# NATO, RIP?



## Marauder06 (Jun 10, 2011)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4335160...t/dim-if-not-dismal-future-gates-blasts-nato/



> BRUSSELS — America's military alliance with Europe — the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades — faces a  "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.



This is kind of a stunning pronouncement by a sitting SECDEF.  :eek:


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 10, 2011)

We've all known it's been coming, it's just a matter of what acronym we'll use to replace it that would strike fear in our enemies. ;)   COW -Coalition Of the Willing


----------



## tova (Jun 10, 2011)

RackMaster said:


> ;) COW -Coalition Of the Willing


----------



## Manolito (Jun 10, 2011)

I can't see how we can let go of NATO and keep the United Nations. I am sure we should quit funding any more than 1/28th of the cost of NATO but it has some good points. The NATO standard for munitions is a very good thing in my opinion. From a supply chain management position that standardization alone makes forward movement of troops easier to support. This board is full of intelligent people could one of you please tell me just one good aspect of the United Nations?
Are we headed for isolationism?


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 10, 2011)

Stay part of NATO, but reduce our spending from 75% to 25% of the total and see if the organization survives.
Seriously, NATO has outlived it's usefulness.  Sadly, we can't leave and justify European Bases to Congress and the Masses.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2011)

I say dump both NATO and the UN. I'd like to see us, as SOWT proposed, cut our support to NATO, but that won't happen. NATO needs to learn that while we're in this together, you can't push the US to take the driver's seat and then complain about the driving.

As to Manolito's thoughts on isolationism: I think we could, if we chose, to be more unilateral. We NEED to be involved in the world's affairs, a nation has a responsibility to it's citizens to look after the country's interests wherever they may be, but we cannot allow our relationships with other nations to hamper our options.


----------



## mike_cos (Jun 10, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> I say dump both NATO and the UN. I'd like to see us, as SOWT proposed, cut our support to NATO, but that won't happen. NATO needs to learn that while we're in this together, you can't push the US to take the driver's seat and then complain about the driving.
> 
> As to Manolito's thoughts on isolationism: I think we could, if we chose, to be more unilateral. We NEED to be involved in the world's affairs, a nation has a responsibility to it's citizens to look after the country's interests wherever they may be, but we cannot allow our relationships with other nations to hamper our options.


Dump NATO?... mmm very dangerous for USA... you should abandon all european military bases, to rinounce to the mediterranean and its sphere of influence... is strategic for you? I don't think so....


----------



## Poccington (Jun 10, 2011)

In fairness, it's not surprising that Gates would have such an outlook.

All members of NATO benefit from membership, however, only a small number of those nations could really say they're pulling their weight when it comes to NATO Ops. Nations can only spend money and have troops die for so long before the question of "Are the others really doing all they can?" is going to be asked.


----------



## Boon (Jun 10, 2011)

I'd rather see NATO reformed and the UN dumped.


----------



## Poccington (Jun 10, 2011)

Boon said:


> I'd rather see NATO reformed and the UN dumped.


 
If you dump the UN... Who's gonna write the angry letters?


----------



## Chopstick (Jun 10, 2011)

Poccington said:


> If you dump the UN... Who's gonna write the angry letters?


NO no no!  The UN is never angry..I think you mean "sternly worded letters".


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 10, 2011)

I got to listen to part of the speech today on C-Span radio while I was driving home.  Pretty harsh speech.  I also thought it was ironic that he was telling the NATO countries that they need to increase their military budgets, while we're talking about cutting things like pay and benefits.  :-|


----------



## QC (Jun 10, 2011)

Speaking in Brussels in his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates said: "The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country.

"Yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference."
(From Al Jazeera quoting from Gates speech)
Pretty much a reality check.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 10, 2011)

The UN, minus the Security Council, does some good work on occasion. It's the SC which needs reforming, and badly.

As for NATO, we were discussing it in class the other day as it happens. An interesting point someone made was "if the Russians aren't supposedly the threat they are today, who is NATO aligned against? Is there a need for it at all now the Soviets are gone?"

I thought it was interesting anyway.


----------



## mike_cos (Jun 10, 2011)

Poccington said:


> If you dump the UN... Who's gonna write the angry letters?



Bwahaha winning!...







Don't shoot the Postman!


----------



## AWP (Jun 11, 2011)

mike_cos said:


> Dump NATO?... mmm very dangerous for USA... you should abandon all european military bases, to rinounce to the mediterranean and its sphere of influence... is strategic for you? I don't think so....



Very valid points, but at the same time NATO is currently "The US, the UK, and some other guys" so the only major items the other nations bring to the table are land and sea lanes. That's the only real bargaining chip some NATO countries have: bases and overfly rights. Meanwhile all of the nations seem to act as though we're all equals in NATO which we clearly are not.


----------



## digrar (Jun 11, 2011)

AUSCANZUKUS...


----------



## AWP (Jun 11, 2011)

digrar said:


> AUSCANZUKUS...



After working with your RAAF and Navy types plus the Canadians and some UK RAF folks....I encourage partnering with the Commonwealth.


----------



## Manolito (Jun 11, 2011)

There are 28 nations in NATO and I think any common ground those 28 have is good for us in the long run. I would ask is NATO that bad or are we just broke and looking to get out of some of our bills? It appears a lot like Medicare and social security. The only time they are an issue is when we spend ourselves into a whole and look to those programs as possible money trees. This is the same thing that is going to happen to the military and what we have seen in the police and fire community. Fix the borders, stop paying subsistence to every second american even if they have never held a job and all the rest of this would shake out just fine. Put prisoners to work maintaining the infrastructure, put welfare recipients to work cleaning parks and public areas eight hours a day just like the rest of us work.
Sorry


----------



## mike_cos (Jun 11, 2011)

digrar said:


> AUSCANZUKUS...





Freefalling said:


> the only major items the other nations bring to the table are land and sea lanes. That's the only real bargaining chip some NATO countries have: bases and overfly rights.


Dear friends... are not peanuts... but the bases of international treaty... absolutely strategic for you AUSCANZUKUS (a little bit out of european and meddle-est and north-africa and and and AOs)... isn't it? We (I speak about my country) today deploy over 7.000 units all over the world and believe me thanks to Silvio... italian communists don't want army, don't want USA don't want Israel.... think about it dear friends...


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 11, 2011)

digrar said:


> AUSCANZUKUS...



CANUSUKAUSNZ  Looks better. ;)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 11, 2011)

Boon said:


> I'd rather see NATO reformed and the UN dumped.


 
I agree, but also think that anyone in NATO needs to bring something to the table and nut up when it's time.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 11, 2011)

mike_cos said:


> Dear friends... are not peanuts... but the bases of international treaty... absolutely strategic for you AUSCANZUKUS (a little bit out of european and meddle-est and north-africa and and and AOs)... isn't it? We (I speak about my country) today deploy over 7.000 units all over the world and believe me thanks to Silvio... italian communists don't want army, don't want USA don't want Israel.... think about it dear friends...


I worked in Bosnia and Kosovo with a variety of troops.  Italians did good work for us, but many (Germany) for instance are there for the beer.  That's what Gates is alluding too.  Brits, Canadians, Italians, Dutch and Norwegians pulled their weight and then some.  French were 50-50, you always wondered whose side they were on.  There are a lot of countries not mentioned, and those "Old European" countries make me wonder if NATO is worth it.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 11, 2011)

SOWT said:


> I worked in Bosnia and Kosovo with a variety of troops. Italians did good work for us, but many (Germany) for instance are there for the beer. That's what Gates is alluding too. Brits, Canadians, Italians, Dutch and Norwegians pulled their weight and then some. French were 50-50, you always wondered whose side they were on. There are a lot of countries not mentioned, and those "Old European" countries make me wonder if NATO is worth it.



In Kabul I enjoyed working with all those you've mentioned, most of the German troops wanted to fight but their leadership/public doesn't have the stomach for it; so they drink.  One country that surprised me a lot was the the Bulgarians, great troops.


----------



## mike_cos (Jun 11, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Italians did good work for us, but many (Germany) for instance are there for the beer.


I'm glad to hear this from you mate.... thanks a lot! Italians are for the chicks not for the beer...


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jun 11, 2011)

RackMaster said:


> CANUSUKAUSNZ Looks better. ;)



Since you obviously missed it hoser, it was done in alphabetical order, it also was the only way to make it pronounceable.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 11, 2011)

Mac_NZ said:


> Since you obviously missed it hoser, it was done in alphabetical order, it also was the only way to make it pronounceable.



"Team America" works just fine ;)


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jun 11, 2011)

An alliance means you work together, an attack on one is an attack on all but a lot of the Euro countries don't see it that way in my opinion.  To be up front I think my countries contribution is shit, the Aussies was shit but they are getting stuck in now and doing their bit which has put us to shame.

I'm looking at NATO like a composite recce patrol.

S1 is the commander is a hard charger and has no problems.
S2 is the scout and he's ready to get stuck in but requires clearance at his Govt level before he can engage hostiles.
S3 can go out but he can't do sentry or fire his weapon.
S4 can't go out so he just sits at the FOB listening to his iPod and hanging around the green bean.
S5 is good to go but he can't carry a pack or a weapon so someone else has to carry that for him.

So off goes our patrol, they get contacted, for a while its just S1 holding off the Muj until S2 gets the go ahead to fire because they aren't shooting at him directly.  S3 is hiding behind a rock shouting words of encouragement because that's all he can do.  S4 is of course at the FOB and S5 is in the prone and can't really do shit because S1 and S2 had to split his load because he can't carry anything.

Now miraculously they survive this shit fight and its home for tea and medals which are distributed evenly because the PL HQ doesn't want any member to feel that his contribution isn't as important as the others.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 12, 2011)

Mac_NZ said:


> Since you obviously missed it hoser, it was done in alphabetical order, it also was the only way to make it pronounceable.



Way to smart of an idea, it would never be used.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 12, 2011)

SOWT said:


> French were 50-50, you always wondered whose side they were on. There are a lot of countries not mentioned, and those "Old European" countries make me wonder if NATO is worth it.



I never wonder about the French.  Lousy, collaborating bunch of no good cunts.  Not because of the men, mind you; I've met some outstanding Legionnaires and other French military folk.  Their military commanders and politicians (can't truly call them leaders) are the problem.


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2011)

SOWT said:


> I worked in Bosnia and Kosovo with a variety of troops. Italians did good work for us, but many (Germany) for instance are there for the beer. That's what Gates is alluding too. Brits, Canadians, Italians, Dutch and Norwegians pulled their weight and then some. French were 50-50, you always wondered whose side they were on. There are a lot of countries not mentioned, and those "Old European" countries make me wonder if NATO is worth it.



In Afghanistan the French have fought well up near Kabul/ Bagram. Their earlier efforts down south between Kandahar and Spin Buldak were less than impressive IMO.

The Germans have done well once they started fighting. I chalk up their inactivity to their political climate back home, but if they can't fight due to politics then they are worthless.

I've never worked around the Italians and with them in RC-W I never followed them.

The Norwegians have treated AFG like a paid holiday.

The Dutch army in Tarin Kowt have done great things and seen hard fighting.

The Swedes will fight if it comes down to it, but they aren't the most aggressive.

I have an absolute and utter contempt for Poland's army.

Other nations here are a mixed bag and I don't know enough about them: Latvia and Slovakia come to mind.

Some words about the composite F-16 unit in AFG: It SUCKS. I think the Norwegians, the Dutch, and one other nation contribute to it and that group of cowboys need to go home. They would repeatedly brief that they were going to do "JTAC training" in RC-N and then a few hours later show up in RC-S nearly out of gas. Of course, the US would provide it even though it wasn't fragged and we'd complain to the unit and to NATO. The next day? Same thing. The next week? Same thing. This went on for months with no change. The number of HATR's filed because of their airmanship and flagrant disregard for our air battle managers running the air war is staggering. They almost took out a B-1 a number of years ago in one incident. No kidding, three blips on a radar screen merged. :eek:

So maybe some of you can see why I support the Commonwealth and have problems with NATO. My experiences have been less than positive.


----------



## Robal2pl (Jun 14, 2011)

> I have an absolute and utter contempt for Poland's army.



Just wonder, why? What's happedned?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 14, 2011)

The only thing I know about the Polish military is that some Polish SF dude ended up getting his shit stolen enroute to afghanistan, and him and his supply dude basically canvassed every fucking compound up and down Disney road at Bagram until they ran into me on gate guard...


----------



## AWP (Jun 14, 2011)

Robal2pl said:


> Just wonder, why? What's happedned?



In no particular order:

- The latrines in FOB Ghazni were smeared with human feces and finding turds in the showers was not uncommon. This practice finally stopped, but for months you could guarantee to see it.

- They had a patrol make contact and the unit hopped in their vehicles and went back to FOB Ghazni. The next morning Americans were doing their thing with the ANP at the gate when some locals rolled up in a truck and said "This one's yours, we thought you may want him back" and kicked a dead white guy out of their truck. The Americans go nuts and do a head count; everyone's good. They notify higher HQ and the Polish at GHZ and the Polish calmly said, "Yeah, he's ours. Thanks" and never said another word about it. That patrol left a guy at the scene of the TIC, went back to the FOB, and never reported it. Maybe Polish leadership knew, but not a single American was aware that a Polish soldier was missing.

- When the Polish Defense Minister visited he refused to fly on his country's Mi-17's and used American Chinooks instead.

- I can't go into one story in detail because of the equipment involved, but the short version is that even after a doctor and the technicians involved told the Polish that something wouldn't hurt them, the Polish refused to listen to the experts.

- I watched them load up for a patrol in MRAPs stenciled "USMC." One MRAP was used as a mobile PX. Driver, A driver, and gunner were the crew while the back was filled with a few small refrigerators, and cases upon cases of drinks and snacks.

- They made a point to place Polish flags on all of their vehicles (most of which are US supplied and paid for) and the result is that the number of TICs against Polish-flagged vehicles is significantly lower than other military (read, US) vehicles.

- The Polish Army used to run the LZ at FOB Ghazni. American helos would land and the Polish would fill them with their soldiers. If any seats were left, the Americans had to make a mad dash for it. We finally lined up along the LZ, ignoring the NCOs running the LZ, and would just sprint for the birds in a first come, first served method of finding a seat. It became so bad the US Army had to assign an NCO and O to the LZ just to make sure that Americans could use their own aircraft. And the Polish helicopters? They refused to allow US soldiers or contactors on them. So not only were they flying those to Bagram with Polish nationals, but they were also flooding US birds too.

- The Polish Rape Van: In 2008-09 there was a van on Bagram which would pull up to a single runner at night or in low light and ask the runner for directions. When the runner would stop to talk to a coalition soldier, the door wiuld slide open, the American was abducted, beaten, gang raped, and then dumped in a dark corner of the base. I know of 3 cases, 2 male and 1 female, and others were hinted to by our leadership. The rapists were finally ID'ed and their "punishment" was to ban them to FOB Ghazni.

- Their patrols would rarely leave the hardball; they've practically ceded control of much of Ghazni province to the TB.

- The aerostat crew watched an Afghani plant an IED and promptly notified the Polish TOC. The Poles acknowledged and then did nothing. A few hours later one of their own convoys ran over the IED.

- At Ghazni they told the Americans that due to space considerations the Americans would have to place bunk beds in the rooms of their b-huts. A b-hut sleeps 8 with each man occupying a roughly 2m x 2.5m room (mine measures 6.5' x 7'); prisoners in American jails have almost twice that space. The Americans contested this and the Polish finally backed down. About that time the Americans realized that the Polish had converted a number of their b-huts to 4 man huts complete with small kitchens....and they wanted the Americans to live 16 to a hut?

- Like rockets? Then go to FOB Ghazni where it is hit every day, sometimes several times in broad daylight. There's no security around the FOB.

- Speaking of security, I watched Polish soldiers "escorting" local nationals and allowing them to carry cameras and cell phones on base. I've actually seen Afghans taking photos of every corner of the base while a Polish soldier watched.

- They had a meeting with the local elders when they arrived. To show them what Poland could do militarily they ran a small demonstration capped with a fly-by of Polish helicopters. The locals almost lost their minds when they saw Mi-24's and Mi-17's. Public relations FAIL.

- For the longest time the DFAC never had anything but boxed milk or water and I saw why. When the KBR guys would try to stock the coolers, Polish soldiers would get up and take every case of soda and Gatorade off of the carts. They actually would go outside and call other soldiers in who would come in through the exit doors to take cases of drinks.

So yeah....I've seen little of their conduct to warrant any respect for them.


----------



## Robal2pl (Jun 14, 2011)

Shocking...

There were reports (including media) that situation in Ghazni is bad and US forces were send to support ours, that PR fail with Hinds also was known, and I knew that some things are not going well (so to speak) , but I'm shock...rapes? Was the thing reported to the our contingent or something?

Flags was put on vehicles suppiled by US - the same way as in Iraq - was any objection from US or request not to do this?

Thanks for reply


----------



## AWP (Jun 14, 2011)

Robal2pl said:


> Shocking...
> 
> There were reports (including media) that situation in Ghazni is bad and US forces were send to support ours, that PR fail with Hinds also was known, and I knew that some things are not going well (so to speak) , but I'm shock...rapes? Was the thing reported to the our contingent or something?
> 
> ...



The rapes: I have to think that the Polish leadership were told, but I don't know for certain. What I do know is that within a few months of the assailants being ID'ed as Polish that the Polish contingent on Bagram was greatly reduced. The official word was that the US was told a certain number of rear detachment troops and helo maintainers were needed but that number grew substantially and the "exiles" were nothing more than capping the number of Polish soldiers based on previously agreed levels. That may be the case, but the timing was odd to me.

On the flags: I'm not sure if any objection was made. The flags were something I and my coworkers noticed. One great thing about sitting on an LZ for hours hoping to catch a flight to anywhere but GHZ is that you meet some interesting people. We had several US troops relay the info about TICs against Polish-flagged vehicles being less than unflagged vehicles for the same stretches of road. On a side note, US flags aren't seen (perhaps prohibited?) on vehicles and flags in camps have to be limited to "official" flags like the flagpole for the FOB. Meanwhile, the Polish Army has flags on anything leaving the wire? That seems to be more than just national pride to me.


----------



## Robal2pl (Jun 14, 2011)

> he rapes: I have to think that the Polish leadership were told, but I don't know for certain. What I do know is that within a few months of the assailants being ID'ed as Polish that the Polish contingent on Bagram was greatly reduced. The official word was that the US was told a certain number of rear detachment troops and helo maintainers were needed but that number grew substantially and the "exiles" were nothing more than capping the number of Polish soldiers based on previously agreed levels. That may be the case, but the timing was odd to me.



I wonder  - due to nature of our criminal law - there should start some investination or case in court - especially when someone in official capacity knew but did nothing to start criminal case.
 But from other standpoint, in 2007 there was serious case when our soldiers killed civilians (maybe it was accident  - by now - trial ended with "no guilty" sentence) and it was very high profile case (including dawn raids of MP SWAT Teams when suspects were in back in Poland) , so the rapes would possibly be another thing known to media.



> On the flags: I'm not sure if any objection was made. The flags were something I and my coworkers noticed. One great thing about sitting on an LZ for hours hoping to catch a flight to anywhere but GHZ is that you meet some interesting people. We had several US troops relay the info about TICs against Polish-flagged vehicles being less than unflagged vehicles for the same stretches of road. On a side note, US flags aren't seen (perhaps prohibited?) on vehicles and flags in camps have to be limited to "official" flags like the flagpole for the FOB. Meanwhile, the Polish Army has flags on anything leaving the wire? That seems to be more than just national pride to me.



Maybe they simply wanted to be distinguished from U.S - I don't think there is any our official legislation that orders putting hi-viz signs on vehicles -  and no-one thought about further consequences. Wich don't surprise me either.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 14, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> The rapes: I have to think that the Polish leadership were told, but I don't know for certain. What I do know is that within a few months of the assailants being ID'ed as Polish that the Polish contingent on Bagram was greatly reduced. The official word was that the US was told a certain number of rear detachment troops and helo maintainers were needed but that number grew substantially and the "exiles" were nothing more than capping the number of Polish soldiers based on previously agreed levels. That may be the case, but the timing was odd to me.



What the Fuck!


----------

