North Atlantic Treaty Organization

[Jim O]

NATO was formed in 1949 as an alliance to counter Soviet military power and possible further expansionist designs westward in the aftermath of World War II.

With the long ago collapse of the "Warsaw Pact" is NATO relevant? Everyone wants in. Even the Soviets wanted in at one point. In fact when they were denied and the FRG was admitted, the Warsaw Pact was formed almost immediately.

So, what is the mission of NATO? Yes, NATO forces are on the ground in Afghanistan and have been deployed elsewhere, but there have been instances where members have simply not supported one another, not supplied troops, etc, and instances where non-members like Sweden have participated in NATO actions. Heck, two members almost went to war with each other over Cyprus, and one still occupies nearly 40% of the island in what most of the rest of the world considers an illegal act.

So maybe someone can explain to me the current relevance of NATO.

[Horch]

Get rid of it. Why was it formed in the first place? To counter the Warsaw pact. IT (w.p.)is no more. NATO is just another form of a UN army. Just my opinion.

[Jim O]

I'm not disagreeing with you but I wasn't really looking for a political response. Rather I'm curious if there is a practical reason for the expense of maintaining it.

BTW, the Warsaw pact was formed on May 14, 1955, five days after West Germany was admitted to NATO and six years after NATO had been founded.

[Horch]

Originally Posted by Jim O

I'm not disagreeing with you but I wasn't really looking for a political response. Rather I'm curious if there is a practical reason for the expense of maintaining it.

BTW, the Warsaw pact was formed on May 14, 1955, five days after West Germany was admitted to NATO and six years after NATO had been founded.

I wasn't aware of which came first. I guess it never crossed my mind. Thanks!
I wasn't trying to make it political,though it might be hard to avoid it. I just think my response was a practical reason to dissolve it.As you stated, "the expense" is another reason. Can't think of a good reason to keep it.

[PatBC]

Nato is actually fairly cheap (except the AWACS) most of the other expenses for NATO would exist anyways. Of course having extra AWACS is not bad thing. The biggest imporatnce of NATO is it allows for some standardization of Policies and Proceedures. If NATO did not exist the West would be forced to invent policy and preceddures eachdifferent nations operated together. NATO having established standard proceedures have been adopted by other non-NATO nations so if Spinapore and Thialand get together they use a verision of NATOese.

[Horch]

Still, a waste of tax payer dollars for a world police force. (like the UN)

[PatBC]

Without NATO the US would have had no Coalition forces in Iraq. In 2004 NATO membership cost the US 450 million.

[Horch]

Originally Posted by PatBC

Without NATO the US would have had no Coalition forces in Iraq. In 2004 NATO membership cost the US 450 million.

Perhaps then,we wouldn't have lost over 4000 dead,and mounting every day. Not counting the wounded,maimed etc. The cost for helping them is still up in the air. (That is if they get help) I don't know about the 450 million,seems low. But if one were to add up all the rest in there, this 'police force' is adding up...big time. As far as the 'coalition forces', they seem to be dwindling quite a bit. They are all withdrawing. Get out of the UN,& NATO. (The U.S.A. that is)

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by PatBC

Without NATO the US would have had no Coalition forces in Iraq. In 2004 NATO membership cost the US 450 million.

Iraq is not a NATO mission and never was. It primarily involved US and British forces. I believe that Australia was the next largest contributor followed by Poland.

Afghanistan was also a primarily US, British, and Canadian operation although it has since been turned over to NATO. Despite that, most troops are still from those three nations.

NATO did agree that the attacks on New York and Washington DC were acts of war against a NATO nation and therefore they were considered an attack against them all. But those attacks originated from terrorists given free reign in Afghanistan. Where was NATO when the US took action on Afghanistan?

The case in Iraq is different. There was no attack by Iraq on a NATO member.

The biggest "NATO missions" have primarily been "US/UK/Canada missions". In other words, the traditional allies of the US have participated irrespective of NATO and others have not, at least not on large scales. Australia has also joined in with US actions and they are not part of NATO.

So why support almost one third of the infrastructure of an alliance whose primary purpose has become irrelevant? That was my question.

[PatBC]

Originally Posted by Jim O

Iraq is not a NATO mission and never was. It primarily involved US and British forces. I believe that Australia was the next largest contributor followed by Poland.

Afghanistan was also a primarily US, British, and Canadian operation although it has since been turned over to NATO. Despite that, most troops are still from those three nations.

NATO did agree that the attacks on New York and Washington DC were acts of war against a NATO nation and therefore they were considered an attack against them all. But those attacks originated from terrorists given free reign in Afghanistan. Where was NATO when the US took action on Afghanistan?

The case in Iraq is different. There was no attack by Iraq on a NATO member.

The biggest "NATO missions" have primarily been "US/UK/Canada missions". In other words, the traditional allies of the US have participated irrespective of NATO and others have not, at least not on large scales. Australia has also joined in with US actions and they are not part of NATO.

So why support almost one third of the infrastructure of an alliance whose primary purpose has become irrelevant? That was my question.

The existance of NATO and the mutlilateral exercises because of NATO SEATO, etc enabled a coallition to made in Iraq.

Without NATO
Poland, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary, Portugal, Lithuania, Slovakia, Norway, Latvia would not have sent troops to iraq.

In order of forces contributed it is
US
UK
South Korea
Italy
Poland
Australia is tied with Georgia at 2,000 peak

The 17(beside the US) NATO nations training the Iraqi Police Force would not of happened.

While it true that some NATO countries are not leting their troops fight in Afghanistan currently, like Germany, Germany did take part in previous combat there. The Dutch and the Danes are currently involved in the fighting in Afghanistan. Every NATO country has soldiers in Afghantistan.

While there is certainly things wrong with the NATO mission in Afghanistan without NATO there would likely be 20,000 less coalition troops in Afghanistan.