Gates blasts Nato

[DArtagnan]

When I speak of visiting the Middle East, I'm specifically talking about being deployed in a combat role for the military. One of the main reasons that Bush Jr. made the idiotic decision to go ahead and invade Iraq was because he believed that NATO would be able to continue the security and stabilization operation that, until late 2002, had been going fairly well. Once NATO took over, however, there was no coherent centralized command and control, far too many different cultures trying to work with the Afghan people, and - as far as the Afghans are concerned - European military units have worse equipment and training, and no respect whatsoever for the fighting ability of the Taliban specifically, or the Afghan people in general. NATO lost a lot of ground, pissed off a lot of tribal leaders, and made an already messy and precarious situation worse. THAT'S how I got my opinion of what NATO is worth.

I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like you have a very personal and narrow angle that has little or nothing to do with what NATO stands for. Your story of European military having no respect for the fighting ability of Taliban sounds like bullshit to me. There's no way you can make me believe European military units are all idiots, and only American military units have the brainpower to respect the enemy.

I don't think being deployed like that gives you the privilige of knowing what NATO might be worth in an overall sense.

It gives you insight into what happened in the specific scenarios you were connected to - and you have your own perception of who was responsible for whatever mistakes were made, given whatever information you may have had access to. That's about it, isn't it.

It's like a soldier in any war thinking he knows what's what, because he's been part of the action. Sorry, but I don't think that's how it works.

 

[dteowner]

By all means, please detail the specific personal experience that's the basis for your enlightened opinion, D'Art. You're talking out your ass far more than you could ever accuse Cap'n of doing. Or should I say talking out your well-contemplated navel...

 

[DArtagnan]

By all means, please detail the specific personal experience that's the basis for your enlightened opinion, D'Art. You're talking out your ass far more than you could ever accuse Cap'n of doing. Or should I say talking out your well-contemplated navel…

I'm not the one claiming extra insight because I've been deployed.

My opinion of NATO is based on what I've read and experienced throughout life, coupled with my ability to deduce and my knowledge of human nature - things like that.

So, in that way - my opinion is presumably as valuable as that of any other observant and thinking human being.

I have little interest in your opinion of my opinion, though. It takes nothing to claim someone is talking out his ass, and it's the approach of the weak position. Either you can argue your case or you can't. You don't seem to be very good at that, as you prefer to fall back on your little pre-school perceptions of how human beings work.

 

[Moriendor]

When I speak of visiting the Middle East, I'm specifically talking about being deployed in a combat role for the military. One of the main reasons that Bush Jr. made the idiotic decision to go ahead and invade Iraq was because he believed that NATO would be able to continue the security and stabilization operation that, until late 2002, had been going fairly well. Once NATO took over, however, there was no coherent centralized command and control, far too many different cultures trying to work with the Afghan people, and - as far as the Afghans are concerned - European military units have worse equipment and training, and no respect whatsoever for the fighting ability of the Taliban specifically, or the Afghan people in general. NATO lost a lot of ground, pissed off a lot of tribal leaders, and made an already messy and precarious situation worse. THAT'S how I got my opinion of what NATO is worth.

Translation: Without the pussified European leftie cretin elements within NATO and their strange ideas of rebuilding a war-torn country, America would by now have won two wars. Afghanistan and Iraq could be sandland turned into glassland with no ragheads left to worry about thanks to America's superior military force if only it weren't for those pesky European morons and their shitty idea to "work with" the Afghan people in other ways than putting bullets in their heads.
America would have solved the problem much more elegantly with a centralized killing command that shoots any raghead on sight without worrying about such minor annoyances as what province they are from or what tribe they belong to. Raghead = dead head. There wouldn't have been any pissed off tribal leaders either. Or have you ever seen a pissed off corpse? HaHa. Me neither. That was a real knee slapper right there.

Sound about right or did I miss something important?

 

[Couchpotato]

The UN and Nato are relics of the past its time to move on and create something better. Or other country's can butt out of problems that aren't theirs. That is the problem. Gotta play big brother to countries because we invested billions in them and want the corporations to exploit there resources. To hell with the civilized comments its all about money and who has more power.

Come on you have to admit if you killed them the problem is solved and you never have to worry about them again. Who needs diplomacy when a missile can take of the problem. Thing is no one has the balls to it.

Note -the previous post is full of sarcasm and some truth and is only my opinion. If it makes you pissed off who cares.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

Translation: Without the pussified European leftie cretin elements within NATO and their strange ideas of rebuilding a war-torn country, America would by now have won two wars. Afghanistan and Iraq could be sandland turned into glassland with no ragheads left to worry about thanks to America's superior military force if only it weren't for those pesky European morons and their shitty idea to "work with" the Afghan people in other ways than putting bullets in their heads.
America would have solved the problem much more elegantly with a centralized killing command that shoots any raghead on sight without worrying about such minor annoyances as what province they are from or what tribe they belong to. Raghead = dead head. There wouldn't have been any pissed off tribal leaders either. Or have you ever seen a pissed off corpse? HaHa. Me neither. That was a real knee slapper right there.

Sound about right or did I miss something important?

Only everything. I'd try to explain it to you, but your opinion is obviously in a place where objective and rational discussion is virtually useless. Your peurile and sophomoric imaginings of how the American military conducts combat operations, or what our mission objectives were tells me that conversing with you would be less productive than actually taking a bullet.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like you have a very personal and narrow angle that has little or nothing to do with what NATO stands for. Your story of European military having no respect for the fighting ability of Taliban sounds like bullshit to me. There's no way you can make me believe European military units are all idiots, and only American military units have the brainpower to respect the enemy.

I don't think being deployed like that gives you the privilige of knowing what NATO might be worth in an overall sense.

It gives you insight into what happened in the specific scenarios you were connected to - and you have your own perception of who was responsible for whatever mistakes were made, given whatever information you may have had access to. That's about it, isn't it.

It's like a soldier in any war thinking he knows what's what, because he's been part of the action. Sorry, but I don't think that's how it works.

DArt, everything you said about yourself, I can claim also. However, I have the additional experience of actually having put my boots on the ground, as well as talking to people who have had first hand experience with the situation. The NATO troops that came in around 2003-2004 did not have the same emotional investment in the operation that the US did, and that has nothing to do with some ridiculous 9/11 bullshit. We spent the lives and resources invading and securing the country, and we built the initial repoire with the Afghan people. The NATO troops and commanders that came in afterwards didn't do so because their brothers spilled blood on the ground, and - to a large extent - they didn't do so because they believed in the mission. They did so because their parent nations were allied with the US, and the US asked them to take over. They had little to no experience fighting anyone let alone the Taliban in their own back-yard, and they had no practical experience dealing with the Afghan people. While their pride held most units to high levels of performance for a time, pride only goes so far when you're sleeping in mud and freezing your balls off in the mountains for 12 months. Without that emotional investment, and without that dedication to the mission, unit pride can only take you so far.

Are all European military units idiots? No, but for a while there were too many cooks in the kitchen, and some of them didn't even care to be there. Earnest but incompetent help is almost better by comparison.

 

[Jhari]

Where do you get the idea that nation-building came from NATO? Nation-building is a Neocon thing, and purely American (Foolishly American).

Besides, Af/Stan is a non-cause for us. We'll be easing out of there and the Pakistanis can play in their own back yard. We should probably be plowing that Af/Stan money into building up Pakastan anyway.

 

[DArtagnan]

DArt, everything you said about yourself, I can claim also. However, I have the additional experience of actually having put my boots on the ground, as well as talking to people who have had first hand experience with the situation. The NATO troops that came in around 2003-2004 did not have the same emotional investment in the operation that the US did, and that has nothing to do with some ridiculous 9/11 bullshit. We spent the lives and resources invading and securing the country, and we built the initial repoire with the Afghan people. The NATO troops and commanders that came in afterwards didn't do so because their brothers spilled blood on the ground, and - to a large extent - they didn't do so because they believed in the mission. They did so because their parent nations were allied with the US, and the US asked them to take over. They had little to no experience fighting anyone let alone the Taliban in their own back-yard, and they had no practical experience dealing with the Afghan people. While their pride held most units to high levels of performance for a time, pride only goes so far when you're sleeping in mud and freezing your balls off in the mountains for 12 months. Without that emotional investment, and without that dedication to the mission, unit pride can only take you so far.

Are all European military units idiots? No, but for a while there were too many cooks in the kitchen, and some of them didn't even care to be there. Earnest but incompetent help is almost better by comparison.

Listen Buzz.

I'm not trying to take anything away from you. I'm just responding to the idea of having some kind of objective insight into the value of the organisation known as NATO - because you've witnessed the actions of some units working under it. NATO is about so much more than any individual scenario and how it's handled.

I fully understand that Americans have an emotional investment in all this, which naturally gives them a completely different idea of what should happen - and how to make it happen in the best way, from that point of view.

But if you can't see how Europe is in a VERY different position, and we have VERY different ideas of what's actually the right thing to do - then you're kidding yourself. I hope you realise that what the politicians are saying to each other on screen has nothing to do with reality. NATO is a common commitment - so there's no question about having to act.

The US is such a powerful nation and as such, Europeans have to be careful how we act under the given circumstances. We obviously can't stand by and witness an ally get attacked without support. That's what NATO is supposed to be about, isn't it.

But we can't take your position and believe what you believe, and we must take into consideration the standing of all the involved European countries.

From my point of view, many Americans are so deeply invested in this war on terror - that they've forgotten that there are other ways of looking at it, and that these other ways include hesitation to act and hesitation to do "what's right" from your point of view.

Sometimes, I think you've become as fanatical as the minority you're trying to combat.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

Listen Buzz...

...Sometimes, I think you've become as fanatical as the minority you're trying to combat.

I was speaking on NATO's performance in Afghanistan. Where did we cross over into NATO's overarching military philosophy? When they took over Afghanistan, they had little to no experience fighting the Taliban, little to no investment in the mission, and because of that, they allowed elements to creep back in and take control over specific regions of Afghanistan (Helmand province, for example). When NATO took over, there wasn't any conflict on what should be done; the Taliban had been killed or run into the mountains and into Pakistan: Secure the borders, build roads and schools, improve the electrical grid, administer medicine and food supplies, improve agricultural conditions (and get them to stop growing opium), guard election sites, build repoire with village and tribal leaders, and help train the Afghan army and police.

There's no fanaticism in that, and there shouldn't be any issues with philosophy.

 

[DArtagnan]

I was speaking on NATO's performance in Afghanistan. Where did we cross over into NATO's overarching military philosophy? When they took over Afghanistan, they had little to no experience fighting the Taliban, little to no investment in the mission, and because of that, they allowed elements to creep back in and take control over specific regions of Afghanistan (Helmand province, for example). When NATO took over, there wasn't any conflict on what should be done; the Taliban had been killed or run into the mountains and into Pakistan: Secure the borders, build roads and schools, improve the electrical grid, administer medicine and food supplies, improve agricultural conditions (and get them to stop growing opium), guard election sites, build repoire with village and tribal leaders, and help train the Afghan army and police.

There's no fanaticism in that, and there shouldn't be any issues with philosophy.

And this surprises you how? Useless and powerless organization proves to be useless and powerless yet again—film at 6! I suppose we could have done MUCH worse, though—could have called in the UN.

Please…surprised is hardly the word. Every successful military intervention in the last 30 years carried out by NATO or the UN should correctly be described as "The US military, with a European ride-along."

I think if you read the thread from the beginning - it's pretty clear that we weren't talking exclusively about NATO in that single situation.

However, if that was what you really meant - then I guess I can better appreciate your position.

About the conflict of interest - I don't think you're looking at it from up high. It's not about what you agreed to in a specific situation. It's about what kind of motivation it takes to do things "correctly" according to your beliefs.

NATO is as much a problem for Europe as it is for you, and we're bound by both agreement, mutual interests, and unwritten expectations. That doesn't mean we agree, or should agree, on how to deal with terrorists and I'm pretty sure a lot of europeans aren't happy about being committed like we are.

As for what's strategically or tactically the best approach, I would have to know more to comment. I refuse to believe NATO or the troops working under the agreements are stupid. Likely, they're simply not committed "all the way" and have certain considerations that go beyond US interests in the war on terror - and maybe the effort is going to appear stunted because of that.

 

[Jhari]

As for what's strategically or tactically the best approach, I would have to know more to comment. I refuse to believe NATO or the troops working under the agreements are stupid. Likely, they're simply not committed "all the way" and have certain considerations that go beyond US interests in the war on terror - and maybe the effort is going to appear stunted because of that.

NATO troops that I have met are far from stupid. The Germans, with whom I've had the most contact, are highly professional and tactically sound. They have excellent equipment, but perhaps not enough of it.

I don't take anything away from NATO members when I say that considering the huge difference in finances, it's difficult to equate NATO troops with American troops.

And, more importantly, and this has already been stated, we can't expect the Europeans to share our world view, nor should we expect them to take up our causes with the same zeal as we do ourselves, especially if we coerced them to join us, and is several cases, that is exactly what happened in Iraq and Af/Stan. Frankly, the major European powers...France and Germany (UK is a special case)... have lots of reasons not to make things too easy for the US, and frankly, vice versa.

 

[Jhari]

It has also occurred to me that this Gates snipe at NATO comes at a time then the EU is having fundamental financial issues. Is the US stirring the pot here?

What is the European take on the differences in military capacity of the larger countries vs the smaller ones? Are Europeans concerned about how close the Germans are getting to the Russians, and/or how close the Germans and the French seem these days?

 

[Maylander]

DArt, everything you said about yourself, I can claim also. However, I have the additional experience of actually having put my boots on the ground, as well as talking to people who have had first hand experience with the situation. The NATO troops that came in around 2003-2004 did not have the same emotional investment in the operation that the US did, and that has nothing to do with some ridiculous 9/11 bullshit. We spent the lives and resources invading and securing the country, and we built the initial repoire with the Afghan people. The NATO troops and commanders that came in afterwards didn't do so because their brothers spilled blood on the ground, and - to a large extent - they didn't do so because they believed in the mission. They did so because their parent nations were allied with the US, and the US asked them to take over. They had little to no experience fighting anyone let alone the Taliban in their own back-yard, and they had no practical experience dealing with the Afghan people. While their pride held most units to high levels of performance for a time, pride only goes so far when you're sleeping in mud and freezing your balls off in the mountains for 12 months. Without that emotional investment, and without that dedication to the mission, unit pride can only take you so far.

Are all European military units idiots? No, but for a while there were too many cooks in the kitchen, and some of them didn't even care to be there. Earnest but incompetent help is almost better by comparison.

I generally don't want to get caught up in this useless debate, but I just have to point something out:

Emotional investment is the last thing you want in a war, as you are likely to act based on feelings instead of being objective/practical. It basically leads to being over zealous, which is pretty much a worst case scenario.

Neither judge, jury nor executioner should ever be allowed to participate in any case that is personal to them. Naturally, it's very hard for them to be objective.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

I generally don't want to get caught up in this useless debate, but I just have to point something out:

Emotional investment is the last thing you want in a war, as you are likely to act based on feelings instead of being objective/practical. It basically leads to being over zealous, which is pretty much a worst case scenario.

Neither judge, jury nor executioner should ever be allowed to participate in any case that is personal to them. Naturally, it's very hard for them to be objective.

I ask you this: Have you ever served in a military capacity? If you haven't then I don't know how to explain the world that I come from. It sounds cliche and evasive - I realize this.

If you've ever experienced anything like combat, then you'd know that objectivity / rationality goes right out the window once rounds start coming downrange. You survive or die based on your training; there's no time to think, and even if you had the time, it's too loud and too chaotic.

While not all members of the military are professionals, I'd like to say that most of them are, and when I speak of emotional investment, I'm talking about the dedication to the mission that comes from sharing a cold concrete floor with 25 other guys, 39 hour convoys in 105 degree heat, or dragging a buddy behind the cover of a humvee, all the while reassuring him that you'll go find his rifle. When you experience things like this, your resolve to see the mission succeed becomes stronger than if you hadn't. It's not about getting all "Hulk Mad," and killing an entire village of women and children. It's about putting a friend on a medevac helicopter, or shoving a tampon into a bullet hole, and realizing that if any of the carnage or blood is going to be worth it, then you stay and finish the job. If that job is building schools, then you build schools. If that job is securing elections and building relationships with the local civilians, then that's what you do. If that job is patrolling a well known route that the Taliban uses to shuttle personnel and materiel, then that's what you do. But you do it with a hotter fire and a greater sense of dedication.

It's something you have to live through in order to appreciate.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think you're supporting his point with that story, Buzzkill.

No one is saying you've done anything wrong, or that it's not commendable to make sacrifices for things you believe in.

The point is that being so involved can blind you to what's beyond the mission in itself.

 

[JDR13]

Not taking sides here, but…

I think it's safe to say that being involved can sometimes allow you to see things that others have not.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

I think you're supporting his point with that story, Buzzkill.

No one is saying you've done anything wrong, or that it's not commendable to make sacrifices for things you believe in.

The point is that being so involved can blind you to what's beyond the mission in itself.

Not necessarily, although I can see where you're coming from. We always had the "Big Picture" of what we were trying to do; it's not like we were simply pointed in a direction and told, "Shoot." The military, or at least the one that I served in, isn't like that any more. Information is much more easily disseminated, and the battlespace is far more visible than it's ever been. Add into that the increased exposure from the media, and the effects of what we do are instantly recognized, and examined. Were there situations where operational security dictated that information and intelligence were tightly controlled? Absolutely. My commanders, however, were always very good at ensuring that we knew where our particular mission fit within the overall scheme of the deployment.

Mayhap I'm not understanding exactly what you're saying?

 

[DArtagnan]

Not necessarily, although I can see where you're coming from. We always had the "Big Picture" of what we were trying to do; it's not like we were simply pointed in a direction and told, "Shoot." The military, or at least the one that I served in, isn't like that any more. Information is much more easily disseminated, and the battlespace is far more visible than it's ever been. Add into that the increased exposure from the media, and the effects of what we do are instantly recognized, and examined. Were there situations where operational security dictated that information and intelligence were tightly controlled? Absolutely. My commanders, however, were always very good at ensuring that we knew where our particular mission fit within the overall scheme of the deployment.

Mayhap I'm not understanding exactly what you're saying?

I think you underestimate my opinion of military matters or your capacity to think as a soldier.

Having followed your comments about several things, it's obvious you're a reflecting invididual.

There's no way for me to know exactly what you're basing your position on, but you have to admit that you may seem influenced by your experiences - and I hope you can appreciate that you having been deployed is not going to convince me you're somehow "more" right about NATO, unless you argue your case.

I recognise what you've experienced during your time there, but I don't see NATO from that point of view. I see it as an organisation held together by a lot of differing interests - and I don't see it as realistic that they would act or conduct actions in a way that any individual nation would want them to.

So, I don't think you're a soldier kept ignorant by his superiors. I think you're close to what happened at 9/11 - and you're personally invested in the campaign against terror. This is what MIGHT make you less objective than someone who isn't directly involved and who is not directly affected by what you call terrorists.

 

[Maylander]

I ask you this: Have you ever served in a military capacity? If you haven't then I don't know how to explain the world that I come from. It sounds cliche and evasive - I realize this.

Norway still has conscription - all men above 18 have to complete a minimum of 12 months service in the military. So yes, I've been in the military. Never seen combat though, but quite a few of my friends and relatives have. I even know people in the special forces (well, they used to be; they're no longer there).

I know quite a few that have been deployed in Bosnia and Afghanistan. A few in various regions of Africa too (mainly Congo).

There's a difference between "dedication" and "emotional investment". The former means you work your ass off to complete an objective. The latter often means the objective somehow gets distorted. All of a sudden the objective has something to do with "revenge" or "payback" - you can't go into Afganistan or Iraq wanting revenge. If you do, the objective of stabilizing the region will simply never, ever happen. Not even close.

Once you go down that lane, the end result is too often:
- Demonizing the enemy, reducing their worth to that of animals or mere target practice. It's happened far too many times and it always leads to disaster.
- Killing in situations that are not a matter of life and death. This is also a disaster, as the civillians will see US/NATO soldiers as no better than Taliban, Al-Qaida and so on. Without the support of the civillians, you just can't win in the long run. Not without becoming a tyrant, and that can hardly be considered a victory.

Anyway, noone here has any clue how to stabilize a region that has been in turmoil for longer than Corwin has been around. In other words: It's a rather useless debate.