Gates Blasts NATO, Questions Future of Alliance

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2008
84,532
16,091
2,180
America's military alliance with Europe -- the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades -- faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a

U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

"Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.


Read more: Gates Blasts NATO, Questions Future of Alliance - FoxNews.com
 
And while we're at it let's get the UN off our backs too.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Vel
We shouldn't be in NATO or the UN. Never should have been in the first place. Nor should we be signators to the Geneva Convention for that matter.
 
NATO was formed to stop the Soviets. They haven't had a relevant mission in 20 years. Most of what NATO does should be handled by the EU. Its their mess, let them handle it.

Our current threats are global and not limited to that Hemisphere. Time to develop a new global military alliance
 
NATO is obsolete. They're bombing & killing all over the World now. That's not what NATO was founded for. Just look at what's going on in Libya. NATO has killed far more Civilians there than Gaddafi ever could. The same can be said in Afghanistan. The Media doesn't even report all the Civilian deaths caused by NATO Bombings in Libya. NATO really is obsolete. Its time has passed.
 
NATO is a good organization that yes we should be a member of. Now what we do or what NATO does is up for debate.

The UN could disappear tomorrow and I'd have a party.

Let me add that I'm kind of getting tired of Gates too. Time for him to shut up and move on.
 
NATO is not being used for what it was intended for. They are now all over the World Bombing & Killing. How many Civilians are slaughtered every year by NATO? We just don't know for sure because the Media doesn't report the truth. Do people really believe massive bombing in Libya isn't killing many Civilians? In fact i would argue NATO Bombs are killing far more Civilians than Gaddafi could ever be capable of. So what is that War about? Does anyone really know? Regardless,NATO is an outdated organization. Time to end our involvement in it.
 
I agree, with allies like these, who needs enemies.

Keep the United Kingdom and Canada, add Australia, cut the rest loose.

The GB-FC-TO, Great Britain-Former Colonies-Treaty Organization.
 
NATO was formed to stop the Soviets. They haven't had a relevant mission in 20 years. Most of what NATO does should be handled by the EU. Its their mess, let them handle it.

Our current threats are global and not limited to that Hemisphere. Time to develop a new global military alliance

Goddamn, I actually agree with you....

The world must be coming to an end.....
 
America's military alliance with Europe -- the cornerstone of U.S. security policy for six decades -- faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in a blunt valedictory address.

In his final policy speech as Pentagon chief, Gates questioned the viability of NATO, saying its members' penny-pinching and lack of political will could hasten the end of U.S. support. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a

U.S.-led bulwark against Soviet aggression, but in the post-Cold War era it has struggled to find a purpose.

"Future U.S. political leaders - those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost," he told a European think tank on the final day of an 11-day overseas journey.

Gates has made no secret of his frustration with NATO bureaucracy and the huge restrictions many European governments placed on their military participation in the Afghanistan war. He ruffled NATO feathers early in his tenure with a direct challenge to contribute more front-line troops that yielded few contributions.


Read more: Gates Blasts NATO, Questions Future of Alliance - FoxNews.com

This is one thing I think Obama is getting right, even if he used them as a front for his attack on Libya. NATO is an organization that gives us little, or no, return on the investment. There was a strong need for it during the Cold War, but now I do not see a reason for us to be tied to a group that primary reason for existence is in the past.

Before anyone tries to call me on Obama not saying this, if anyone believes Gates did not clear this speech with Obama before he made it I have some seaside property in Arizona I no longer need, I am willing to let it go at a very reasonable rate.
 

Forum List

Back
Top