NATO improvements?

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) disagrees with you. I certainly agree that military force is an effective means of asserting global influence. To say that it is "the only truly effective means" of doing so is a bit farfetched. Hard power subdues others, but it is soft power that forms cooperation.

 

I do think IB was getting ahead of himself abit by saying Europe should be able to project power anywhere in the world without US help. However Europe should be able to atleast project power in it's region of economic domination, i.e North Africa, the near east and the Balkans. In my view Europe can do that already, if the political will was their to do it, Europe doesn't need to be able to go all over the world, only the UK and France do. I also think he is right in the 4 things he says Europe needs to get better at. I would like to see a much more powerful EU amphibious battle group, which is rather weak right now, only 1,500 marines and 2 light air craft carriers from Italy and Spain. They could buy, overhaul and refit the USS Kitty Hawk, that would make it much more powerful.

 

Well, both the UK and France have blue-water naval capabilities. There really is not much more they can do besides continue to modernize its fleets. The other EU countries, however, have no reason to build such large forces. I would think that Italy, and the other Mediterranean EU countries require sufficient improvements to project power in North Africa not for economic security, but for national security, especially with the increase in illegal migration to the region. The Balkans, while always a powder keg, are quieting down, despite the presence of ethnic nationalism. Lastly, in the near east, the EU's influence is comparatively meager. Soft power, not hard power, and internal political/economic reform, not external-oriented military/foreign policy reform, are of primary concern.

With that being said, in my more normative view of things, I do think NATO should continue to make improvements by gradually integrating EU countries into greater roles. We see with the previous Libya operations that both UK and France, when given the opportunity, seek to project their credible military forces within the collective security arrangement. If they are more than willing to do so when not asked, then I see no reason to not demand greater participation. Of course, when looking at this matter from a two level perspective (courtesy of Putnam), we see that domestically speaking, Francois Hollande cannot withstand the costs of ideological contradiction. If anything, he would decrease French presence in NATO, whereas it is more probable that David Cameron will not.

 

Abolish it. It has become a tyrannical military force that is being used solely for political purposes often in violation of the United Nations Charter.

 

The United Nations Charter is not the be end all of international law with regards to sovereignty, which I assume is what you are alluding to. In fact, the agreement on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in the UN Security Council effectively amends provisions of the Charter, making provisions on the protecting of sovereign equality not a right, but a responsibility. This is what allows for legally compatible interventions by NATO with regards to international law.

 

Screw the UN!

 

Nor the UK or France has blue water capabilities, they could have tegether, but not apart. The UK and France have obligations to their overseas territories. The French aren't really improving their navy with it's modernization, apart from it's submarine fleet, which will still be behind that of the UK. The UK on the other hand is make good improvement building 6 destroyers to France's 2, 13 new frigates to France's 11, 7 new nuclear attack submarines to France's 6 and 2 new 65,000 ton carriers to France's 0 carriers. Soon the UK will have by far the most powerful navy in Europe, not because it's spending that much more money than France or that is technology is better, but because the UK gets weapons from the US that France doesn't, so France has to spend money building a weapon for itself.

If no other European countries need powerful fleets then why does Italy and Spain have rather fleets with aircraft carriers? Why does Germany need 13 frigates?
Patrol boats take care of the illegal migration, not powerful frigates and carriers.

The Balkans is one place where EU soft power has worked rather well, but in the first place it still needed military force to make peace in the Balkans.

So they EU has had little influence on Turkey then?

Soft power only goes so far, at the end of the day the US can put 3 carriers in the Gulf against Iran, Europe can't even sort out Libya. So when Iran talks to the EU, they don't really care, they want to talk to the ones with the 3 carriers in the Persian Gulf.

We want other nations Germany, Italy, Spain the rest of central and eastern Europe, to take a more active role, not the UK or France, as they already do enough.

 

I find the bolded statement hard to believe. Despite the comparative inferiority of the UK and French navies to say, the United States Navy, both countries possess blue-water capabilities, denoting the ability to engage in sustained operations and navigation throughout the high seas. France also maintains an aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.

Furthermore, I never specified what capabilities Italy and other Mediterranean countries require to combat illegal migration from North Africa. Certainly frigates or carriers are not necessary. Therefore, assuming otherwise is a moot point.

 

My change would be simple: require all members to make exactly the same financial and troop contributions. If a nation fails to contribute their share, either reduce the requirements for everyone or eject the freeloader.

 

Agreed but that isn't going to happen. Their is a 2% of GDP rule, but that isn't enforced.

 

perfect. it was america tthat wanted the other countries in the first place. im sure theyll be glad to bail now.

 

So you think because France has 1 medium sized carrier it has a blue water fleet? You need atleast 2 carrier to sustain an operation for more than 6-9 months, that's why the UK is building 2 carriers, the French were looking at building atleast one more carrier, and the Americans need atleast 10, even then sometimes they need help from France or Britain when it had a carrier. Blue water means you have the ability to project naval power in any ocean in the world indefinitely, so the British and French can't do that, China and India can't.

So why does Italy and Spain have such powerful navies if they don't need them?

 

Blue-water navy:

http://www.dss.mil/counterintel/DSS_UNCLASS_2010/specialFocusArea/special.html

One or more aircraft carriers, irrespective of size are necessary for a blue-water navy. In addition, sustenance of operations is qualitative, not quantitative in nature. Therefore, the ability to project naval power in any ocean in the world indefinitely is also a moot point. It is the distance to which one's naval forces can project power that matters, not the time. Both the French and UK navies are capable of projecting naval power far from their shores. As I said, in comparison to the United States Navy, the navies of the two countries are comparatively inferior, and henceforth, there is the notion that blue-water capabilities should be a description granted less often. However, according to most defense experts, the term blue-water is applicable to the UK and French navies.

 

Do you really think that Russia and Belarus are the biggest threat to the US? What century is this?

 

The UK doesn't have any aircraft carriers, yet I would say it's Royal Fleet Auxiliary has great capabilities to project and sustain ships than it's French counterpart. So in my view the UK is closer to a blue water navy than France. Also you need to take into account nuclear powered submarines, the Russian submarines can go just about anywhere in the world and they have a carrier, but nobody can call the Russian fleet blue water. For me your definition of blue water navy is far to simplistic. If a French fleet comprising Charles de Gaulle, Mistral, Forbin, Chevalier Paul, Cassard, Aquitaine, Aconit, Guépratte, Orion, Croix du Sud, Triomphant, Émeraude and Perle was send to French Polynesia as their had been some sort of unrising against French rule, how long do you think the French sustain that fleet with just 3 replenishment ships? I don't think they could sustain it without help from the UK, US, Australia or New Zealand.

 

I was thinking the US could just cut their contributions to match the average of everyone else's. This would let us cut our military spending significantly, better balancing our budget. It would also help appease the people who whine about us spending more money on our military than the next few countries combined.