US and NATO (and Trump, of course) + Mattis Gives Trump's Ultimatum To Europe

[XT]

@John_Mace

Agreed that the Korean War, the Vietnam War and Gulf War II were not among the US’s stellar achievements, but Gulf War I was a complete success, accomplishing the goal of liberating Kuwait.

I disagree…I think the Korean war WAS one of the US’s (and the other allies…and the South Korean’s themselves) stellar achievements. This gets into how you define winning. Considering how South Korea has panned out, I’d count that as a win. Vietnam? Yeah, that was a loss. Gulf War I was definitely a win, but only in the short term. Gulf War II? No idea how that will play out in the long term. Same with Afghanistan. Libya? Same. Bosnia though? I’d go with win there.

The biggest ‘win’ for the US (and NATO), however, IMHO was the wars we didn’t fight. Subduing the enemy without fighting and all that.

[John_Mace]

The Korean War is technically not even over, and with NK in the situation it is, I can’t see how that can be considered a success. The goal was to defeat the communists, and we didn’t. That’s a loss.

[XT]

@John_Mace

The Korean War is technically not even over, and with NK in the situation it is, I can’t see how that can be considered a success. The goal was to defeat the communists, and we didn’t. That’s a loss.

I’m equally not seeing it as a loss in any reasonable way. I don’t believe that the initial goals, or the wider overarching strategic goals were to invade and destroy North Korea and reunite the peninsula under one government, though for a while there it looked like this would happen (first one way, then the other). With the Chinese intervention and continued Russian support and involvement that wasn’t realistic.

Like I said, this gets into what it means to win or lose. I see it as an allied win, though only partially…however, as you said, with the way North Korea is going, I think it’s only a matter of time before they collapse (I know you didn’t mean it that way ;)). That’s why I didn’t address the question with up_the_junction, especially considering his less than stellar grasp on history or reality. WRT your assertions, I’ll simply say that it’s a debatable point and agree to disagree on the it. Unless you’d like to start a debate thread on either Korea or the larger question of whether the US has ‘won’ or ‘lost’ every war in the last 70 years, I’d says we just let it go and get back to the OP.

[RickJay]

@John_Mace

The Korean War is technically not even over, and with NK in the situation it is, I can’t see how that can be considered a success. The goal was to defeat the communists, and we didn’t. That’s a loss.

If the Korean War isn’t “Technically over” because there was no completely final peace treat, then it never technically started because there was no declaration of war.

In any event, the goal was not to defeat the Communists any more than was done. The stated goal was to preserve the independence of South Korea. The UN resolution on the matter did not call for North Korea to be conquered; it called for US member states to deploy forces to the region “to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.” The war ended with the invading force repelled and South Korea’s sovereignty protected.

[XT]

@RickJay

If the Korean War isn’t “Technically over” because there was no completely final peace treat, then it never technically started because there was no declaration of war.

In any event, the goal was not to defeat the Communists any more than was done. The stated goal was to preserve the independence of South Korea. The UN resolution on the matter did not call for North Korea to be conquered; it called for US member states to deploy forces to the region “to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.” The war ended with the invading force repelled and South Korea’s sovereignty protected.

Exactly. I guess the modern analogy would be the first Gulf War. The mandate wasn’t to drive into Iraq and defeat and occupy that country, deposing Saddam and his merry men. It was to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Not exactly the same, but similar. Based on how successful South Korea is today I’d definitely county that as an allied win, not a US loss.

[Quartz]

Germany has responded by saying it will recruit more troops, increasing its army to 200,000

[XT]

@Quartz

Germany has responded by saying it will recruit more troops, increasing its army to 200,000

Looking at the key piece of information in this link:

It is estimated the increases will cost Germany between around €900m (£760m) a year. But the amount is still far short of the extra €25.4bn Germany would have to spend on defence each year to meet Nato’s annual target of 2 per cent of GDP.

So…they need to increase it by 25 billion euros and, instead, they are increasing it by less than a billion…all of it in personnel. This is also over 10 years. Wonder how they think it will fill in gaps like this:

But in more recent years it has been better known for embarrassing equipment shortages that saw soldiers forces to use broomsticks instead of guns on Nato exercises, and use ordinary Mercedes vans to stand in for armoured personnel carriers.

They going to give these 20k more soldiers a broomstick of their own, or will they have to share with the existing soldiers. And exactly how many additional Mercedes vans are we talking about here??

[Ravenman]

@XT

They going to give these 20k more soldiers a broomstick of their own, or will they have to share with the existing soldiers.

The idea that soldiers need real guns is just propaganda from the military-industrial complex.

[John_Mace]

Plus, who doesn’t want Germany to have a nice, big war machine? What could possibly go wrong with that?

[up_the_junction]

I should get too worried, what it actually means is 2,500 a year more personal for each of the next 8 years:

Under the new plans, Germany will recruit 20,000 more troops by 2025,

The modern ratio is about 2.5 to 3:1, so the Germans are basically adding one battalion over 8 years Will Putin sleep at night …

[up_the_junction]

one battalion a year for 8 years …

[XT]

@John_Mace

Plus, who doesn’t want Germany to have a nice, big war machine? What could possibly go wrong with that?

I would say that it’s the German people who don’t want Germany to have a nice, big war machine. And I can think of a host of things that has gone wrong with that…and more that could possibly go wrong in the future. I think the time of worrying that Germany (or Japan) are going to start back down the path of evil are kind of past now.

[XT]

@Ravenman

The idea that soldiers need real guns is just propaganda from the military-industrial complex.

I’m more worried about how much power this could give to the broomstick makers guild as well as Mercedes! Consider how those juicy contracts might empower those groups in the future! :eek:

[Quartz]

@XT

Looking at the key piece of information in this link:

Yes, but it is, nevertheless, a response.

[Hiker]

@XT

I would say that it’s the German people who don’t want Germany to have a nice, big war machine. And I can think of a host of things that has gone wrong with that…and more that could possibly go wrong in the future. I think the time of worrying that Germany (or Japan) are going to start back down the path of evil are kind of past now.

That’s not wrong. I’d say few people over here feel that we are in any serious danger of reverting to whatever it is that we were in the 1930s. But that does not mean that the lessons from our history do not have a lingering effect. Having a strong military just is not the same matter of national pride to Germans that it is for other nations. Most of us agree (often reluctantly) that having a functioning army is a thing of necessity, but that’s that. After the end of the cold war Germans generally felt that the risk of armed conflict had pretty much ended for us and thus spending money on the military was usually a hard sell for the German government.
However, recent international developments such as the realization that post-cold-war Russia may still not be entirely harmless or that the US of A may not be the dependable ally that they used to be may be starting a swing in public opinion. It seems to me that there is a growing consensus that we may have been running the military budget a bit too low, and I expect that in the coming years we will see an increase beyond what has already been anounced. What I do not expect is a drastic short-term uptick - not only for political reasons but also simply due to the fact that an army can only grow so fast. An American ultimatum that our budget must be at 2% of the GDP by the end of the year* or else* would be several kinds of stupid.

[XT]

@Hiker

That’s not wrong. I’d say few people over here feel that we are in any serious danger of reverting to whatever it is that we were in the 1930s. But that does not mean that the lessons from our history do not have a lingering effect. Having a strong military just is not the same matter of national pride to Germans that it is for other nations. Most of us agree (often reluctantly) that having a functioning army is a thing of necessity, but that’s that. After the end of the cold war Germans generally felt that the risk of armed conflict had pretty much ended for us and thus spending money on the military was usually a hard sell for the German government.
However, recent international developments such as the realization that post-cold-war Russia may still not be entirely harmless or that the US of A may not be the dependable ally that they used to be may be starting a swing in public opinion. It seems to me that there is a growing consensus that we may have been running the military budget a bit too low, and I expect that in the coming years we will see an increase beyond what has already been anounced. What I do not expect is a drastic short-term uptick - not only for political reasons but also simply due to the fact that an army can only grow so fast. An American ultimatum that our budget must be at 2% of the GDP by the end of the year* or else* would be several kinds of stupid.

Oh, I agree with you that how Trump et al are doing this is stupid…I mean, pretty much everything the guy and his administration are, IMHO, stupid, so it’s just their standard operating mode at this point. That said, Germany especially needs to do more…and a decision to increase the military budget by less than a billion euros when they are over 25 billion under THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD RECOMMENDED BY NATO (and have been for a long time…over a decades looks like) seems…well, like a drop in the bucket. Also, from the article linked to earlier, what concerns me more is what they are planning to spend the money on. Instead of increasing Germany’s troop strength (by a small degree over 10 years), I’d say the more important thing would be to get sufficient gear and training for the troops they already have.

I realize that, politically, all of this is difficult to sell to the citizens. They have the impression, reinforced by a lot of the European political leadership that there is no threat and that spending on the military is a stupid and unnecessary waste of resources that can and should be spent on better things. It’s going to be as hard to change that perception as it will be to convince the American public that we should build some nuclear power plants…heck, considering these are Europeans it’s probably going to be harder to justify an increase in military spending at a time when budgets are tightening and social spending is being questioned and cuts are being made.

[Hiker]

@XT

Oh, I agree with you that how Trump et al are doing this is stupid…I mean, pretty much everything the guy and his administration are, IMHO, stupid, so it’s just their standard operating mode at this point. That said, Germany especially needs to do more…and a decision to increase the military budget by less than a billion euros when they are over 25 billion under THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD RECOMMENDED BY NATO (and have been for a long time…over a decades looks like) seems…well, like a drop in the bucket. Also, from the article linked to earlier, what concerns me more is what they are planning to spend the money on. Instead of increasing Germany’s troop strength (by a small degree over 10 years), I’d say the more important thing would be to get sufficient gear and training for the troops they already have.

I realize that, politically, all of this is difficult to sell to the citizens. They have the impression, reinforced by a lot of the European political leadership that there is no threat and that spending on the military is a stupid and unnecessary waste of resources that can and should be spent on better things. It’s going to be as hard to change that perception as it will be to convince the American public that we should build some nuclear power plants…heck, considering these are Europeans it’s probably going to be harder to justify an increase in military spending at a time when budgets are tightening and social spending is being questioned and cuts are being made.

I agree with you in that we have to do more. I am not enough of an expert to assess whether additional budget would be better spent on personnel or, as you suggest, on hardware. However, the proposed increase would bring the size of our military personnel to be about on par with that of the UK. That does not seem entirely unreasonable to me.

As I said before, I do not expect that the spending increase announced so far will be the end of the line. And from a political perspective it may make sense to avoid announcing a massive increase in one go.

Whether the budget actually must be brought up to a full 2 percent of our GDP is another matter. That would bring our military budget to almost the size of that of Russia and at this point I cannot quite see how that is required.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Hiker]
I agree with you in that we have to do more. I am not enough of an expert to assess whether additional budget would be better spent on personnel or, as you suggest, on hardware. However, the proposed increase would bring the size of our military personnel to be about on par with that of the UK. That does not seem entirely unreasonable to me.
[/QUOTE]

I understand. Not everyone is interested in military stuff. I’ll just say that you can’t compare two nations military by simply looking at the size in terms of personnel…or even what they spend. You have to look at basically what the requirements for the military are then judge how they are meeting that requirement. German, basically, isn’t meeting it’s minimum requirements, since it isn’t properly training nor equipment the troops it already has, let alone the proposal to bring in a handful more over a decade.

As I said before, I do not expect that the spending increase announced so far will be the end of the line. And from a political perspective it may make sense to avoid announcing a massive increase in one go.

I’m pretty sure even the announcement to increase by nearly a billion euros wasn’t met with joy and happiness throughout the country. I totally get that. And I get that it would be politically impossible in the political environment in Germany and most other European NATO nations to bring their military budgets up to the minimum threshold guidelines of the alliance.

Whether the budget actually must be brought up to a full 2 percent of our GDP is another matter. That would bring our military budget to almost the size of that of Russia and at this point I cannot quite see how that is required.

Well, this gets back into requirements. As for your military budget being the size of Russia, that’s really apples to oranges. First off, Germany has drawn down on its military budget for over a decade now. So, even if you increased your budget back to 2% (or, hell, even 1.5%) it would only be meaningful if you did it for a decade or so…just to get back to where you should really be. It’s sort of like overeating and gaining weight. You don’t gain 60 kilos in a week…or even in a year usually. You gain it by just eating a few extra calories a day over long periods of time. By the same token, short of radical surgery or something, you don’t lose it in a week. Generally, it takes you as long to lose it (the right way) as it took you to gain it…and you do it pretty much the opposite of how you gained it. Germany has allowed their military to hollow out to the point, now, that it’s going to take years of higher budgets just to get it back to an effective force. The point being, even if you spend what the Russians are spending today you aren’t going to have the capabilities that the Russians have today…you MIGHT have it in a decade or so.

Of course, Germany’s requirements are totally different than Russia’s, so you can’t really look at their respective budgets and how many troops or tanks they each have to compare them. You have to look at their capabilities verse their requirements. Germany’s biggest requirement, as long as they are in NATO is…can they effectively defend any other member from an assault by a hostile nation? The answer to that, today, is no…Germany can’t effectively do that. What that will take to get Germany back to where they can do that, cost wise isn’t a matter of Germany’s spending verse Russia’s, or the number of troops Germany has verse how many Russia (or anyone else) has…it’s a matter of building that capability, the ability for Germany to send and support in the field a credible force to defend any NATO member from a threat.

[Hiker]

@XT

I understand. Not everyone is interested in military stuff. I’ll just say that you can’t compare two nations military by simply looking at the size in terms of personnel…or even what they spend. You have to look at basically what the requirements for the military are then judge how they are meeting that requirement. German, basically, isn’t meeting it’s minimum requirements, since it isn’t properly training nor equipment the troops it already has, let alone the proposal to bring in a handful more over a decade.

I’m pretty sure even the announcement to increase by nearly a billion euros wasn’t met with joy and happiness throughout the country. I totally get that. And I get that it would be politically impossible in the political environment in Germany and most other European NATO nations to bring their military budgets up to the minimum threshold guidelines of the alliance.

Well, this gets back into requirements. As for your military budget being the size of Russia, that’s really apples to oranges. First off, Germany has drawn down on its military budget for over a decade now. So, even if you increased your budget back to 2% (or, hell, even 1.5%) it would only be meaningful if you did it for a decade or so…just to get back to where you should really be. It’s sort of like overeating and gaining weight. You don’t gain 60 kilos in a week…or even in a year usually. You gain it by just eating a few extra calories a day over long periods of time. By the same token, short of radical surgery or something, you don’t lose it in a week. Generally, it takes you as long to lose it (the right way) as it took you to gain it…and you do it pretty much the opposite of how you gained it. Germany has allowed their military to hollow out to the point, now, that it’s going to take years of higher budgets just to get it back to an effective force. The point being, even if you spend what the Russians are spending today you aren’t going to have the capabilities that the Russians have today…you MIGHT have it in a decade or so.

Of course, Germany’s requirements are totally different than Russia’s, so you can’t really look at their respective budgets and how many troops or tanks they each have to compare them. You have to look at their capabilities verse their requirements. Germany’s biggest requirement, as long as they are in NATO is…can they effectively defend any other member from an assault by a hostile nation? The answer to that, today, is no…Germany can’t effectively do that. What that will take to get Germany back to where they can do that, cost wise isn’t a matter of Germany’s spending verse Russia’s, or the number of troops Germany has verse how many Russia (or anyone else) has…it’s a matter of building that capability, the ability for Germany to send and support in the field a credible force to defend any NATO member from a threat.

Seems reasonable to me. I suppose we will see a development along these lines over the coming years. It will probably be slower than the current US administration would like it to be and of course the outcome of this year’s general elections will have an impact one way or another.

Where this will lead to I cannot say. Personnally I’d prefer the German military to remain somewhat weaker than that of France or Britain. We are currently the continent’s preeminent economic power. The fact that other nations are stronger on the military side creates a sense of balance that I feel is healthy for the European ecosystem. But at the end of the day we have to carry our weight and I expect that we will.