Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not really her place to comment on our public finances, but hey-ho...

The Telegraph wrote:Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, and Robert Gates, the secretary of defence, both said they were worried about deep reductions in Britain’s Armed Forces and the consequences for international security.

The unusual public intervention came as talks on the defence budget went down to the wire, with defence chiefs making 11th-hour personal appeals to David Cameron against cuts last night.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed last month that US officials were privately concerned that British defence spending was about to fall below 2 per cent of gross domestic product, the minimum standard expected of Nato members. Mrs Clinton and Mr Gates, America’s two most senior figures on international relations and security, made those fears public in separate remarks.

In a BBC interview to be broadcast today, Mrs Clinton was asked whether defence cuts being made in Europe, and specifically in Britain, worried the US administration.

She replied: “It does. The reason it does is because I think we do have to have an alliance where there is a commitment to the common defence.

“Nato has been the most successful alliance for defensive purposes in the history of the world, I guess, but it has to be maintained. Now each country has to be able to make its appropriate contributions.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8065363/Hillary-Clintons-warning-to-Britain-over-cuts-in-defence-budget.html

Yeah, feth off Hilary.

Britain has done MORE than it's fair share regarding global defence (of America's interests) - we have to make cuts, it's just that simple. No-one wants to cut their defence budget, but we seem to have very little choice. I used to think it was just Republican propaganda, but it does seem like the Obama regime is either subject to a terminal case of 'foot-in-mouth syndrome', or they actually WANT to alienate their closest allies. There are wealthier countries than the UK that don't do half as much, in terms of global policing (so to speak).

Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.

What does Britain do with the military it does has, other than the Royal ones and those ones who fight in the Emprah's name?

A nasty rumour is going around that Obama told Brown early this year that he could expect no support over the Falklands and should just pull out and with the forces saved bolster Afghanistan instead. This is believable as Brown was so spineless he had a track record of just caving in to demands of foreign leaders him wirth more personality.

The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.

Cuts are inevitable because the Blair regime sold our gold reseves at discount, and took out a mortgage on our grandkids ansd defered interest at extra cost so the low IQ squad would not realise that they were not the economic miracle makers. All this to pay for the six figure salaries of yes men to implement their dogmas. Cameron has to make the cuts big now, because if he does not the interest repayments due to hit next year will cut in too heavily and by the time it comes to the next election the herd will have assumed he was responsible for the humungus feth up our economy is.

Albatross wrote:Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.

The rah-rah is fun and all but the reality is when you sign up to NATO you really are giving other NATO partners a right to comment if you don’t meet the minimum level of expenditure relative to GDP.

It's also kind of odd to assume the UK's economy is any less dependant on the secure supply of key resources such as oil.

The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.

This is new with the current administration?

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:Britain will still be able to defend its interests - it just won't be able to join in as many American wars of adventure for the time being. Tough.

The rah-rah is fun and all but the reality is when you sign up to NATO you really are giving other NATO partners a right to comment if you don’t meet the minimum level of expenditure relative to GDP.

...which the UK does. And there's no suggestion that budget cuts will change that. The UK spends 2.5% of it's GDP on defence - even if the the worst happens and 10% of that amount is cut, we'll still meet the minimum requirement under NATO.


Not that it isn't fun to try and be a smart-arse, of course.

The worry for the US is that the UK and Germany -- which was also warned -- are the heavy lifters in the NATO European contingent.

Albatross wrote:...which the UK does. And there's no suggestion that budget cuts will change that. The UK spends 2.5% of it's GDP on defence - even if the the worst happens and 10% of that amount is cut, we'll still meet the minimum requirement under NATO.

The US appears concerned that the maths won’t fall into place quite that neatly.

Not that the total level of defence expenditure is really that great a measure of NATO commitments in the modern era. When facing the Soviets it certainly was, but now that most conflicts tend to be based , the key measure is less what you spend and more what you’re willing to send to some country on the other side of the planet, and it’s hard to say the UK doesn’t have a far better history of meeting it’s commitments there than other nations.

But the reality is the US is still far and away the heavy lifter in NATO operations, far more than they should be considering the growing parity in GDPs between the US and other NATO partners. I mean, US military spending is so high due to it’s own internal lunacy, not out of a need to make up for it’s partners, but that doesn’t mean everyone else should be accepting a free ride.

2 to 2.5% of GDP is not huge, and it’s an amount you can feel free spending because the US covers much of the rest. As much as the US really, really needs to cut it’s defence spending, I think the other developed nations need to commit more to their own ability to project force around the globe.

Not that it isn't fun to try and be a smart-arse, of course.

Damn straight it is.

sebster wrote: As much as the US really, really needs to cut it’s defence spending, I think the other developed nations need to commit more to their own ability to project force around the globe.

The U.S. is in a curious position regarding defense. As our dependence on the international community increases, what will we be using those armed forces for? Beat up and/or police nations without affiliation to the U.S. in some significant way? We can't go and fight the Chinese (not that will happen anyway). Rather, the money we do have should go to continue impoving our technological advantage over others in military operations and improve our internal defense rather than actions abroad (minus our duties overseas as a international police force and for counter-terrorism).

Orlanth wrote:A nasty rumour is going around that Obama told Brown early this year that he could expect no support over the Falklands and should just pull out and with the forces saved bolster Afghanistan instead. This is believable as Brown was so spineless he had a track record of just caving in to demands of foreign leaders him wirth more personality.

The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.

Cuts are inevitable because the Blair regime sold our gold reseves at discount, and took out a mortgage on our grandkids ansd defered interest at extra cost so the low IQ squad would not realise that they were not the economic miracle makers. All this to pay for the six figure salaries of yes men to implement their dogmas. Cameron has to make the cuts big now, because if he does not the interest repayments due to hit next year will cut in too heavily and by the time it comes to the next election the herd will have assumed he was responsible for the humungus feth up our economy is.

"Miss me yet?"
George Bush, enjoying life in Margaritaland.

Laughing Man wrote:

The current US administrationas policy is, make demands of allies and not give a feth over whether the demands are reasonable. Obama makes this doubly true over the UK.

This is new with the current administration?

At this level yes. The US stabbed us in the back before, over Suez. It was the US that pushed Nasser into an economic corner from which the decision came to nationalise the Canal without compensation. Then Eisenhower U-turned and supported Nasser. After that our help needed to be paid for one way or another.

Bush didnt take us forgranted, Blair did that. His idea of a deal was the UK will support the US if the US administration supports me. Thus opposition politicians were visibly snubbed by the White House and US propoganda pieces tried to elevate Blair. This only backfired because the Iraq War was unpopular, not because people sniffed out what was happening. I dont blame Bush at all for giving Tory and Lib Dem leaders the cold shoulder, or otherwise taking what he could from the UK. While diplomatic relationships between western countries are not supposed to be party political this was Blairs doing not Bushs. Bush looked after his own nations interests and played along, it got him Uk support for his adventures for free. It goes deeper than that, for example Blair didnt care about UK passport holders in Gitmo, he ought to have secured the special representation that prevented US passport holders from being sent there. This comparitive treatment was noticed by some at the time, however it was only after several months when the mainstream press took hold of the story noticed the difference and were bold enough to point fingers, or possibly found a way to release the story that bypassed the inordinate level of censorship that Blair imposed. Uk passport holders left Gitmo shortly after that. Blair didnt stick up for UK industry against US protectionism while allowing US induistry to avoid EU protectionism. He also practically gave away key military technologies developed in the UK, most notably working naval railguns and stealth warship hulls, while doing nothing when US senators blocked the export of expertise of similar valued technologies to the UK, notably latest generation stealth aircraft technology.

Blair only concerned himself with one thing, himself and getting re-elected. While being relected is a priority for any politician New Labour was unique in what he was willing to sacrifice (on behlaf of others) to get what he wanted. I am still suiprised how few people actually see this. The only concession that Blair got out of Bush was a very heavy leaning on the IRA. I am getting the impression that Obama isnt at all interested in sustaining the US end of that deal, which has shown.

Depending on your point of view it may or may not help that Cameron has flatly trefused to continue on those terms. If Bush-Blair was one sided Obama-Brown was doubly so, because Obama is lets face it an angliophobe, and Brown was politically spineless. Obama-Cameron is very frosty, Obama knows the free lunches are over, Cameron knows that Obama is no friend, but there is a respect there for this reason. Obama held Brown, and likely Blair in utter contempt.

Frazzled wrote:
"Miss me yet?"
George Bush, enjoying life in Margaritaland.

No, oh you mean Bush. Still no.

sebster wrote:
2 to 2.5% of GDP is not huge, and it’s an amount you can feel free spending because the US covers much of the rest. As much as the US really, really needs to cut it’s defence spending, I think the other developed nations need to commit more to their own ability to project force around the globe.

I don't want to get hung up on the numbers (as I'm not too sure of their accuracy), but 2.5% is more than 2% - which is what China spends. Germany only spends 1.3%, France 2.3%.

You say Germany does a lot of the heavy lifting but I'd say there's room for improvement there, considering that a) They are a richer country than the UK, and b) They don't currently meet the minimum NATO recommended level of expenditure. I mean, the UK spends more on defence than Russia. I don't think anyone can say that Britain doesn't do it's fair share, which makes it all the more stupid of Hilary Clinton to brief against her supposed allies. It just shows up her lack of class. Especially when you consider the events of last week - Cameron had the opportunity to stick the knife in and didn't take it. The right decision, in my opinion.

Yeah Seb, i have to ask, where do you feel that Germany does its part?

I mean, i might be wrong, unlike many internet intellectuals i havent just googled "Germans military operations" or anything, so i concede i might be wrong, but common sense dictates the contrary to me.

I did 4 tours of Iraq/Afghanistan and the Germans did pretty much feth all. Some Int work and such like, but the lions share of the work was us and the Yanks, followed (really far back) by the Dutch and The Spanish, some French air support (which wouldnt hit a barn door sat on the handle) and the Portugese.

Oh and 4 Irish guys!

The Krauts secured KIA and we had to do their security for them!

So.. im not seeing Germanys heavy lifting from my own experience, how do they contribute?

(Ok ill go check google now!)

Well, Germany has the third largest number of soldiers in the ISAF after USA and UK.

The problem is the mentality at home. Our defence minister is very reluctant in calling this a "war" and as long it's not a "war" there's political-juristical stuff making real combat operations difficult, as far as I know. The populace in general is absolutely not fond of the war, from what I've noticed...many people think we shouldn't even be there. I mean, I don't really agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. After WW2, the parole was something like "War should never be started again from German soil!" And sending troops over to Afghanistan...many people feel like it's exactly that.

Furthermore, there was this unfortunate incident with the tank trucks. You heard about that? Some Taliban/terrorists stole some fuel trucks and tried to escape with them. A German major thought they would use the fuel to increase the mobility of their guerilla forces and called an (american) airstrike on the trucks. Well, the trucks went kaboom, but also 142 people standing around the trucks at the moment of impact died, too. Civilians. The Taliban claimed they wanted to give the fuel for free to the poor populace...other people say, the Taliban were unable to get the trucks out of some mud and forced civilians at gunpoint to pull the trucks out of there. Well, anyway, huge mess, lots of civilian casualties, lots of accusations and the question was asked again why Germany shouldn't actually withdraw troops.

Since the tank truck incident, operations are a bit on the careful side. However, the German KSK managed to capture a high lieutenant of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, I forgot..but that was one of the most successful operations in the last months, not even a shot was fired. All very peaceful, non-warlike.

No, really, Germany doesn't do so much because, well...for Americans it's more or less normal to go "Oorah! We're the good guys! Support our troops! In the name of freedom!", the Brits can do this, too, although a bit less, from what I heard. Now...Germany? After two World Warsof being the BAD guys? If ANYBODY in Germany goes "Hurra! Support our brave troops in the war!", EVERYONE instantly thinks "O gak, this sounds like 1939."

The fear of getting anywhere near Wehrmacht-style is still big.

Witzkatz wrote:Well, Germany has the third largest number of soldiers in the ISAF after USA and UK.

The problem is the mentality at home. Our defence minister is very reluctant in calling this a "war" and as long it's not a "war" there's political-juristical stuff making real combat operations difficult, as far as I know. The populace in general is absolutely not fond of the war, from what I've noticed...many people think we shouldn't even be there. I mean, I don't really agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. After WW2, the parole was something like "War should never be started again from German soil!" And sending troops over to Afghanistan...many people feel like it's exactly that.

They're not following their NATO obligations. I see, sit on their ass for fifty years protected from the Russian Bear by the US nuclear shield, but when it comes to put up or shut up time, well suddenly they get moral. Typical.
Get us out of NATO...NOW.

Part of the problem is that the US is increasingly becoming aware that its current level of defense expenditures cannot be maintained without compromising the rest of the American economy in some way. We have a lot of issues that need to be taken care of at home, and quickly, but we need to get the money from SOMEWHERE.

But if our allies are making cuts, that means the US can't if we want to maintain military superiority over potential adversaries, which as you can imagine is quite a conundrum. And we DO need to maintain military superiority. Some very intelligent people, both retired and active duty military, are predicting that we will be in Mexico pretty soon, hell even the US gov't says that we'll probably going to end up fighting a war on our doorstep (in this case to try to keep the established government from collapsing in a drug-fueled civil war), and there is the ever present of the Chinese, as well as the threat to South Korea posed by the North, and let us not forget the theological nutjobs that are running Iran...

Frazzled wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:Well, Germany has the third largest number of soldiers in the ISAF after USA and UK.

The problem is the mentality at home. Our defence minister is very reluctant in calling this a "war" and as long it's not a "war" there's political-juristical stuff making real combat operations difficult, as far as I know. The populace in general is absolutely not fond of the war, from what I've noticed...many people think we shouldn't even be there. I mean, I don't really agree with them, but I can see where they are coming from. After WW2, the parole was something like "War should never be started again from German soil!" And sending troops over to Afghanistan...many people feel like it's exactly that.

They're not following their NATO obligations. I see, sit on their ass for fifty years protected from the Russian Bear by the US nuclear shield, but when it comes to put up or shut up time, well suddenly they get moral. Typical.
Get us out of NATO...NOW.

Actually, part of the thing is that Germany didn't contribute much in the way of "line troopers", but contributed a very large proportion of Special Forces from their KSK units for operations in capturing HVTs. Those same KSK also did alot of bodyguard work for VIPs in Afghanistan as I remember.

Frazzled wrote:Get us out of NATO...NOW.

I agree - what does NATO really do for the US anymore? Back in the cold war era, it obviously had a purpose, but now it doesn't seem to have any reason to exist. Yes, we got some extra troops for the initial war in Afghanistan on the basis of the treaty, but the long-term assistance is all just through regular diplomacy, not as part of the treaty. It seems like NATO exists now for European nations to have the US spend money and lives to do the heavy lifting in military ventures while they save money and act as backseat drivers. Look at the Kosovo war - it was right in continental Europe, and yet all of NATO that wasn't the US couldn't bring effective military force to bear, US intervention was required to resolve the situation.

If all of NATO minus the US can't deal with a single second-rate country getting aggressive right in their own backyard, what's the gain to the US for being involved?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Get us out of NATO...NOW.

I agree - what does NATO really do for the US anymore? Back in the cold war era, it obviously had a purpose, but now it doesn't seem to have any reason to exist. Yes, we got some extra troops for the initial war in Afghanistan on the basis of the treaty, but the long-term assistance is all just through regular diplomacy, not as part of the treaty. It seems like NATO exists now for European nations to have the US spend money and lives to do the heavy lifting in military ventures while they save money and act as backseat drivers. Look at the Kosovo war - it was right in continental Europe, and yet all of NATO that wasn't the US couldn't bring effective military force to bear, US intervention was required to resolve the situation.

If all of NATO minus the US can't deal with a single second-rate country getting aggressive right in their own backyard, what's the gain to the US for being involved?

Word. The Cold War is over. Time to move on and protect OUR borders.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Look at the Kosovo war - it was right in continental Europe, and yet all of NATO that wasn't the US couldn't bring effective military force to bear, US intervention was required to resolve the situation

Erm, it was the US's idea to bring NATO into the Kosovo conflicts you know. That's usually how it happens. The US says it want to go to war then complains when nobody else wants to go with them.

It was an intra-European conflict and there is an argument that if the EU wants to keep things running smoothly they can't allow all sorts of beastly civil wars and ethnic cleansing to break out around the place.

However the EU lacked the balls and capability to do anything serious about it.

whatwhat wrote:Erm, it was the US's idea to bring NATO into the Kosovo conflicts you know. That's usually how it happens. The US says it want to go to war then complains then nobody else wants to go with them.

You're seriously asserting that Germany, the UK, France, and all of the other non-US NATO members were just fine with the massacres and open military aggression going on in Serbia and Kosovo, and that it was just the US that wanted to do anything about it? That it was only the US behind the multiple UN resolutions condemning the situation and calling for military force to enforce various restrictions? Yeah, right.

It is usually how it happens though - Europe needs the US to do the heavy lifting, they get the US to do it, then complain that the US did it.

Death to the Clan McCleod! oh wait that doesn't have anything to do with this thread...

Erm less that more it wasn't legitimate by UN policy to intervine.

Frazzled wrote:
Get us out of NATO...NOW.

One thing I don't get about this right now...if the USA weren't part of the NATO in 2001, then they would have invaded Afghanistan alone, probably. Sure, other countries might have contributed on a voluntary basis, but there would've been no NATO law making the multiple nations contribute as they do now.

So, you're complaining that Europe doesn't do enough, so you don't want the "little" help not at all anymore...so you have to fight your wars alone again?

And, with Germany having the third largest amount of soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't get why you're so angry at us. What about other Eurpoean countries apart from UK and G that do even less?

Witzkatz wrote:

One thing I don't get about this right now...if the USA weren't part of the NATO in 2001, then they would have invaded Afghanistan alone, probably. Sure, other countries might have contributed on a voluntary basis, but there would've been no NATO law making the multiple nations contribute as they do now.

So, you're complaining that Europe doesn't do enough, so you don't want the "little" help not at all anymore...so you have to fight your wars alone again?

I'm ok with that if we can get out of NATO. I don't want any Americans to die to keep Europeans safe in their beds.

And, with Germany having the third largest amount of soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't get why you're so angry at us. What about other Eurpoean countries apart from UK and G that do even less?

I have plenty of rage to go around.

Under the NATO treaty, an attack on any member is considered as an attack on them all.

The difficulty with the Afghanistan situation was that the attack on the US was a terrorist act, perpetrated by a non-governmental organisation, from a country that could barely be described as a nation with a functioning government.

This meant the attack was not an act of war as foreseen in the treaty, and allowed reluctant members a get out.

Thats a crock. Afghanistan was not allowing us permission to go after Al Qaeda. The US should respond in kind to this breach of the treaty.

I'm ok with that if we can get out of NATO. I don't want any Americans to die to keep Europeans safe in their beds.

The interesting thing is...if european NATO troops wouldn't be in Afghanistan (because US would do this in their own since you want them to be out of the NATO), probably there would have been less threats from Al Qaeda to european nations. So, no need to keep Europeans safe in their beds if they wouldn't be participating in ISAF.

I think Germany and other nations should participate in Afghanistan and not withdraw troops. However, I can't completely agree with your "Brave Americans die only to defend cowardly Europeans!" school of thought. Everybody is doing something in Afghanistan, US definitely does the most, but don't play down efforts and achievements by other countries.

Witzkatz wrote:

I'm ok with that if we can get out of NATO. I don't want any Americans to die to keep Europeans safe in their beds.

The interesting thing is...if european NATO troops wouldn't be in Afghanistan (because US would do this in their own since you want them to be out of the NATO), probably there would have been less threats from Al Qaeda to european nations. So, no need to keep Europeans safe in their beds if they wouldn't be participating in ISAF.

I think Germany and other nations should participate in Afghanistan and not withdraw troops. However, I can't completely agree with your "Brave Americans die only to defend cowardly Europeans!" school of thought. Everybody is doing something in Afghanistan, US definitely does the most, but don't play down efforts and achievements by other countries.

And if we hadn't supported the Mujihadeen to stop the Soviets who were threatening Europe and their allies in Asia, but instead had just gone home thousands upon thousands of Americans would be alive.