Letter to Editor: NATO: With US or Against US
John Boggs
(Recall the July 2018 NATO Summit controversy…seems years ago)
As background: During the Libyan war, NATO ran out of “smart munitions’. France retaliated twice against ISIS attacks and only managed a couple months of military activity. Germany nor France participated in Iraq; even to test their military and equipment. Germany and France provided lukewarm assistance in Afghanistan.
Patton once said “No bas…d ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bas…d die for his country.” NATO has adapted his philosophy: “Let the other sucker pay with their money and lives to keep us safe.”
Most of the NATO/OTAN charter countries are socialist. NATO, a military organization, has taken on the same socialistic characteristics. Hence, NATO “taxes” the USA accordingly since we are a wealthy country. The USA has exponentially funded NATO. NATO further expects to “tax” the USA with our soldiers’ lives if war came. NATO’s, most countries, percentage of contribution is lesser because they are “without means and blood” (sic). To date, NATO has managed to get Uncle Sugar to foot the bills. In the meantime, NATO has become a paper tiger.
Per Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].” President Trump called out NATO. The response appears: how dare Pres Trump question NATO paying for their own salvation and defense. Can the USA or anyone depend on or trust “partners” with this attitude? We should question whether NATO would fight at all for themselves or fellow NATO members? We should question whether NATO is a worthwhile military ally?
There is a schism within NATO between old and new members. The new NATO members have had great experience with oppression and occupation under communism. While the old NATO nations got a free ride all that time, the new members paid with blood and treasure.
As President Trump doesn’t trust NATO, four other nations (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia), don’t either. They formed ‘VISIGRAD’, an alliance which includes military cooperation. Poland has authorized the formation of approximately 200,000 civilian para-military (militia) groups under their military umbrella.
The important question remains: why should the USA contribute to NATO (money, resources and blood) if NATO doesn’t want to defend itself? Yet NATO’s largest members (France and Germany) seem to have billions for migrants. Maybe President Trump can jar some sense into them. If not, maybe the USA should walk away and simply support nations individually that want to defend themselves. Visigrad would welcome the USA with open arms and bases.
Disclaimer: For almost 8 years worked or was protected by NATO (including US) in 2 war zones.
John Boggs
[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]
NATO is nothing more than European + Turkey member nations who seek US protection under its nuclear umbrella. Whereas, during the cold war, NATO was seen as the shield against the Soviet Union, it mutated to a force projection mechanism to curtail the expansion of radical Islam.
In either scenario, the US played a pivotal role. Europe does not have another defense command and control structure in place. It relies wholly on the US to provide the nucleus of any crisis management headquarters, rapid deployment means and sustainable logistics.
To view NATO as an entity without taking into account its symbiotic relationship with the US, is a mistake. Without the US at the helm, NATO is nothing but a bunch of squabbling neighbors who need a big brother to keep them in check.
NATO is not self sustaining, at any level of expenditure for its existence. The US primus inter pares role cannot be exaggerated nor substituted in a pinch. All told, NATO’rUS. If we stopped keeping NATO together, Europe would have no common defense or skeletal staff to execute joint/combined operations. End of the story.
“All told, NATO’rUS. If we stopped keeping NATO together, Europe would have no common defense or skeletal staff to execute joint/combined operations. End of the story.”
So whose responsibility is it for self defense? Why are we “my brother’s keeper” when the brother has all the resources necessary to defend themselves (money, the technology, arms industry). But won’t!
Further Europe has an open border for migrants so why not invaders? Maybe I now see why they don’t want to defend themselves…”hey come on in, one and all”.
Again, if Europe wishes to commit “economic, national or military suicide” why is it our responsibility to save them? How far do we go to force them to save themselves…occupation? Just saying as I am frustrated by the Europeans.