The American Spectator : Neutered Nabobs of NATO

Text Size

Neutered Nabobs of NATO

By Jed Babbin on 4.18.11 @ 6:09AM

The Libya fiasco confirms: multilateralism is no substitute for an alliance.

It was hard to surpass President Obama's incoherence on Libya, but British Prime Minister David Cameron managed it. Speaking to a Sky News reporter, Cameron said, "We're not occupying, we're not invading, that's not what we're about. And that is obviously a restriction on us, but I think it is the right restriction…. It's because we've said we're not going to invade, we're not going to occupy, this is more difficult in many ways, because we can't fully determine the outcome with what we have available."

The late James Jackson Kilpatrick would have warned Cameron against what Kilpo called "portmanteau sentences" such as the last quoted above. If we unpack Mr. Cameron's suitcase we find the reasons for the Libya stalemate and the corpse of the once-great NATO alliance.

Having decided to join in the UN-designed and French-led military action in Libya, Obama later admitted that American interests weren't at stake. He committed U.S. combat aircraft to the conflict, then withdrew them, and then sent some back, holding back the attack aircraft which NATO's anti-Gaddafi operation needs most.

Even before Cameron's enlargement on it, the depth of the confusion over Libya was explained in the joint op-ed article Obama authored with British PM David Cameron and French PM Nicholas Sarkozy on April 14.

Ambitiously titled "Libya's Pathway to Peace," the three said that they were united from the start in responding to the Libyan crisis and remain united in what needs to happen in order to end it. What is needed, they say, is for Gaddafi to be removed from power. Otherwise, they warn, Libya will be a pariah state, a "new" safe haven for "extremists." Which wouldn't be new at all because Libya has always been just that under Gaddafi.

(Gaddafi's embassy in East Berlin congratulated the "extremists" who committed the Berlin disco bombing. As a result, President Reagan sent a few F-111's to punish Gaddafi, missing him one late night. Two years later, Gaddafi's "extremists" blew Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland. Twenty-four years after that, Gaddafi welcomed the only person convicted in the Lockerbie bombing back to Tripoli as a national hero after the Brits released the man.)

As Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy explain, the current UN mandate doesn't include removing Gaddafi. It provides only for protecting civilians. And though they assert boldly that tens of thousands of lives are being protected, they write, "… the people of Libya are still suffering terrible horrors at Qaddafi's hands each and every day. His rockets and shells rained down on defenseless civilians in Ajdabiya. The city of Misurata is enduring a medieval siege, as Qaddafi tries to strangle its population into submission. The evidence of disappearances and abuses grows daily. "

Any terrorist dictator can visit horrors on his populace, but Gaddafi is worse: he's capable of terrible horrors. (Obama apparently believes that only Paul Ryan is capable of the terriblest horrors. But I digress).

We won't remove Gaddafi because the Arab League and the UN -- the multilateralist base for the Libya action -- mandated the lowest common denominator in defining the Libya mission. Hence the difference between multilateralism and alliances: the former are a cacophony of wishes, beliefs and hopes, the latter are predicated on nations' most dire national security interests.

NATO's Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is panhandling unsuccessfully for more combat aircraft for Libya. Britain and France -- the latter so eager to establish a "no-fly zone" that it entered the conflict quickly -- have demurred. Having sent U.S. combat aircraft in, Obama quickly withdrew them and lately recommitted some fighter aircraft but denied the return of the attack aircraft the NATO command needs most urgently -- A-10 Warthogs and the AC-130 gunships -- which other NATO nations don't have.

Sooner, not later, British and French aircraft will be gradually withdrawn as well because together or singly, neither has the ability to sustain the force for much longer.

The political autopsy on NATO reveals that the lack of attack aircraft is not the proximate cause of the alliance's death, only one symptom of one of its illnesses: the failure of our putative allies to invest in their own defense.

For almost twenty-five years, few of the NATO nations have made a significant investment in their own defense. Germany, Italy and Spain spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense. (In 2009, U.S. defense spending reached 4.7% of GDP.) Even Britain and France, which spend about twice as much as those three, spend less than half of the percentage of GDP we do.

Worse still, the investments they've made haven't been in the capabilities that could enable them to operate effectively -- jointly -- with our forces. The Germans are a prime example. As former NATO commander Gen. Joe Ralston told me a few years ago, if the Germans decided to modernize their forces to join us on the "network-centric" battlefield, it would take them as long as a century to catch up.

Tony Blair sank the British armed services in a budgetary black hole but Cameron has kept digging. Now the RAF -- once the only force that stood between freedom and Hitler's Germany -- doesn't have enough pilots to replenish the one squadron of Typhoon aircraft operating over Libya. To rotate that one squadron's pilots for rest and recuperation -- only 18 men -- the Brits are forced to rob instructors from their pilot school to man the aircraft. Cameron has imposed such drastic cuts on the British military that its army sent e-mail layoff notices to 38 troops serving in Afghanistan.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment

logan| 4.18.11 @ 6:14AM

Its' all going according to plan......Hussein bin Obama is holding back the US economy by his economic incompetance and by his philosophical preferences (socialism instead of individual based capitalism) and he is downgrading the size, scope and capability of the US Armed Forces because lib-tards have always wanted to do it! Why? Because they have always believed the US was too prosperous and too strong militarily and that is not fair in their mind.

All going according to plan.....Turd World USA, here we come!

Michael Tomlinson| 4.18.11 @ 8:19AM

Bravo Zulu logan!

Kenny| 4.18.11 @ 7:11AM

One of the unintended consequences of this Libya fiasco is that the world will actual see how enfeebled Europe has become.

The countries of Europe are truly defenseless and would be a push over.

I fear that this fact will play itself out someway, somehow in the not too distant future.

Gordon W.| 4.18.11 @ 8:09AM

So what is so incoherent about Cameron's point. He said it is hard to see what the outcome is if we don't have boots on the ground, but we have agreed not to put boots on the ground.

Later in the article you say that we haven't been doing enough about Libya. You cite occurrences from more than 20 years. Which after a failed assassination attempt Reagan gave in. Why even put this is in. It just says we have been neutered in or relations with Libya for well more than 20 years.

Finally the point of the article comes. NATO is useless because all the countries in it are weak. Your attempt at backing that up are less coherent than Cameron's explanation of what is going on in Libya. An easy way to refute your position is a quick internet search of strongest militarys: http://www.sublimeoblivion.com.....ries-2011/

Or if that isn't good: http://exploredia.com/10-most-.....the-world/

figusja| 4.18.11 @ 8:18AM

The Libtards as Logan says, wants us on an even playing field with the world. Mark my words. We are the only thing standing between the U.N.'s idea of a World order. WHEN we fall all of our equipment will fall with us. No fancy bombs, tanks, planes, lasers, jets, targeting systems, NOTHING. Better yet, to pay our debt Prez Hussein will sell our tech to everyone in the world to pay for our delinquent debt. None of the other countries will have to research, develop, manufacture, deploy and train their personnel. Just like lazy socialist they will get something for nothing.Yet, they think the Muslims will sit quite like good little citizens when this goes about happening. They think they will be able to control the Jihadist and their supporters. The world will still be a soup sandwich. That is socialism for you. I would bet dollars to pennies that I am right. But by then money won't mean any thing. How about I would bet an ounce of gold for an ounce of silver that I am right. Pray I am wrong.

Occam's Tool| 4.18.11 @ 1:25PM

I would not take that bet. I agree with you.

Occam's Tool| 4.18.11 @ 1:30PM

In 2008, I was predicting that Europe would fall, and soon. I read America Alone, and then I went on the CIA factbook and UN demographic websites.

Of the Western countries, only Israel is breeding above replacement, and only the US and New Zealand are at replacement (the Kiwis are there because their spiritually and intellectually impoverished indigenous peoples are breeding enough to make up for the infertile loins of their Europeans).

This is why we can't really cut defense---we're going to be alone (except for Israel) and outnumbered by the Terrorists in 2020. outnumbered

USSAlabama| 4.18.11 @ 8:19AM

Examine Turkey's role in NATO. Angela Merkel's decision not to support the effort in Libya falls onto a small radicalized Turkish faction in her country.

It has been said that Barack Obama deferred to Turkey until Qaddafi began an organized attack on the rebels.

And why is Turkey still in NATO? Go back to '09 when Turkey threatened to veto the appointment of Rasmussen as secretary-general because of the famous cartoons.

It looks like Qaddafi will stay right where he is, and he fairly well has Erdogan to thank for it.

So if you think Europe is weak you are right. And a large part of that is having radicalized factions in the population.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.18.11 @ 8:22AM

It may be better to have the devil we know than the folks Obama supports (like the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda fighters).

Occam's Tool| 4.18.11 @ 1:30PM

Indeed. That's why this hyperinterventionalist has NOT supported the Libyan intervention.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.18.11 @ 8:20AM

Jed,
it has been said before, but bears repeating. All this Libya fiasco has demonstrated is our stupidity. It has made us a laughing stock and a dabbler.

Redstateboy| 4.18.11 @ 8:29AM

Even the fawning syncophantic Obama believers need no further evidence of the hypocrisy and the Liber-ul partisanship of the Lame Stream Media. Can you Imagine if this was happening under George W Bush... or ANY Republican President for that matter... it would be front page - front and center - of every Liber-ul media outlet.. ripping the CIC for utter incompetence... oh! but Not the Messiah!! Can't rip him now can we?!?

Michael Tomlinson| 4.18.11 @ 8:30AM

Obama/Democrats/the Pauls want to cut defense spending. We came save billons by ending our relationship with NATO and closing or down sizing our bases in Europe.

No more American treasure for European Oil.

Obama lied and people died.

Occam's Tool| 4.18.11 @ 1:32PM

I concur with not defending Europe. They are already the dead. We may not save money in the end, but we can spend it more wisely.

Intelligent Design| 4.18.11 @ 8:52AM

The Libyan rebels are connected to al Qaeda (you know, the same guys who have been killing U.S. soldiers). So Obama is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is the definition of treason.

The U.S. should get out of Libya, get out of Afghanistan, get out of Iraq, and stay out of Yemen, Egypt, Syria, etc. Let the Muslims fight and kill each other. Give more military assistance to Israel, bomb Iran's nuclear and military sites "yesterday", and be ready to put troops on the ground in Pakistan if necessary to prevent Muslim terrorists from gaining access to nuclear weapons.
Put 25,000 U.S. troops along our border with Mexico. Of the millions of illegal immigrants who have walked into the U.S., at least several hundred are Muslim terrorists who are planning more attacks against Americans here at home.

Congress should identify Islam as a subversive political organization. Outlaw mosques, close down Muslim "charities", stop all immigration into the U.S. by Muslims, ban Muslims from U.S. airplanes and airports, ban Muslims from serving in our government at any level, civilian or military.

The problem is not just Muslim terrorists, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or "Islamism". The problem is Islam itself, which seeks to merge the state and so-called religion to form a totalitarian government. Islam is subversive to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

btims| 4.18.11 @ 9:18AM

Harsh but true words by you my friend. Islam is the problem. There is no such thing as "radical Islam" or "moderte Islam", there is only Islam. And Islam is a religion but it is very much a political ideology and one historically antithetical to Western culture.

The wars we are fighting are not to destroy militant Islam, they are to "help" muslims. I don't want to help muslims, in fact, I like it when they war on one another!

The US Armed Forces should not be building schools and mosques for Mohammedans and thereby helping spread Sharia Law (which is already establishing itself in our country).

Note: on the "Mexican problem". Enforce immigration law, deport illegals and many more will self deport. We can not take care of half of Mexico, all immigration should be reduced in the coming years. We have a slow, limp economy, we don't need to accept half the world.

Occam's Tool| 4.18.11 @ 1:35PM

True, btims.

I only want immigration by Master's or above in the hard sciences---Chemistry/Physics/Biology/Geology/Mathematics. The rest can go hang.

Occam's Tool| 4.18.11 @ 1:33PM

ID, if I had a sister worthy of you, I would want you to marry her. (She isn't, and her husband, aan Euroslacker, is perfect for her.)

Nunya| 4.18.11 @ 1:51PM

ID, excellent post again, couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately, the chances of any of this happening in the near future are just slightly less than my chances of winning the lottery any time soon (assuming I played). We're led by a compleete fool by the name of Obama, who has surrounded himself by fools of his own kind, and those that are supposed to represent us are traitors to our cause (anyone want to bet on the debt ceiling being raised?).

We are a giant ship heading directly toward the rocks, and all the captain and staff can discuss is how they can rearrange the chairs on the deck to accomodate more folks.

Derek Leaberry| 4.18.11 @ 8:55AM

NATO should have been disbanded twenty years ago after its mission was successfully completed. The USSR is no more.

axbucxdu| 4.18.11 @ 12:51PM

It took more than twelve responses, but at last a post that states all that need be said of NATO.

Has anybody suggested to these internationalist busybodies that, um, WE ARE BROKE!

hardcard| 4.18.11 @ 8:59AM

Remove the current US administration ASAP, defund and disolve nato, defund and withdraw from the UN, stop protecting foreign countries with our military and seal our borders.

davelnaf| 4.18.11 @ 11:51AM

Please, Mr. Babbin, don’t give Russia—of all countries—any ideas. But they are probably well aware of the sorry state of NATO’s capabilities.

Just why the French and British decided they could trust the Bamster is still something of a mystery. Obama might have gone to Europe to preen in public, but he likes it only to the extent that it is the birthplace of Marxism and its Ponzi-scheme first cousin.

The big question now is: Will Obama recommit US forces to Libya to avert a NATO debacle? Maybe he secretly relishes the possibility of seeing it humiliated. Israel, too, would be wise to avoid taking anything the Bamster says seriously, particularly in regard to security. The plain truth is that Obama is not to be trusted about anything under the sun.

Do you get that lefties?

ABNCP| 4.18.11 @ 1:45PM

Intel. Design, btims, you are right on. I served in Europe during the 50's, 60's and 70's, in other words the cold war. During those years NATO made sense(Big Al Haig was NATO'S boss during some of that time and he didn't take any crap from any other countrys in NATO. He always had the U.S. interest in mind). The Germans were scared to death that the Red Army would come pouring through the Fulda Gap and do what they did to them in 1945 so they loved us then. I for one am not suprised at the German attitude now. The Germans are always at your throat or at you feet depending on what they feel they can get away with. The Brits had good military muscle at that time and the French, even though De Gaul had pulled them out of NATO, were capable of fielding a respectable force. No one took Spain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, etc. seriously. So it was always mainly the U.S. and Britian that were the mainstays in NATO. As Jeb's article states, Britian and France have let their military's collapse to the point they cannot fulfill almost any kind of mission. We don't need to be in NATO anymore! It is a failed organization and has been for thirty years. The only reason we need any kind of U.S. base in Europe now is to have some kind of staging facilities there for moving troops, aircraft and equipment to the Middle East where the real challanges are going to be.

Nunya| 4.18.11 @ 1:57PM

AB, I would add that same disposition that you have taken with NATO, and add in the UN. It's a failed organization that is completely left-wing in its ideologies, and actually works to subvert the US. I say if they still want to have a UN, move it to France.

ABNCP| 4.18.11 @ 2:08PM

Nunya. Sorry that I left the U.N. out. I couldn't agree with you more. That collection of anti-American, anti-democratic, pro-marxist, left wing progressive countrys is a drain on our economy and a waste of valuable real estate. Of course it gives our own pro-marxist, left wing progressives, I mean the ones we have in office now, a platform to increase their creds with their fellow nit-wits. God help us.

Albert| 4.18.11 @ 2:38PM

Libya is President Bozo's "crusadus interruptus." This fool can't make up his mind to "show force" or to stand aside and let the chips fall. No doubt he gets mountains of conflicting advice, but it is his inability to make a decision that betrays his ignorance of such matters and his innate stupidity in not recognizing his own severe limitations. NATO was set up as a defense alliance after WWII to counter Soviet aggression in Europe, already well demonstrated in Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain. After successfully countering the "Evil Empire" for decades, how NATO could be so corrupted as to join in fools' enterprises like Libya is astonishing. NATO has been reduced to a schoolyard monitor with no real ability to do much of anything. If NATO and the UN do not buttress US interests, why do we participate in these outmoded organizations?

Nunya| 4.18.11 @ 6:58PM

Albert, well said. "Crusadus interruptus" indeed!

Thanks for the smile.

Wayne | 4.18.11 @ 5:42PM

Can I say I told you so to all the conservatives who supported this war? Well too late: I told you so.

Alan Brooks| 4.18.11 @ 9:54PM

We ought to withdraw and let them argue with each other-- we are not going anywhere.
So let them elect another empty suit in 2016; it is their country, let them mess it up even worse than it is already. It will be learned the hard way that the business of America is business-- nothing more..

Alan Brooks| 4.18.11 @ 10:00PM

... the question coming to mind is: if Obama is as bad as it's said he is, then why did the GOP run a weak candidate in 2008? reversing the ticket would have made sense; a vigorous Palin would have made a better POTUS than McCain.
But that is the past; the future is more weak GOP post-Reaganites!

Nite| 4.18.11 @ 10:21PM

The question is who the GOP will run against Obama in 2012. Obama doesn't stand up to the smell test anymore and the Independents and some parts of the Democratic party are leaving too. Guess we will see who wins. I did not vote for Obama and certainly won't now after seeing the policies of him and his radicals. I do NOT like what he is doing to this country.

Alan Brooks| 4.18.11 @ 10:31PM

Nite, you are partially evading the issue of why it is Obama's opponents keep running weak candidates; you are sidestepping how the GOP is rudderless without Reagan.
AND you are are either too young, or you do not remember how Clinton was written off at the point of his midterm-- even worse because Clinton was deemed a rapist, Rose Lawfirmist.
But he rebounded and is today more respected than Dubya.

Dee See| 4.19.11 @ 9:20AM

"We are using MASSIVE third world
immigration (mainly muslim) to destroy
British culture beyond repair."
-TONY BLAIR
(leaked interview)

Honestly, we can't cite it enough, esp. during
this latest Globalist franchise slums and EUGENICS agenda.

SEE the whole picture.

Destroy Christianity at home. The Rockefeller/Ford/Carnegie Foundation op has all but achieved that end.

But still work to do.

Destabilize and franchise slum abroad. Keep 'em all off balance while the global pillage and 'consolidation' proceeds unchallenged.

Free Trade means FREE TRAITORS.
Plain and simple.

What don't we understand?

Ken Roberts | 4.19.11 @ 4:17PM

This will go down in history as a time when we are fighting an enemy in Afghanistan and we are also helping the same enemy in Libya . The madness will never stop until we have adults running our government.

8000LBS electric winch| 4.20.11 @ 4:19AM

This articles helps me more.Thanks for your sharing,I will pay more attentions to your blog.Looking forward to your better and better articles.See you next time.