ask for more troops. What the hell kind of leadership is that? President Obama, please get your head out of your poll driven ass and win this war. Get out of campaign mode and get into leadership mode because those American soldiers are not Republicans or Democrats, they are America's warriors.

Sphere: Related Content