NATO's 'Old Europe': Rumsfeld Wasn't Kidding!

NewsMax ^ | Friday, Feb. 14, 2003 3:45 p.m. EST | Carl Limbacher and staff

[George W. Bush]

NATO's 'Old Europe': Rumsfeld Wasn't Kidding!

When Donald Rumsfeld referred to France, Germany and Belgium as "Old Europe," he wasn't joking around.

In a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal, reporter Philip Shishkin details why U.S. soldiers wouldn't want some of the members of the NATO fighting force to participate in an attack on Iraq: They're old, soft and ill-equipped.

The article specified one Belgian soldier, a 47-year-old hairdresser, who spends his time on an amateur singing career featuring Elvis and Tom Jones tunes. He said that when the military sent him on a field exercise, he was "amazed by the fellow soldiers lumbering around him," reports the Journal. "All the people are so old," he said.

Why? Because many of these soldiers have guaranteed jobs until retirement, plus benefits. The U.S. spends 36 percent of its defense budget on pay and benefits. By contrast, most European NATO member states spend an average of nearly 65 percent of their defense appropriations on salaries and benefits.

The Journal further reports that while U.S. spending on personnel has decreased by 6 percent since the early '80s, it has risen by nearly the same amount in Europe.

"We could do with fewer troops, but better troops; better trained, better equipped, more mobile," NATO Secretary General George Robertson said last month at the World Economic Forum. "The problem in Europe is that there are far too many people in uniform, and too few of them able to go into action at the speeds that conflicts presently demand."

Exactly what Shishkin postulates. And he doesn't stop there. He goes right on to pinpoint a reason why the three countries that are against military conflict with Iraq might be balking. He writes:

• Belgium employs hundreds of military barbers, musicians and other personnel who aren't likely to be called into battle. Yet Belgium doesn't have the money to replace aging helicopters or conduct regular combat-training exercises.

• Germany drafts 120,000 people every year but can't afford to buy all the transport planes it wants. German soldiers who went to Afghanistan as peacekeepers crowded into an aging, leased Ukrainian carrier that had to stop to refuel.

• France, despite the fact that it increased spending this year, was lagging in military-procurement funding from '97 to '02, leaving its forces wanting in such key areas as refueling aircraft and missiles.

  To top it off:

• Europe has 11 troop-transport planes, compared with 250 in the U.S., and most European members of NATO don't have any modern precision-guided munitions at all.

Well, no wonder these countries can't support an attack on Iraq. They literally can't support an attack on Iraq!

U.S. Gen. Joseph Ralston, the former NATO supreme allied commander for Europe, calls European militaries "outdated and redundant, fat."

Other problems facing the European NATO members are 1) the fact that they can't run up deficits to finance military capabilities, 2) the position of most Europeans that the military should not be anyone's priority, and 3) the unionization of the military in Europe.

There is no such animal here in the U.S., but Shishkin writes that these unions have huge power in Europe. The Belgian soldiers are already eligible for six weeks of vacation a year, and they still protested for more benefits last year, which they received, by the way.

"We must be honest with ourselves," says Warrant Officer Emmanuel Jacob, secretary-general of Belgium's Centrale Generale du Personnel Militaire. "Either we have a smaller number of people who are well-trained and equipped or we continue to defend a bigger army and it won't work in the future." The median age of the Belgian soldier is 40. In the U.S. it's 28.

Granted, in some part the excess of troops was encouraged by NATO agreement during the '70s and '80s that soldiers were needed to fend off a Soviet invasion.

But during the meeting of Euro defense bigs in Warsaw last summer, before any talk of Iraq started, Rumsfeld told the European countries that unless they start spending more on advanced weaponry, secure communications, more mobile, special-ops units and long-haul planes, the U.S. won't call on them for backing when it goes to war. "The phone just won't ring," the Secretary of Defense told them.

Apparently, where Iraq is concerned, "Old Europe" took its phone off the hook before we even had a chance to dial.

[George W. Bush]

Well, if the Axis of Weasels attacks us, they might inflict some severe haircuts and manicures on our troops.

Of course, that will be if they can fix their only aircraft carrier which they happened to build with a runway 4 feet too short for any of their planes to use.

[uncbob]

Why Bush continues to give credibility to NATO and the UN is beyond me

Both organizations are worthless and Powell/Bush going to the UN does nothing but perpetuate the myth that it matters

When he announces we are leaving the UN and tells them they have 3 months to move to Paris and then tells NATO to put up or shut up then I will know we are going in the right direction . Until then I am not confident

[uncbob]

Why Bush continues to give credibility to NATO and the UN is beyond me

Both organizations are worthless and Powell/Bush going to the UN does nothing but perpetuate the myth that it matters

When he announces we are leaving the UN and tells them they have 3 months to move to Paris and then tells NATO to put up or shut up then I will know we are going in the right direction . Until then I am not confident

[hotpotato]

The Axis of Weasels In Action

[Timeout]

Has anyone seen a link to the original WSJ story?

[Bahbah]

"Why Bush continues to give credibility to NATO and the UN is beyond me"

If I may suggest a different take on this, uncbob, I have never seen a US administration more deftly point out the worthlessness of these organizations while appearing to work with them.

[KeyWest]

Actually, it is best to stay in both for the short term. We have veto power in the UN so to leave and lose that we would place ourselves in a powerless position to keep it in check. In the interim, we can set up our own set of alliances and invite those countries out of the UN with us when we decide to leave.

[uncbob]

If I may suggest a different take on this, uncbob, I have never seen a US administration more deftly point out the worthlessness of these organizations while appearing to work with them.


To be it reveals a chink in Bush's armor
Just like he reneging on the promise to Veto CFR

But I hope you are right but it is having that effect however it is also giving them credibility by continually going back to them

They sooner the UN goes away the better off we will be

Reagan didn't need no UN for Pamanma or Grenada and the Cold War was won without any help from the UN whatsoever . If anything they hindered the effort

[uncbob]

We have veto power in the UN so to leave and lose that we would place ourselves in a powerless position to keep it in check. In the interim, we can set up our own set of alliances and invite those countries out of the UN with us when we decide to leave.

Veto to keep them in check
You gotta be kidding
What are they gonna do unchecked ?
Refuse to pay their bills in all those fancy NYC restaurants
The only military power the UN has is the USA PERIOD

[Bahbah]

"The sooner the UN goes away the better off we will be."

Absolutely. It is nothing but a jobs program for socialists and savages. I do think this is now more visible to a much wider audience than ever before.

[hotpotato]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but here is one thread from WSJ on "Old Europe"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/840733/posts

[Diana Rose]

Stick a fork in them they are done. We should shut down NATO turning off the lights, shut the door and as we leave announce "Come and get'em".

[Diana Rose]

PS And then start a new NATO with out the old dead weight.

[George W. Bush]

PS And then start a new NATO with out the old dead weight.

Or just eject both from NATO, tell them to assume their own defense costs, and announce that NATO allies would not defend them if they were attacked by a hostile power armed with WMD. After all, that's what they're doing to Turkey right now, isn't it?

I think that before this is all done, the Weasels are going to wish they had kept their smart mouths shut.

[D2]

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

[Diana Rose]

Well said. And a good idea

[elephantlips]

"Granted, in some part the excess of troops was encouraged by NATO agreement during the '70s and '80s that soldiers were needed to fend off a Soviet invasion."

I think that Europe felt that the troops referred to in this part of the agreement meant the actual personnel and they have remained on staff eversince. (sarcasm)

[uncbob]

Absolutely. It is nothing but a jobs program for socialists and savages. I do think this is now more visible to a much wider audience than ever before.

Yes in that respect that is true especially here in the USA
But I doubt that that was the hidden agenda of Bush/Powell

But hey if it ends up that way I will be just as happy

[Scotsman will be Free]

You are absolutely correct. We should exit NATO and the U.N. immediately. They are a millstone around our necks.

[dennisw]

Austria is even worse ...they are blocking us from moving troops and matériel the most direct way to Italian ports