How NATO leaders used quiet maneuvers and 'adroit flattery' to keep Trump from blowing up the allian

?????He didnt get played. He got what he demanded from them.

"Stoltenberg and senior NATO officials embraced "Trump's demands for greater burden-sharing" because "they promised to generate most goodwill with the U.S. president and were not harmful to the alliance," according to Schuette.

Stoltenberg lobbied allies to increase their defense spending. By making sure to do so publicly, Stoltenberg was able to put more pressure on underpaying members and to signal to Trump that he shared Trump's concerns."

 

They didnt have the will even though they knew they had the ability.

 

Given it's poor performance, I'm not sure that the military could defend the United States.

 

How do you know they had the ability?

 

Our military is fantastic. But when the Commander-in-Chief says "RUN AWAY!"... that's what they must do.

 

what's sad, is many on the right don't care and would vote for him again

 

you referring to the Trump deal with the Taliban?

 

I'm referring to our sneaking away in the middle of the night from a major Afghan airport... which had nothing to do with Trump... those details came much later... from Biden. And leaving Americans behind was never in the plan... ALL BIDEN.

 

My worries are less about an addled commander in chief and more about generals who would promise to inform our enemies of an attack. I think the real problem is the general officer corps.

 

Trump never had a plan

 

A few years ago I would have totally disagreed with you. My West Point class has 26 Generals. Some have real problems... like Lloyd Austin. Another is a total egomaniac. Another conducted a free for all in his command that hospitalized 11 people... "just for fun". There are more, similar stories. So now, regrettably, I must agree with you.

 

There was a plan... but a year out it wasn't very detailed. No plan is very detailed a year out.

 

A few years ago, I would have totally disagreed with me too. I'm saddened by what's happened to the Army.

 

What poor performance?

You think occupying a place like Afghanistan with 10K men is a measure of the entire military's performance?

 

Rather than retype what I've already written in this thread:

I think we have a crisis of military leadership. To make my point, let me gift you with another comment of mine made after our Afghanistan debacle.

We've had a series of military leaders, not one or two bad apples, that have sacrificed lives and trillions for no actual reason that they could actually verbalize, and although it looks like I'm picking at the Army, because that's what I know, the Navy has had a series of ridiculous disasters that have cost lives and millions over the past few years.

So I question our ability to successfully conduct operations with near peer adversaries, when we can't even deal with primitives.

 

I was interested in that you meant by "poor performance", rather than you opinion about some generals. We have more than enough fine generals to make sure the US military is the most lethal on the planet, and its not even close.

As for your 'gift', the article is about Afghanistan, which I already said is not a measure of what the US military is capable of if we had to defend our nation. Being able to defend the US, or take on an army of another country is not same as trying to sniff out people hiding in caves,

 

Afghanistan is a measure of our ability to meet and destroy an enemy. We failed that test. Meanwhile with all of your faith in the military's ability to defend us, I hope you are correct, but it's just a hope.

 

It was a measure of our nation building abilities, and we should have known that only willing nations can be built, while unwilling, hostile and/or uninterested ones cannot. I can only hope we learned that lesson there.

 

OK we disagree then. I think the military conflict with the Taliban was more important than any "nation-building" attempted there.

 

Taliban survived by hiding in caves, but if you think that is a measure of what the US military as whole is capable of doing, then so be it.

 

My dad didn't want to go to war yet he was drafted and served well from all I've been able to find.

 

We have the ability blast civilization from the surface of Afghanistan.

 

The mere existence of NATO is overkill.

And when they're not spending our money, they're getting 0% interest "loans" that end up being forgiven.

You could never defeat Russia and China no matter how much you spend.

Regime change in Iran is child's play and would take less than 60 days with US casualties being less than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

 

If our only ability to defeat an enemy is nukes, then we could save a lot of money by getting rid of most of the military and just keep our nukes. Nuking the Taliban should be a self evident dumb argument.

 

Your dad's generation is NOTHING like today's. Did your dad's generation burn and loot cities from coast to coast? Did they think little kids should be taught that America is racist? Did they support open borders? Did they think folks should determine what sex they are?
My dad went to war too. Anything relevant about the military back then has no relevance at all today. Heck, I was a career Army guy and its all radically changed in just those intervening 25 years.