NATO

This is a copy of an email I sent to a friend who is a graduate of the US Naval Academy, a retired F-18 pilot who spent the last two years of his career working with NATO.

My email will be last. His, the significant part, is first.

Subject: Re: NATO

Date: 2018-06-13 09:06

From: Monty

To: Bob Peterson <rpeterson@nbbcompany.com>

Bob,

The only real metric the NATO nations have agreed to is to spend a

minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense with 20% of that spent on

equipment. As of Mid 2017, 6 of the 29 NATO member nations meet or

exceed the 2% threshold. They are US, Greece, the UK, Estonia, Poland

and just recently Romania. Greece probably only makes it because they

essentially have no GDP.  All the other NATO nations have been under the

2% number for .... well, pretty much as far back as I know. As of 2016,

the U.S. Spends 3.3% of our GDP on defense (which is down from 8.4% in

1960) but since our GDP is so much bigger than other countries, we carry

the lions share of the effort.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

 I can understand how those nations would say there's been no real

threat. But now that the Russians are scary again, the chickens are

coming home to roost. The effect of those nations spending below the 2%

target is also a cumulative one. There are many necessary supporting

capabilities that only the U.S. can provide in any significant numbers.

Some examples include Aerial refueling, airborne electronic attack,

heavy sea lift, heavy air lift. There's also a capacity gap outside the

U.S. because the other nations simply haven't purchased enough "stuff."

The result of this is that if 28 of the 29 NATO nations decided they

wanted to get together and do an offensive (or in many cases defensive)

operation without the U.S., they would be unable to except in certain

rare circumstances because they need capabilities only the U.S. has

because they have been unwilling to pay for those capabilities

themselves. The longer the gap in spending exists, the larger the

deficits in capabilities and capacity become.

Now, to be fair, 100% of U.S. defense spending counts toward the 3.3% of

GDP and we don't use all of our capabilities in Europe. We have a large

puddle to our West to contend with, too. That being said, our

capabilities are, for the most part, mobile and can be moved to Europe

for use if necessary.

Trump does have a tendency to play fast and loose with facts. However,

the only real difference from previous presidents vis-a-vis NATO is that

he's been much more willing to take the other nations to task for under

spending on their own defense. That has allowed them some leeway in

creating their socialist paradises because they've been able to redirect

defense spending toward social programs. They would certainly either

have to spend less on something, have even higher taxes, or borrow more

money to pay for defense spending if they had to defend themselves

without the shield of U.S. military strength. That statement is up for

some debate (but not really), but Trump has been much stronger about

saying it.

Yes, I was just Monty for most of my career. I had a short stint as Data

but it didn't really stick.

 Hope this helps. 

James

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:08 PM <rpeterson@nbbcompany.com> wrote:

 Hey, Monty,

 BTW, was that your call sign? Seems too clean and obvious…but…

 Not my real question. As you know, I work the elections and yesterday

 was very slow. Fewer than 10% of the registered voters in this

 precinct voted. Seems a shame.

 While shooting the bull with another guy, I mentioned that I thought

 some of the richer nations should do more to fund NATO and that maybe

 the days of the US shouldering the burden of funding the defense of

 the free world should be re-examined.

 He was pretty huffy, started off by talking about what a liar and

 cheat and blah blah Trump was, and then said that all the countries of

 NATO were currently spending their fair share. I didn’t take it any

 further since I didn’t have facts.

 Looked up Fact Check. Well, they acknowledged that the US contributed

 22% of the budget for NATO and the other 28 countries contributed

 according to a formula based on their GNP. All good. They went on to

 say that the US VOLUNTARILY spent another bunch of money on operations

 and “indirect spending” for military purposes. The figure

 mentioned was 72% and I think that was for all indirect spending.

 They did not say whether that 72% included the 22% spent on Direct

 costs? I suspect it doesn’t. As Disraeli said, “There are lies,

 damned lies, and statistics.” So I am suspicious.

 What is your thinking on this as the only person I know who has

 first-hand knowledge of NATO??

 Don’t feel obligated to “educate” me, but if you have a few

moments, would appreciate a bit of wisdom!

Bob

Certainty is one of the great privileges of youth. ~ Sheryl Sandberg

to MIT graduating class 2018