"One Casualty Of The Military Defeat In Afghanistan Will Be" Topic

… NATO

"Afghanistan wasn't just America's 20-year war. It also belonged to US allies.

"This has been above all a catastrophe for the Afghan people. It's a failure of the Western world and it's a game changer for international relations," the European Union's chief diplomat Josep Borrell told an Italian newspaper Monday, according to the Washington Post.

"Certainly," he continued, "we Europeans share our part of responsibility. We cannot consider that this was just an American war." …"
Main page

link

Armand

I don't feel any sympathy for the Europeans. They chose to be military midgets and outsource most of their defence to the USA.

NATO is now a liability that weakens Europe.

It should be scrapped and replaced by a new treaty that places the burden of defence on Europe and promotes joint action where national interests converge.

More importantly Europe needs massive military reform and most likely formation of a joint EU military.

NATO is long obsolete.

Oh… won't some other guys love this.
I do NOT agree with UK involvement with 'Nation Building' in Afghanistan. Non starter.
But, several other Nations 'Did Their Bit' in support… and suffered losses. All Thanks to those.

But, this seems to highlight a serious flaw… not with NATO…still as necessary as before… if not more… but with EU. We (Brits), have pulled out of EU…maybe, this is why US Gov't were not happy. BUT We HAD to.

Things seem to be returning to the 1930s… US 'Isolationalism' increasing… and European States, just bimbling along… not really wanting to Do much…apart from extending Trade Agreements and 'influence'… which seems to exacerbate problems.
France seems to 'Do' things… but not all that keen on what they do.

This seems to say a lot.
"Certainly," he continued, "we Europeans share our part of responsibility. We cannot consider that this was just an American war." …"

I Hope that I have miss-undertood the context… the media article seemed to be 'vague' as to intent.

Just have feeling that there will be… something. Bad, along the road.

But, this seems to highlight a serious flaw… not with NATO…still as necessary as before… if not more… but with EU

Not issue with EU as it doesn't have a military/defence mandate.

Also EU includes non-NATO states: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden.

And not all NATO states are EU members: Albania, Canada, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

So how is overall European declining defence capability the fault of EU which doesn't have a defence responsibility nor covers all of NATO members and includes countries outside of NATO?

EU is economic not military.

It's like blaming the bakers for faulty plumbing because the plumbers aren't doing their job properly.

@ardo, perhaps it's semantics. While the EU doesn't have a treaty with an NATO 'Article 5', it does have the Common Security and Defence Policy and, since, 2017, the Permanent Structured Cooperation establishment.

There has been also a history of European joint forces going back to the Western European Union as well as EU defence planning due to the goal of a 60,000 deployable European only force.

Having written that, I wouldn't necessarily say it was that effective. Mostly it was driven by the desire to include the French military in defence planning after France had left the NATO military structure. It hasn't evolved far mainly because countries like Germany and the UK didn't want a duplication of NATO infrastructure – with the UK gone we'll see how that evolves.

I'm of the view that defence often follows economic interests. So, if NATO dissolved we'd see the EU take over NATO infrastructure but how long would a military schengen last? It might end up with the dissolution of the EU.

But right, Afghanistan isn't the fault of the EU but it's same countries with different hats. The EU and NATO can be seen as instruments of those countries.

@Mr. Editor – I left NATO, when I could have stayed and been retired a few years ago with a nice NATO pension, for a number of reasons – one of which was my view that there was a good chance NATO would not outlive my retirement. The reasons I thought that – the lack of an existential threat and the disconnect between NATO out-of-area ambitions and national willingness to pay for those ambitions.

IMO right now to our enemies and even some of our "friends" … the USA looks very weak as well as NATO. It will take some time, if ever for this "stigma" to go away.

Meanwhile not just the Taliban/AQ are celebrating the defeat of another infidel "Super Power". But every jihadi/terrorist worldwide will rally to the jihadi cause and war on the infidels.

That's most of us here … BTW …

The War is far from over against jihadi terrorism.

+1 Legion 4

Here's a link to the most recent article by Patrick Armstrong, a long time strategic analyst who specialized in analysis of the Soviet Union/Russia; although he did do some good research on Wahhabism. For a short time he was on my team. He's been retired for some time. As you can tell he's got some strong views, but Patrick's no fool. He knows a lot of stuff and whether one agrees or not it's often worth reading his blog….although I do have to take occasional breaks from reading it.

This article is on Europe the non-super power.

link

Thanks!.

Armand

shadoe01,

Some awesome commentary and I loved that article on the non super power!

But right, Afghanistan isn't the fault of the EU but it's same countries with different hats. The EU and NATO can be seen as instruments of those countries.

The different hats allow diffusion of responsibility and accountability. The different hats allow conflicts of interests to thrive.

Eg Germany uses EU to maintain economic control over the continent whilst keeping the French and everyone else in line. Of course any decisions under EU are under EU, not Germany…

Germany uses NATO to underwrite its defence policy. It talks the NATO talk, participates in NATO operations and sanctions Russia. Of course any decisions under NATO are under NATO, not Germany.

And what does Germany do on its own – it cuts back on defence spending, it does mega deals with Russians. It's literally

The French are the same – all talk of EU solidarity and supporting democracy YET they continue to maintain a pseudo-empire in Africa.

This disconnect between supranational organisations and European member states causes real problems

eg. NATO destroyed Libya including French Mirages and Rafales and the Germans gave their approval for this to be a NATO operation (but did not contribute forces save German crews on joint NATO E-3s).

The real result of this was mass immigration crisis for EU and proliferation of weapons and jihadis across Africa! It has helped France and Germany get embroiled in a forever war in Mali.

----

As for the joint EU forces, most are small and of limited combat value and seldom used. Some of them are purely political posturing eg Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade (as if that will ever be used).

There's also a lot of them – Eurocorps, the CDSP related EU Battlegroups, German/Dutch Corps, Franco-German Brigade, NATO's Multinational Corps Northeast, Anglo-French Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, European Maritime Force, European Air Transport Command, European Gendarmerie Force.

Most are literally just something for higher level officers to cycle through in terms of career building.

Most are not even activated in crises or play only a minor role. eg European Air Transport Command was not in charge of European evacuations in Afghanistan.

And EATC is meant to be able to call on up to 200 aircraft from member states.

Instead individual countries ran their own individual evacuation programs and EATC provided some sort of pseudo coordination/oversight. But it was clear each country was running its own individual evacuation program (including German A400s taking off near empty).

@ardo, you're very kind. Perhaps I've been 'talking' more than is wise. I have, at least for these issues, have tried to keep a low social media profile, but being very close to retiring, fed up with the hypocrisy and the 'well managed' withdrawal from Kabul, I think I just had to unload. At least I kept my comments at the unclassified level unlike some. Also, as I'm still employed and we're in the middle of an election – I'll make no comments on my government's performance.

I can make one annecdotal comment on the EU forces since the event was over 20 years ago. I was sent – urgently – to EU HQ in Brussels as SHAPE's land and amphibious force requirements 'expert'. I made a wild drive from The Hague to Brussels and entered this large, impressive room – lined with translator booths. The interesting thing was how a reasonable political objective for Europe to be able to deploy a 60,000 person force was subverted is that minor EU, but non-NATO country ABC's MoD could do things like justify their armoured regiment. Noticeably lacking were logistical forces – especially theatre enabling logistical forces. The officers present had no answer when I asked they intended to deploy and support this force of 60,000. They had no answer. I said, "I see. I understand what's happening here," and then left. The trouble was I left before lunch and didn't return home until 10 pm. Those gracious and well-fed EU people never so much as offered me a sandwich. Nice.

The other anecdote was from the air requirements side. The EU force planners wanted to have a high end combat scenario – you know, to justify an unnamed nation's 'high' end combat forces, but…and here's the big but, they didn't want to acquire the really high end air assets – EW, C2, re-fuelling, etc., which in NATO only the US has in any reasonable quantities. Our reply was that if you want a lower-tech force than a NATO force, which included the US, they you'd need more troops, not fewer than a NATO force for the same scenario (i.e., the NATO requirement might have been 100,000 troops but they were limited to 60,000).

A total disconnect between political ambition and military institutional objectives – as well as a disconnect with reality.

And…they still owe me a sandwich.

P.S. In that huge room, I was asked a question, but before I opened my mouth, this German colonel interrupted to tell the room what I was going to say. It was not, so I the room otherwise – a nasty habit of mine of telling truth to power.

In that huge room, I was asked a question, but before I opened my mouth, this German colonel interrupted to tell the room what I was going to say. It was not, so I the room otherwise – a nasty habit of mine of telling truth to power.

That seems to be happening a lot of places these days. Even here !?!? 😲 And not from the Eds. !!! 😎

Shadoe01,

Fascinating stuff. And it all confirms what I've been reading for years as a layperson (married life got in the way of pursuing a career in foreign affairs and given how badly Australia has managed these I'm kind of glad).

'well managed'

I work as a public servant on the other side of the planet. Well managed projects have become as mythical as unicorns.

I suspect the problem is same across the west – everything's too politicised and true progress has been abandoned in favour of short term political goals, careerism, dilution of accountability and transparency and loss of meaningful regulation.

Europe and the South China Sea

link

Armand

Another casualty will be the credibility of any American commitment anywhere in the world.
Every four years there is the distinct possibility that a new administration will completely ditch any commitments by previous administrations. That's a fairly recent phenomenon. In the past, diplomats and administrations kept those commitments. Now with poisonous partisan politics, that's more and more unlikely.
What potential ally will be willing to make a long term policy with the US? Even our staunch allies have been burned.
Have fun getting any allies for our next foreign adventure!

Reminds me of this old quote about the British; maybe now just substitute in Americans.

" It is better to be enemies of the British than friends, because they buy their enemies and sell their friends." -Abdul al Saud

The world that the Second World War created is now gone. America was never really comfortable with her role in that world. What purpose for America that existed in that world ended when the Soviet Union fell apart and the Cold War came to an end. Many of the post Cost War involvements have been created to enrich the military industry and the lobbyists and politicians who benefit from those involvements. The involvements that were in America's interests were corrupted by the Deep State . The world is now going back to something like existed before Hitler invaded Poland. One nation will not dominate world politics. China will face problems that will limit its ability to fill the vacuum that now exists. All of this should make for an interesting Wotrld.

Glup!…

Armand

The silver lining might be that the NATO nations finally decide to assume some responsibility for their own defense. Britain, the US, Greece, and some of the former WP nations meet their spending commitments: the others do not. We've been underwriting social democracy for a couple of generations, and that hasn't been a good thing for them or us.

We can only hope … As where is the USA going to get all the money to support all the illegal aliens and many of the Afghani refugees ? Many of which had nothing to do with assisting the US. But are here anyway ? How did that happen ? We can't do all that and support NATO with big money/lots of cash … too ?

The silver lining might be that the NATO nations finally decide to assume some responsibility for their own defense.

I doubt it. In fact due to COVID a few have taken the opportunity to delay or cancel modernisation programs.

By the way the 2% of GDP on defence is an exercise in creative accounting and not tied in with real military capability. Most countries include welfare and pensions paid to ex-service personnel as part of defence spending. Many others include civil defence eg firefighting aircraft or operated by air forces in the figure. And others include domestic security measures in it.

Eg Croatia jacked up its defence spending nearly 0.5% of GDP to nearly 2% simply by counting veteran welfare payments in defence spending!

The U.S. And Its Allies Lost The War In Afgahnistan. We All Deserve To Know Why.

link

Afghanistan Is Not Done With Us; Four Long-Term Dangers Await

link

LESSONS FROM KABUL: THE US MILITARY MUST RESOLVE ITS AIR MOBILITY DILEMMA

link

Armand

The Warsaw pact died with the USSR…Nato should have too.

Kind'a looks like NATO had with many of the NATO military downsizing.

Five Myths About NATO and Afghanistan

link

Armand

That's an excellent essay, Armand.

It's by and large correct – i.e., the ISAF mission in Afghanistan was not an Article V mission but an out of area operation which are, according to NATO, case by case voluntary missions. Even Article V missions do not compel nations to contribute anything – that only happens when they 'sign up' force contributions for a specific contingency plan. After all, Article V only says member nations will contribute "..will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary…". Here is Article V in its entirety:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

The essay is good in that it points out the inconsistencies and lack of coherence that is a result of two separate missions ('the hunting of Al Qaeda' and the 'security & stabilisation' missions) trying to operate in the same space with often contradictory objectives. Either was challenging, but two together verges on impossible (or maybe just 'impossible').

Thanks my friend…

Armand

EU Official Says 'Something Is Broken' With Ties To The U.S.

link

Armand

Hilarious as Biden was meant to be about fixing alliances.

Yes … but if I say more I'll be DH'd …

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov Says Russia Will Not Join NATO

tass.com/politics/1341321

Armand

Like that was even an option!

Who would want Russia in NATO

Yes Putin/Russia the former USSR join NATO will occur when aliens land on the WH lawn. 🛸 Maybe even not then ?

Note when I say "aliens" I mean those from the outer space. 👽 Not those crossing the Southern Border. Those would be "illegal aliens" … by coming to the USA illegally. Not following the law properly to do this.

And some may be doing gardening on the WH lawn already ? 🤔 ✂👽

Now would aliens from space be considered illegal aliens ? 🤔