Posted on 06/08/2011 6:37:16 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates names five alliance members that he says should do more to share the burden of NATO's air campaign against Moammar Kadafi. Only seven nations are carrying out airstrikes.
Reporting from Brussels— Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Wednesday urged more NATO allies to join the air campaign against Libya, arguing that it was putting a strain on the seven members of the 28-nation alliance that are carrying the burden in a conflict that shows few signs of ending soon, U.S. officials said.
In a sign of the growing strain that the 3-month-old operation is putting on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Gates took the unusual step of naming five alliance members with limited or no role in the operation that he said should provide strike aircraft to hit ground targets in Libya or other capabilities, according to a senior U.S. official.
...
Gates, who is retiring at the end of the month, called on Germany and Poland, which have refused to participate in the Libya campaign, to contribute. He also urged Spain, Turkey and the Netherlands, which are participating but not in airstrikes, to step up their role, according to officials familiar with the discussion.
Calling the conflict a "war of attrition" and a "psychological war," the senior U.S. official said that "crews are getting tired" and that "the stress on aircraft is significant." With only a few alliance members participating, he said, "it doesn't mean they can't continue the operation; they will, but it's stressful."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Poland is one of the most reliable allies we have. But they have no reason to like or trust Obama, one of whose first acts was to pull out the missile shield they had been promised.
Gates has been a terrible disappointment, although I’m afraid it’s not really a surprise.
NATO was a defensive alliance, formed when the Soviet army was in half of Europe with a massive armored force, that was almost on a permanent war footing,,,, and nobody was sure what their intent was.
Now NATO is an OFFENSIVE force, attacking a nation that posed no military threat to them.
The USSR became Russia, reduced their army to a fraction of what it was, disbanded the WARSAW PACT and fell back to the original borders of Russia.
NATO expanded, right up to their border.
NATO has outlived it’s usefulness. Now it is morphing into the entangling alliance that George Washington warned us about.
Interestingly, the only time NATO may have truly had a mission was in the fighting as Yugoslavia broke up. That was the one where they were fackless and did nothing but try to drag the USA into it. The alliance is designed to give the EU a voice that is much larger than it’s contribution.
We increasingly share fewer values with the EU. We need to gracefully begin to get out.
You have to wonder if the remaining non-participating NATO allies even have resources worth sending. For instance, if your country’s airforce is tasked as a defensive interceptor force, just how useful would they be? Let the French & Italians carry the weight. It is they that want to control access to Libyan Oil.
BTW, have the Italians participated yet? Maybe this is an “I’m not naming names” type statement aimed at them.
And Poland is distancing itself from NATO,, and is exploring a new alliance woth the Czech repub and a few other traditional neighbors who better share their concerns.
What interest does an average Pole have in attacking Libya? None,,,
Another fine mess he got us into.
as for access to Libyan oil, Kadaffi was more than happy to sell it. Still is. The issue there, is that Obama wanted to support Al Quieda and the Muslim brotherhood in the “arab spring”.
Obama started this war to put fundamentalist Jihadists into power. Before that there WAS no threat to the oil.
What a tragic charade.
“You have to wonder if the remaining non-participating NATO allies even have resources worth sending.”
and why do they not have an Air Force able to do the bare basics? Because NATO is designed to let Europeans vote on how to best use American military power. This despite their miniscule defense efforts.
This made sense in the 50s and 60s as they climbed out of the devastation aftermath of WWII. But now they are a large, modern, mature economy. They claim moral authority to intervene around the world. So it very much seems about time for them to fully fund their own defense. Including paying the USA for the protection they get for free.
There was an article on Financial Times (couldn't post it) today that says we are spending $60 million a month on Libya and carrying the bulk of the load, including almost all the recon and refueling missions. If congress suddenly finds a sack (ask Huma if we can borrow Tony's) they can cut funding. I don't think the Europeans have the resources to continue without us.
They didn’t have the military education or the common sense to go to Iran first. It would probably be a good idea for wiser people around cities to build fallout shelters for the years ahead.
If Lech Walesa said that Obama is not a friend of Poland.(Which he has demonstrated)It woould have been a huge statement.
maybe they just don’t believe in waging a war in a country where they have no national security interest. I’m just guessing,,,
Thanks Pan_Yan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.