Not sure the exact range but, I suspect they could take the "long way".
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Turks and Syrians exchange rounds
- Thread starter Uncle Fester
- Start date
Not sure the exact range but, I suspect they could take the "long way".
Agreed, they could get creative. That said, overflight is still the problem. Iraq bars the door to the east...Turkey to the north. Te only option then is an approach from he west, cutting west of Turkey...over Europe. Since NATO has that route wrapped up, I don't see bow they can do it short of circumnavigating Europe.
Is there something I'm missing?
Agreed. And if we responded for our part like so many of our NATO allies did in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have to break a sweat.
Like I said...today's NATO is like Costco Membership...
Although I "totally get" the War College mantra that "all flags are the same size".
Actually, that's the complete opposite of the War College mantra on collective defense and NATO.
Ask the UK, France, Canada, Germany, Poland and others how much sweat they're breaking with over 1000 non-US NATO casualties. The bulk of NATO is unquestionably US, but if you're suggesting that the others haven't contributed or suffered in a meaningful way... well, I'd have to invoke Huge once again.
Indeed, I think every NATO country has experienced at least one in theater death. But the UK accounts for nearly half of the total NATO deaths with the hosers up north the second greatest number of losses. Tragic as the losses are for our allies, I stand by my statement, most haven't broken a sweat. You mention just five members. Add just a couple more and you have the lion's share of NATO's contribution. The rest, 12-14 countries, their deployments have been very small, hardly any of them combat deployments. While their contribution is appreciated, lets be honest, most never get outside the wire. And some allies don't even pay for their own deployments. I honor their dead. But in terms of total losses, financial investment and political capital, most haven't broken a sweat. That is the face of NATO in this type of secuity threat.
For God's sake, NO!!
Upon what do you base this statement?
Anyhow, as I said, I agree that the US and UK do all the heavy lifting, but I don't think it's particularly constructive to criticize the others while they're dying for a fight that wasn't their making. Those countries contributing minimally have legitimate political and economic reasons that preclude what I suspect you would perceive as "pulling their weight." We should be happy that they're playing at all. I totally get and agree with framing the fight post 9/11 as an Art 5 matter, but I'm not sure that makes much sense today.
I wouldn't confuse the sacrifices of their government with the sacrifices of their service members. In my book - there is a difference.
News articles and government releases about the type of units and the mission assigned to Allied countries. News articles about the location and type of fatality. My brother in law that flew for an Afghan airline for two years . My other brother in law who is currently in theater serving as an Army JAG. Many statements from member governments that their people would NOT be participating in any combat ops.
I honor their dead. I am happy they play. The cause wasn't their own. It may not have been there making, but it wasn't ours either. Let's keep that straight. But, they have benefited from our security umbrella for a long time. Many decades for some members. The have lived and thrived in peace because of NATO and NATO is nothing without the US, the largest contributor. It doesn't matter that it isn't their making. They came along via Art. 5, valid or not. So just consider their contribution pay back for the peace and prosperity we have help immeasurable to guarantee. I understand that some countries contributed minimally for political and economic reasons. But that is my very point. The UK and Canada had those issues, but didn't make an excuse of it. It is not much different than how people treat their charities. Some make a token contribution to make sure the company, church or squadron get 100% participation. Others give enough to actually hurt. They'll have to give up something to make it work, endure some pain. It doesn't mean you didn't write a check, it just didn't hurt. No sweat.
I guess I just don't understand what you're expecting from them other than what they have always done. We knew this was the deal when we created NATO, and as we continually expand it. We bear the burden of collective security because it serves our national interests. You make it sound like we're somehow getting cheated when we're the ones who wrote the rules to the game. I'm just trying I ascertain whether you have a legitimate grievance with how NATO does business, or if you're just criticizing them because its in vogue for conservatives to do so.
I always felt that the invoking of Art 5 for the fight in Afghanistan was a stretch. Applying the treaty to non-government actors, while convenient, doesn't seem like part of the original intent. Then again, the whole reason for the creation of NATO is a thing of the past, a resurgent Russia notwithstanding. Does this make NATO a relic? No, but it may need to adjust, as it has been with Afghanistan.
If it turns out the Syrian military ends up attacking Turkey, then Turkey would have every right to request activation of Art 5. And we, and every country in NATO, would be obligated to help. As nice as the warm-and-fuzzy of taking out Assad's regime would be, it would not be an easy fight and would tax us excessively to enter another theater of war. Not a whole lot of NATO members are in the best economic shape right now, ourselves included. Besides, we've seen the mixed-results of post-dictatorial states in the wake of the Arab Spring. We'd be rolling the dice with intervention, geo-politically.
If it turns out the Syrian military ends up attacking Turkey, then Turkey would have every right to request activation of Art 5. And we, and every country in NATO, would be obligated to help. As nice as the warm-and-fuzzy of taking out Assad's regime would be, it would not be an easy fight and would tax us excessively to enter another theater of war. Not a whole lot of NATO members are in the best economic shape right now, ourselves included. Besides, we've seen the mixed-results of post-dictatorial states in the wake of the Arab Spring. We'd be rolling the dice with intervention, geo-politically.
Seems like we largely agree.
I don't have a general grievance with how NATO does business. I did some business with them when I was on the staff of CINCUSNAVEUR during Joint Endeavor and Joint Guard. Clearly it has served our purposes well. I dare say it may very well have kept world peace. But how members chose to participate, how they define their responsibilities in today's secruity environment, is what is always open to debate, within NATO, without, and certainly the public. As the confluence of diplomacy, military and national politics, not every member will be pleased with what is requested of them by another, or how a fellow member choses to contribute. I am not as much critical as I am simply pointing out a fact via sarcasm. You can't defend some member nations just because they were in a tough bind politically or even economical. Denmark and the Netherlands are small and very liberal politically with large Muslim populations and expensive social networks to pay for. Yet their contribution has been more than admirable. Many other countries much less so, even when the full financial burden would not have been an issue. It is what it is.
Really? First I didn't know big bad conservatives were criticizing NATO. I didn't get the vast right wing conspiracy memo. I think you have long time criticism of the UN confused here. In fact, it is the right of center diplomatic community that has pushed NATO expansion and strengthening Eastern European members. I guess you just couldn't think of anything else insulting to wrap up with. But to be clear, do all political conservatives simply parrot a certain party line because they can't have an original thought, is it that regardless of the position taken by the conservative conventional wisdom any individual conservative just isn't intelligent enough to add to the debate, or is it that all ideas and criticisms coming from the right are unworthy? Or, do you wish to insult me directly by implying I don't hold this view independently because I am unoriginal and benighted? If it is the former, your elitism and political bigotry is showing, if it is the latter, fuck you.
Good.
Nope.
No more than liberals do. I'm just asking you a question based on what you've posted, no need to be defensive or issue personal attacks. I know it's not particularly fashionable these days, but it is possible to have a discussion and even to disagree, without using expletives.