End of Spangdahlem

[Clark Griswold]

19 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Do be honest it's a complete mistake AFRICOM is not in AFRICA. For one that communicates something to our partners there but #2 is that it shows a lack of commitment to Africa which is a SERIOUS mistake on the US part. If you look at the conditions, Africa is about to have an economic explosion in the next century or so. They are suitably primed for it on many fronts and we are losing our soft power there to China which is going to be disasterous for us. 

Concur 

Recommend Kenya, coastal location likely Mombasa. 

As to the end of Spang, needs to happen along with the end of most if not all Western European basing.  If we have any defense interests in being forward deployed to Europe it is a modest foot print in Central / Eastern Europe and the Baltic states with some basing in Southern Europe for Mediterranean access and logistical bases for ME ops (if absolutely required). 

They (Western Euros) are not our enemies, they are friends but have different outlook on the world and the use of military force for deterrence, intervention and foreign policy priorities.  Their day to day defense is not our responsibility.

[Lawman]

Do be honest it's a complete mistake AFRICOM is not in AFRICA. For one that communicates something to our partners there but #2 is that it shows a lack of commitment to Africa which is a SERIOUS mistake on the US part. If you look at the conditions, Africa is about to have an economic explosion in the next century or so. They are suitably primed for it on many fronts and we are losing our soft power there to China which is going to be disasterous for us. 

Dude... CENTCOM is in Tampa Bay and we have been way beyond “committed” to that region for decades. The strategic and economic value of the region has never been a question. Should we move that to Jordan to let the locals know we are in their corner?

Africa is a real suck as far as support and infrastructure. No matter where you placed your HQ element within that continent it was going to effectively be no less isolated from any other portion than being based Across the MED. the difference being as far as effectiveness now you can send people there on non remote tours and get some continuity of work out of them. You try convincing good talent at 6-9 years of service to go work staff without family living in a prefab support barracks Kenya or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[streak]

https://www.airforcemag.com/spangdahlem-loss-of-fighter-mission-doesnt-mean-the-end-of-the-base/
 

[M2]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bryen-american-troops-pulled-from-germany-as-nato-falters

[FLEA]

12 minutes ago, M2 said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bryen-american-troops-pulled-from-germany-as-nato-falters

Pretty decent analysis of NATO's quickly waning importance. 

[Clark Griswold]

Concur
End it gracefully but retain what could be useful in a new future (interoperability, routine joint training, logistical support)

Long term relationships need more than just momentum to justify their continuance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

Anyone else skeptical of this all actually taking place if we get a new SECDEF and POTUS potentially in 6 months?

I’m also just blown away that so many of y’all are willing to throw NATO in the trash. We benefit greatly by a relatively peaceful and united Europe and part of the price of that is NATO and our encouragement of broader European integration, e.g. the EU.

Not that institutions can’t or shouldn’t grow, change and evolve, but I for one am not willing to abandon a project that has been extremely fruitful for the last 70+ years.

[Lawman]

Anyone else skeptical of this all actually taking place if we get a new SECDEF and POTUS potentially in 6 months?
I’m also just blown away that so many of y’all are willing to throw NATO in the trash. We benefit greatly by a relatively peaceful and united Europe and part of the price of that is NATO and our encouragement of broader European integration, e.g. the EU.
Not that institutions can’t or shouldn’t grow, change and evolve, but I for one am not willing to abandon a project that has been extremely fruitful for the last 70+ years.

That new president was actively part of the previous admin which had no problem taking all the Armor off the continent, shuttering the only forward deployed Heavy CAB in the Army, and cutting troop levels by a full 2/3 of what they were when from a few years before.

All that while ignoring Russian aggression and pretending those T-72/T-90s rolling from East to West across Ukraine were “possible rebel forces.”


Yeah I think democratic leadership and the party will happily go back to gutting NATO and the active component with a new president, and not a damn word will be uttered by the same press critical of Trump for his statements about our “allies.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Anyone else skeptical of this all actually taking place if we get a new SECDEF and POTUS potentially in 6 months?

I’m also just blown away that so many of y’all are willing to throw NATO in the trash. We benefit greatly by a relatively peaceful and united Europe and part of the price of that is NATO and our encouragement of broader European integration, e.g. the EU.

Not that institutions can’t or shouldn’t grow, change and evolve, but I for one am not willing to abandon a project that has been extremely fruitful for the last 70+ years.

We shouldn't take any alliance for granted. "States dont have Friends, only interest." - Queen Elizabeth I

Our alliance with Germany and much of NATO was only beneficial so long as it was convenient. At this point that's run out. I don't think we need to do away with NATO all together, but I do believe the US needs to take a backseat as the primary leader in the alliance and take on a much reduced role, until NATO can define a primary mission that is equally as important to us as it is to the rest of Europe. 

That said, I do have an emotional appeal that detracts me from NATO as well. So I will share some of my thoughts from living and working in Europe, an assignment I thought I would love, and largely did, but I felt opened my eyes to some realities I hadn't considered before. 

 

1.) Our government has a preference for European allies and I think we need to recognize the elephant in the room, that there might be some undertone of racial preference in this. I've noticed my democrat friends vehemently defending European values right now have a really hard time swallowing that one. 

2.) We need to break this slightly racist and ethnocentric ideal that we are a "Western European" valued nation. I've been more and more annoyed by the continuous attempt to identify American values and civilization as Western European values and civilization. We've been divorced from European governance for 250 years. We've been geographically independent for over 400. White Americans will be a minority (albeit the largest one) in 20 years. At what point do we recognize that we are a North American nation of mixed race, ethnicity, cultures and religions, with our own unique set of values built specifically to rid us of European influence? Its time we fucking identify as that be a proud American, fuck yeah, and stop pretending we are some "off-brand" European knock-off nation. Seriously though, we need to stop this idea that we should adopt more European forms of governance and culture. The whole purpose of our inception was to break away from that. 

3.) Lets look at how many wars the US fought that can be attributed to European influence. 

Revolution.... hahaha

War of 1812 or War of European Colony dick measuring contest?

Civil War? Want to talk about Great Britain's role in establishing slavery as the primary economic means in the colonies? They certainly don't. Took us 88 years to undo what they spend 150 years fostering and instilling into the fabric of their economy. 

Spanish-American War? Spanish Colonial dominance of Cuba and Mexico....

WW1 and WW2..... yeah........

Vietnam? French dun fucked up. 

Iraq? Britain dun fucked up. 

Africa? The worst parts fucked by France and the Dutch. 

Afghanistan? Colonial East Empire Company adventurism.

Syria? Seriously.... why is the British royal family still allowed to exist? 

But of course, lets put ourselves in an Alliance where the incendiary fuck up of any one of 30 nations could draw us into another prolonged and bloody fuck gaggle. 

 

 

To capstone all that, I love Europe and many people in Europe. I had a great time there. But I think it is in America's best interest to end its infatuation with Europe as the keystone seat of world power. We are the keystone seat of world power now and we need to own that. We don't owe Europe anything and they don't owe us anything either. We should remain cordial and diplomatic with them and there is plenty of room to continue good work in Europe, but not by bolstering most of our country's defense resources on country's that should be figuring that out for themselves. We should continue to foster and grow our relationships with those partner countries but more at the intimate level like we do with many of our SE Asian allies and less at the global strategic level. There is a place for a US/NATO relationship but its not the one we have now. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by FLEA

[brickhistory]

If they, NATO, don't care enough to meet their agreed upon obligations, then why should we?  We can still be a member nation without shouldering more than our fair share.

If NATO kept to it's stated business, i.e, the collective defense of Western (and galloping eastward since the fall of the USSR ((which wasn't a good idea then or now)), then perhaps it wouldn't be in the state it's in.  NATO in Afghanistan never made sense to me.  Member nations want to play in our out of area war, then great.  That's a bilateral thing between their government and ours.  NATO itself?  Not so much.

Germany's military status is a joke.  If they don't care about their own defense, why should we?

[dream big]

12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Anyone else skeptical of this all actually taking place if we get a new SECDEF and POTUS potentially in 6 months?

I’m also just blown away that so many of y’all are willing to throw NATO in the trash. We benefit greatly by a relatively peaceful and united Europe and part of the price of that is NATO and our encouragement of broader European integration, e.g. the EU.

Not that institutions can’t or shouldn’t grow, change and evolve, but I for one am not willing to abandon a project that has been extremely fruitful for the last 70+ years.

Tell that to the various member states (ie Germany) that pay ZERO for the treaty, all while our tax payers foot the bill for our allies to ride on.

No one is advocating for abolishing NATO, just asking a little more of our allies. 

[Clark Griswold]

Anyone else skeptical of this all actually taking place if we get a new SECDEF and POTUS potentially in 6 months?
I’m also just blown away that so many of y’all are willing to throw NATO in the trash. We benefit greatly by a relatively peaceful and united Europe and part of the price of that is NATO and our encouragement of broader European integration, e.g. the EU.
Not that institutions can’t or shouldn’t grow, change and evolve, but I for one am not willing to abandon a project that has been extremely fruitful for the last 70+ years.

I’m skeptical of it actually happening or other redeployment / draw downs but I hope that it does, not out of animus to Western Europe but because I do not believe it is in our best interest.

I’ve mentioned this idea before in other threads but why do we deter aggression or coercion from one state (Russia) when Germany and others do business with them and other threats (Iran notably), it just does not work. It’s embarrassing, emasculating, infuriating and stupid.

This is a cuckhold relationship, no thanks.

NATO is part of a world order that doesn’t really exist any longer, where American largesse was great enough to overlook problems and unfair / untenable arrangements out of magnanimity and some ego, it’s time to admit that and act accordingly.

Besides, the locus of threat is no longer the Fulda Gap but at the contentious new eastern flank of NATO, the Allies could take the wind out of the sails of NATO skeptics like me by offering modest forward deployments of their own forces with ROE that bypasses the blob of NATO bureaucracy, puts those forces while deployed under the OPCON of NATO members under threat of direct or coercive Russian aggression. Skin in the game and guarantee to fight if Ivan tries something? That’s a different NATO than what we have now

This does not mean chaos following redeployment or there being no military relationship post NATO but something has to change, the old order is gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chase]

On 8/4/2020 at 4:06 AM, dream big said:

Tell that to the various member states (ie Germany) that pay ZERO for the treaty, all while our tax payers foot the bill for our allies to ride on.

No one is advocating for abolishing NATO, just asking a little more of our allies. 

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=who+pays+for+nato

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074

WE: 22% | Germany: 14.76% | France/UK: 10.5%

But don't let facts get in your way.

Disclaimer: I really think the germans need to step up their defence game, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[FlyingWolf]

28 minutes ago, chase said:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=who+pays+for+nato

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074

WE: 22% | Germany: 14.76% | France/UK: 10.5%

But don't let facts get in your way.

Disclaimer: I really think the germans need to step up their defence game, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

Suggestions on what to do to get them to step up their defence game?

[FLEA]

So this is tricky right, because the above article is talking about who is funding NATO as a political entity, which has its own budget, staffs and policy divisions but very little warfighting matieriel. When Trump and others criticize NATO participation spending they are talking mainly about the funding going to maintaining a country's own standing armies because NATO itself has VERY little military power.

In fact the ONLY air power units I know of under NATO operational control are AWACS and now a few Globalhawks. 

So the expectation for NATO to work is that its member states are contributing a sizable standing army to the collective. Germany can give its whole GDP to NATO but it wouldnt change the fact that NATO can't fight a war because NATO doesn't have forces. The agreement is the member nations provide OPCON of their forces to NATO once war kicks off. If you don't have forces to provide, you aren't really contributing to the alliance. 

[nsplayr]

What Flea is saying above is all accurate.

What I think is missing in a lot of the critiques is that NATO is a military alliance but also a political alliance. I think a lot of y’all are discounting the value of being closely allied with many of the worlds largest economies and most enduring democratic states.

There is, in my view, a lot of value beyond the petty, transactional nature of “who paid for what” and there are also far better ways to encourage our allies to spend more on defense without poking them in the eyes constantly.

For people asking why the F NATO was in Afghanistan, it was us that invoked Article 5 after 9/11 and the way I see it our boys rode with us when it was time to F some terrorists up. The fact that the Afghan War turned into an extremely drawn out and ultimately pointless (IMHO) land war in Asia from about 2003-present is kind of on us as the leaders of that posse.

NATO also includes 3 of the 9 world nuclear powers are for whatever that’s worth when the aliens invade 🛸

Edited August 6, 2020 by nsplayr

[Clark Griswold]

What Flea is saying above is all accurate.
What I think is missing in a lot of the critiques is that NATO is a military alliance but also a political alliance. I think a lot of y’all are discounting the value of being closely allied with many of the worlds largest economies and most enduring democratic states.
There is, in my view, a lot of value beyond the petty, transactional nature of “who paid for what” and there are also far better ways to encourage our allies to spend more on defense without poking them in the eyes constantly.
For people asking why the F NATO was in Afghanistan, it was us that invoked Article 5 after 9/11 and the way I see it our boys rode with us when it was time to F some terrorists up. The fact that the Afghan War turned into an extremely drawn out and ultimately pointless (IMHO) land war in Asia from about 2003-present is kind of on us as the leaders of that posse.
NATO also includes 3 of the 9 world nuclear powers are for whatever that’s worth when the aliens invade

Would it or does it matter if we are still a member of NATO but not forward deployed to Europe? Is this a foundational requirement?

If they are sovereign, capable and responsible countries do we have to be there? If we do then they are not. They’re then client states of ours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Would it or does it matter if we are still a member of NATO but not forward deployed to Europe? Is this a foundational requirement?

If they are sovereign, capable and responsible countries do we have to be there? If we do then they are not. They’re then client states of ours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really you can pull the whole army out at a minimum. The general US doctrine anymore requires Airpower to hold the line until the Army can be ready for phase 3 ops. "If" air superiority is achieved, AF can hold the line indefinitely while logisticians figure the Army out. 

Your JOPESters can tell you to the day every day you will recieve new assets in theater by priority. 

[FLEA]

11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

What Flea is saying above is all accurate.

What I think is missing in a lot of the critiques is that NATO is a military alliance but also a political alliance. I think a lot of y’all are discounting the value of being closely allied with many of the worlds largest economies and most enduring democratic states.

There is, in my view, a lot of value beyond the petty, transactional nature of “who paid for what” and there are also far better ways to encourage our allies to spend more on defense without poking them in the eyes constantly.

For people asking why the F NATO was in Afghanistan, it was us that invoked Article 5 after 9/11 and the way I see it our boys rode with us when it was time to F some terrorists up. The fact that the Afghan War turned into an extremely drawn out and ultimately pointless (IMHO) land war in Asia from about 2003-present is kind of on us as the leaders of that posse.

NATO also includes 3 of the 9 world nuclear powers are for whatever that’s worth when the aliens invade 🛸

Nsplayr, I hear what your saying man and consent that there is a degree of immeasurable "political" favor we get from NATO partners via our commitment, like the fact that they buy our weapons, however, those favors have been waning. 

Bush's article 5 use was controversial but was a last ditch attempt to save the purpose of the alliance in a post cold war era by redefining it as an international force to combat terrorism in the 21st century. Sounded like some awesome rainbow six shit until reality kicked in and we realised we can't even all define who a terrorist is.

Let's also look at some of the shortcomings of NATO. Another lesson from the WW's, one more persistent than those we learned in WW2, is that webs of alliances can quickly accelerate a regional conflict to a global conflict. Now as long as NATO maintains a unified purpose we are all CAVOK, but what happen when Greece and Turkey start shooting at each other and one of them declares article 5 first? This is why bringing on more member states was a huge mistake. It made the ability to nail down a singular purpose near impossible. How do you get 30 states to agree on who the bad guy is? 

[Sua Sponte]

19 hours ago, FLEA said:

So this is tricky right, because the above article is talking about who is funding NATO as a political entity, which has its own budget, staffs and policy divisions but very little warfighting matieriel. When Trump and others criticize NATO participation spending they are talking mainly about the funding going to maintaining a country's own standing armies because NATO itself has VERY little military power.

In fact the ONLY air power units I know of under NATO operational control are AWACS and now a few Globalhawks. 

So the expectation for NATO to work is that its member states are contributing a sizable standing army to the collective. Germany can give its whole GDP to NATO but it wouldnt change the fact that NATO can't fight a war because NATO doesn't have forces. The agreement is the member nations provide OPCON of their forces to NATO once war kicks off. If you don't have forces to provide, you aren't really contributing to the alliance. 

Isn't there a C-17 unit as well?

[FLEA]

10 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Isn't there a C-17 unit as well?

Havent heard that. I'll have to look into it. 

[Sua Sponte]

9 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Havent heard that. I'll have to look into it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Airlift_Capability

[FLEA]

55 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Airlift_Capability

Super cool. I did not know that. The OPCON sounds murky though. Like they have their own OPCON but lend themselves to UN, EU or NATO. Going to have to ask around about this. 

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:This is why bringing on more member states was a huge mistake. It made the ability to nail down a singular purpose near impossible. How do you get 30 states to agree on who the bad guy is? 

So we disagree a bit on the continued importance of NATO and the US role in it, but I agree with you here. In addition to adding complexity and uncertainty to the alliance, NATO’s rapid expansion East almost certainly provoked the Russians into taking kinetic action in Georgia and Ukraine, as well as shadier actions in the Baltics. And that gave Putin all the pretense he needed to declare himself de-facto dictator. 

[Clark Griswold]

Really you can pull the whole army out at a minimum. The general US doctrine anymore requires Airpower to hold the line until the Army can be ready for phase 3 ops. "If" air superiority is achieved, AF can hold the line indefinitely while logisticians figure the Army out. 
Your JOPESters can tell you to the day every day you will recieve new assets in theater by priority. 

That could be a COA but I’m not allergic to a US presence (permanent or routine rotations on the ground in some numbers) but only for those in real danger of what Ivan is likely to try - Intimidation / Coercion Ops, small land grabs, Hybrid Warfare, etc... Germany, Italy, Spain, etc... are not in danger of those and even if they were being targeted with those types of Russian ops we should not be leading the pushback but only be the backstop if it really starts to wrap up into tightening spiral

The idea of NATO may not be outdated but the current NATO and it’s baggage are either in need of rebuild or leaving

Case in point Turkey, quickly becoming more troublesome

https://rusi.org/commentary/worm-fruit-rising-strategic-foe-inside-nato

NATO 2.0 would be best a collection of regional alliances with a linking structure to get the regions to ideally communicate, and collaborate, coordinate ops occasionally but keep the decision making alliances to reasonable sizes and keeping all members of said smaller alliances in the same security concerns sphere. Mediterranean alliance members for example could and would best understand / empathize with a member under aggression, likely quickly coming to a consensus and pushing back against aggression (external or internal). Expecting defense members now not in the same regions, with different national and economic interests to develop consensus when a problem / crisis arises that doesn’t directly affect them is crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk