NATO outdated
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brendan Simms, to be sure!
If only I was Dr Brendan Simms. A fine Fellow of Peterhouse, graduate of TCD, purveyor of fine champagne and an all-round good chap. He is hardly a leftie; indeed he is an affable friend of the Services. He is a structuralist and a specialist in Cold War politics.
16 Blades. My reading is wide, extremely wide. Graves to Churchill, Plato to Halper. Perl to Todorev. I also have my Eagle annuals - fine stories of Gerry being biffed! A couple of Commando comics are also lurking...along with Thompson's classic guides on COIN ops. My last uniformed job required me to brief a senior diplomat on a plethora of subjects - and my library expanded accordingly. At least I have time to read and critically evaluate non-orthodox material now (including a copy of AP3000 I managed to obtrain on Ebay).
CC
16 Blades. My reading is wide, extremely wide. Graves to Churchill, Plato to Halper. Perl to Todorev. I also have my Eagle annuals - fine stories of Gerry being biffed! A couple of Commando comics are also lurking...along with Thompson's classic guides on COIN ops. My last uniformed job required me to brief a senior diplomat on a plethora of subjects - and my library expanded accordingly. At least I have time to read and critically evaluate non-orthodox material now (including a copy of AP3000 I managed to obtrain on Ebay).
CC
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly I too have worked within NATO, and I have to say the bickering doesn't just go on on the AWACS. It contributes to the almost paralysing inertia inherent in an organization requiring concensus for decision making when that concensus has to include both Greece and Turkey (who tend to be the main problem but are by no means the only nations with hidden agendas - the UK is as bad as any). Wonder why the EU wants to get rid of concensus - apart from to screw the UK?
This is also coupled to the NATO Civilian structure - akin to our Civil Service. Job-for-life was invented for these people and they fight change like a drowning man clinging to a life-raft. Tax-exempt and diplomatic discount-tastic, one can hardly blame them but you wouldn't believe the scams some got away with, with only a slapped wrist for punishment (fraudulently obtained tax-free champagne for the local brothel anyone?). Also amazing how English is the de-facto language at SHAPE, but the top civilian jobs have to be specified as requiring either English or French language ability.....(no I wasn't turned down for a job before you ask)
The concept of NATO is not outdated - but the structure and sheer gargantuan burocracy (sp?) certainly are IMHO (they're building (we're all paying for.....) ANOTHER bl00dy HQ building in Brussels - backhander-tastic!).
At the end of the NATO working day, if you were as far forward as you were at the start of the day, and hadn't gone backwards, you had acheived something!
TSM - have you sacked Carruthers?
This is also coupled to the NATO Civilian structure - akin to our Civil Service. Job-for-life was invented for these people and they fight change like a drowning man clinging to a life-raft. Tax-exempt and diplomatic discount-tastic, one can hardly blame them but you wouldn't believe the scams some got away with, with only a slapped wrist for punishment (fraudulently obtained tax-free champagne for the local brothel anyone?). Also amazing how English is the de-facto language at SHAPE, but the top civilian jobs have to be specified as requiring either English or French language ability.....(no I wasn't turned down for a job before you ask)
The concept of NATO is not outdated - but the structure and sheer gargantuan burocracy (sp?) certainly are IMHO (they're building (we're all paying for.....) ANOTHER bl00dy HQ building in Brussels - backhander-tastic!).
At the end of the NATO working day, if you were as far forward as you were at the start of the day, and hadn't gone backwards, you had acheived something!
TSM - have you sacked Carruthers?
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears, unfortunately, that NATO has become far too much like the EU. Time for the UK to cut both loose, perhaps, and maintain both military and political alliances with the US?
Crash, you are obviously much more well-read than I! Alot of the sources you quote, however, turn out to be anti-capitalist, anti-Tory, anti-Bush rants rather than objective analyses. Just an observation, but it leaves one with a poor impression of your breadth of outlook, which is obviously not the case!
16B
Crash, you are obviously much more well-read than I! Alot of the sources you quote, however, turn out to be anti-capitalist, anti-Tory, anti-Bush rants rather than objective analyses. Just an observation, but it leaves one with a poor impression of your breadth of outlook, which is obviously not the case!
16B
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bush bashing...
16 Blades
Yes I do read widely; I am now paid to read, think and write. A Bitch aint it? By the way, could I suggest some of the other writings of the supposed lefty Brendan Simms: 'The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian high politics, foreign policy and the crisis in the Executive 1797-1806'. Ideal for a high level transit.
Could I suggest Halper and Clarke: 'America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order' CUP 2004. A measured, 'rational centre' critique of the Bush administration, which targets institutional failure. It is also critical of the binary view many have of the world (ie anti-Bush = anti-capitalist or good muslim/bad muslim - see Mamdani's recent book of the same name for a review of the origins of post-Cold War terrorism). Neither Stefan Halper nor Jonathon Clarke could be described as being even remotely left-wing (Stefan Halper was a political staffer in the Reagan White House before he broke into academia, yes Magdalen, Cantab), yet both are critical of the neo-conservative trend that is pervading the US (and parts of the parliamentary Labour Party).
You suggest that the UK should break its treaty obligations with Europe? Abandon the North Atlantic Treaty & Treaty of Rome? Allow the possible development of a Franco-German political alliance in Europe? What would the Kremlin make of that? What about the recently-admitted Baltic states (which, inter alia, the UK is providing AD for). Perhaps you feel that we can turn back the inexorable (and, on many occasions punitive) nature of globalisation - a process that commenced many, many years ago - and not in 1989, which is a date many ill-informed observers seem to use.
It is important to consider how NATO is viewed through other lenses (Ooooo! Look! Social science term...burn him, I say!). If you are in a CEE state, NATO represents a real, tangible bulwark against Russian hegemony. If you are in Romania, and have an unstable Ukraine on your border, who'ya gonna call? I accept that the Maghreb can't distinguish between NATO and the EU, apart from one or two players who actively assist NATO Ops. Germany is still severly constrained by the US/UK/FR imposed constitution (vide the angst about employing troops in the Balkans, and their inability to carry out CRC).
Yes, go ahead, break with Europe; will the US give a damn? Will it increase UK 'independence', led by Robert Kilroy-Silk?
CC
The clue is in the name
Yes I do read widely; I am now paid to read, think and write. A Bitch aint it? By the way, could I suggest some of the other writings of the supposed lefty Brendan Simms: 'The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian high politics, foreign policy and the crisis in the Executive 1797-1806'. Ideal for a high level transit.
Could I suggest Halper and Clarke: 'America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order' CUP 2004. A measured, 'rational centre' critique of the Bush administration, which targets institutional failure. It is also critical of the binary view many have of the world (ie anti-Bush = anti-capitalist or good muslim/bad muslim - see Mamdani's recent book of the same name for a review of the origins of post-Cold War terrorism). Neither Stefan Halper nor Jonathon Clarke could be described as being even remotely left-wing (Stefan Halper was a political staffer in the Reagan White House before he broke into academia, yes Magdalen, Cantab), yet both are critical of the neo-conservative trend that is pervading the US (and parts of the parliamentary Labour Party).
You suggest that the UK should break its treaty obligations with Europe? Abandon the North Atlantic Treaty & Treaty of Rome? Allow the possible development of a Franco-German political alliance in Europe? What would the Kremlin make of that? What about the recently-admitted Baltic states (which, inter alia, the UK is providing AD for). Perhaps you feel that we can turn back the inexorable (and, on many occasions punitive) nature of globalisation - a process that commenced many, many years ago - and not in 1989, which is a date many ill-informed observers seem to use.
It is important to consider how NATO is viewed through other lenses (Ooooo! Look! Social science term...burn him, I say!). If you are in a CEE state, NATO represents a real, tangible bulwark against Russian hegemony. If you are in Romania, and have an unstable Ukraine on your border, who'ya gonna call? I accept that the Maghreb can't distinguish between NATO and the EU, apart from one or two players who actively assist NATO Ops. Germany is still severly constrained by the US/UK/FR imposed constitution (vide the angst about employing troops in the Balkans, and their inability to carry out CRC).
Yes, go ahead, break with Europe; will the US give a damn? Will it increase UK 'independence', led by Robert Kilroy-Silk?
CC
The clue is in the name
Last edited by Cambridge Crash; 17th Feb 2005 at 08:11.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really want to polarize the world even more, and dismatle the relativly stable structure in NATO? No organization of that size is going to work without (major) problems, but is the alternative really better?
If you want to cut all ties with europe, and crawl under the wings of the cowboys, the ones complaining about to many deployments abroad, might get even more of them.
Rgds, M609 (I'm leaving for Siauliai Lithuania to join the nato QRA det. today actually.)
If you want to cut all ties with europe, and crawl under the wings of the cowboys, the ones complaining about to many deployments abroad, might get even more of them.
Rgds, M609 (I'm leaving for Siauliai Lithuania to join the nato QRA det. today actually.)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cambridge Crash
I wish I hadn't posted here!!!!
Whatever it is you're on, I should knock if off, 'cos its pickling yer brain old chum!
Spotter FC
No I havn't sacked him (yet!) but I have let the old boy go on some damned fool-arsed 'reunion of service butlers' convention somewhere or other! I hope he will be back soon because after CC's comments I'm in desparate need of a very, very large drop of grouse!
Kind regards
TSM
I wish I hadn't posted here!!!!
Whatever it is you're on, I should knock if off, 'cos its pickling yer brain old chum!
Spotter FC
No I havn't sacked him (yet!) but I have let the old boy go on some damned fool-arsed 'reunion of service butlers' convention somewhere or other! I hope he will be back soon because after CC's comments I'm in desparate need of a very, very large drop of grouse!
Kind regards
TSM
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM and Spotter,
Sorry to disagree, chaps, but I think our continued membership of NATO is essential. It's true that membership is expensive and that the pork-barrel politics is infuriating, but it's the only credible game in town as far as providing a counter to the possible recrudecence of a threat from the East is concerned.
Militarily, the EU is all mouth, and will remain so until the richer nations are prepared to put their hands deeper into their pockets. And that ain't gonna happen any time soon.
I've done 2 NATO tours - one as an exchange officer and one at SHAPE. At the worker level, in my experience, NATO functions extremely well, until national politics come into play - and that's a feature of any alliance. If you want allies - and I believe the UK needs more than just the USA - then political interference is something you just have to put up with.
So, how are we going to get all those overseas posts re-established ?
Sorry to disagree, chaps, but I think our continued membership of NATO is essential. It's true that membership is expensive and that the pork-barrel politics is infuriating, but it's the only credible game in town as far as providing a counter to the possible recrudecence of a threat from the East is concerned.
Militarily, the EU is all mouth, and will remain so until the richer nations are prepared to put their hands deeper into their pockets. And that ain't gonna happen any time soon.
I've done 2 NATO tours - one as an exchange officer and one at SHAPE. At the worker level, in my experience, NATO functions extremely well, until national politics come into play - and that's a feature of any alliance. If you want allies - and I believe the UK needs more than just the USA - then political interference is something you just have to put up with.
So, how are we going to get all those overseas posts re-established ?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BM
As I said - the concept is fine. The implementation, or rather the behemoth it has evolved into (Sub-committee on the Challenges of Modern Life anyone? -I AM NOT JOKING!!!) is not.
Spotter
As I said - the concept is fine. The implementation, or rather the behemoth it has evolved into (Sub-committee on the Challenges of Modern Life anyone? -I AM NOT JOKING!!!) is not.
Spotter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotter,
Sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. Fundamentally, we agree, I think - THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT! My point is, the bo!!ocks that goes with the huge alliance is a price worth paying.
I can't think, offhand, of any international organisation that doesn't have some bo!!ocks going on. You just can't stop the politicoes showboating to their political constituencies, to$$ers that they are. Sadly, since we belong to an organisation that is subject to political control, we get dragged into it from time to time.
Fact of life, I'm afraid, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. Fundamentally, we agree, I think - THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT! My point is, the bo!!ocks that goes with the huge alliance is a price worth paying.
I can't think, offhand, of any international organisation that doesn't have some bo!!ocks going on. You just can't stop the politicoes showboating to their political constituencies, to$$ers that they are. Sadly, since we belong to an organisation that is subject to political control, we get dragged into it from time to time.
Fact of life, I'm afraid, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BM,
I am genuingly not convinced that our continued membership is ESSENTIAL.
Why is it? NATO will function in its own perculiar way whether the Brits are in or not. Likewise, the Brits will do their own thing, with or without NATO.........remember the Falklands?
Op Veritas?
GW2?
Where were NATO then? Nowhere to be seen, thank you very much. And what about all that rubbish in the alliance about 'an attack on one is an attack on all???...................... utter tosh!
I hate to disagree, but NATO has little credability left, especially with anyone who has had the misfortune to have worked directly with (or as is often the case) without them! Frankly, they are little more than a tin-pot weekend TA unit. Sorry.
Kind regards to all
TSM
I am genuingly not convinced that our continued membership is ESSENTIAL.
Why is it? NATO will function in its own perculiar way whether the Brits are in or not. Likewise, the Brits will do their own thing, with or without NATO.........remember the Falklands?
Op Veritas?
GW2?
Where were NATO then? Nowhere to be seen, thank you very much. And what about all that rubbish in the alliance about 'an attack on one is an attack on all???...................... utter tosh!
I hate to disagree, but NATO has little credability left, especially with anyone who has had the misfortune to have worked directly with (or as is often the case) without them! Frankly, they are little more than a tin-pot weekend TA unit. Sorry.
Kind regards to all
TSM
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATO
TSM
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Art V was invoked by the NAC on 12 Sep 01; the US steadfastly refused multilateral invovlment in Afghanistan except those who could directly assist (eg UK and France). This was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder that the Bush administration made immediately after 9/11.
Patrols in the Eastern Med commenced a few weeks later - these still continue and cover the whole of the Med. And NATO didn't get involved in George Bush's war of choice (did Sadam Hussein attack a NATO partner?), and amongst a plethora of other assets, NATO assigned Patriot Batteries were deployed in defence of Turkey, as were NATO AWACS (much to the consternation of the US). NATO members (including those steadfastly opposed to the war in Iraq) also provided FPB counter-terror escorts through STROG for US merchant and USNS vessels and extensive Q route surveys were also conducted by NATO.
Falklands? Under what circumstances could NATO get involved in an extra-territorial campaign? Overseas terroritories were - and are - specifically excluded from the North Atlantic Treaty, with the exception of the Canary Islands, as indeed they are under UN Charter Chapter VII. It was under this principle that NATO could not get involved when Morrocan troops occupied the Parasil Islands off North Africa in 2002 - which constitute Spanish territory. As I am sure you can recall, NATO MC allowed the UK to down-declare NATO assigned assets so the the UK could deploy a much larger task force in the South Atlantic.
As I also mentioned in an earlier post, NATO doesn't exist solely for the defence of the UK - one should consider the tangible contribution to the rehabilitation of Eastern Europe that NATO has made under the accession protocols. Call it soft security, but the use of force is but one way to defeat an 'enemy'. There is also the legal obligation on the UK of pacta sund servanda, ie the treaty is legally binding.
CC
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Art V was invoked by the NAC on 12 Sep 01; the US steadfastly refused multilateral invovlment in Afghanistan except those who could directly assist (eg UK and France). This was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder that the Bush administration made immediately after 9/11.
Patrols in the Eastern Med commenced a few weeks later - these still continue and cover the whole of the Med. And NATO didn't get involved in George Bush's war of choice (did Sadam Hussein attack a NATO partner?), and amongst a plethora of other assets, NATO assigned Patriot Batteries were deployed in defence of Turkey, as were NATO AWACS (much to the consternation of the US). NATO members (including those steadfastly opposed to the war in Iraq) also provided FPB counter-terror escorts through STROG for US merchant and USNS vessels and extensive Q route surveys were also conducted by NATO.
Falklands? Under what circumstances could NATO get involved in an extra-territorial campaign? Overseas terroritories were - and are - specifically excluded from the North Atlantic Treaty, with the exception of the Canary Islands, as indeed they are under UN Charter Chapter VII. It was under this principle that NATO could not get involved when Morrocan troops occupied the Parasil Islands off North Africa in 2002 - which constitute Spanish territory. As I am sure you can recall, NATO MC allowed the UK to down-declare NATO assigned assets so the the UK could deploy a much larger task force in the South Atlantic.
As I also mentioned in an earlier post, NATO doesn't exist solely for the defence of the UK - one should consider the tangible contribution to the rehabilitation of Eastern Europe that NATO has made under the accession protocols. Call it soft security, but the use of force is but one way to defeat an 'enemy'. There is also the legal obligation on the UK of pacta sund servanda, ie the treaty is legally binding.
CC
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC
Why use 10 words when 688 will do eh?
Sorry my dear chap, I don't agree with you at all.
I don't want a bl$$dy history lesson, I'm just telling you FIRST HAND that NATO is rubbish.
Thats it, rant over and switches back to safe
(awaiting your next installment of War & Peace)
Kind regards
TSM
Why use 10 words when 688 will do eh?
Sorry my dear chap, I don't agree with you at all.
I don't want a bl$$dy history lesson, I'm just telling you FIRST HAND that NATO is rubbish.
Thats it, rant over and switches back to safe
(awaiting your next installment of War & Peace)
Kind regards
TSM
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
SM
C'mon old thing, leave off CC - you started the history bit! Great mistake allowing Carruthers to bog off.
I'm with CC, BM & M609. Worked as part of NATO for 12 years, and whilst much has changed since the end of the C War, I see nothing that makes NATO redundant; it may well be imperfect and frustrating at times, but if it ain't broke (and IMHO it isn't), and there's nothing with with which to replace it, don't dismantle it, work at making it work. I would be nervous if the modernists were to kick it into touch.
C'mon old thing, leave off CC - you started the history bit! Great mistake allowing Carruthers to bog off.
I'm with CC, BM & M609. Worked as part of NATO for 12 years, and whilst much has changed since the end of the C War, I see nothing that makes NATO redundant; it may well be imperfect and frustrating at times, but if it ain't broke (and IMHO it isn't), and there's nothing with with which to replace it, don't dismantle it, work at making it work. I would be nervous if the modernists were to kick it into touch.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
Maybe I've got the wrong end of your stick here, but I am NOT advocating 'binning' NATO. I am simply pointing out that it does not work, certainly NOT in the way if was created for.
CC Sorry to be so rude about your historynlesson old bean! I was in need of some Grouse and with Caruthers away, I had run out and was suffering from the 'withdrawl sympom thingies!' - do forgive me.
Lond live NATO, but lets run it the way it should be run eh??
Kind regards
TSM
'Caruthers, good to see you back, now cut away to Tescos and get stocked up on the Famous Stuff!!'
Maybe I've got the wrong end of your stick here, but I am NOT advocating 'binning' NATO. I am simply pointing out that it does not work, certainly NOT in the way if was created for.
CC Sorry to be so rude about your historynlesson old bean! I was in need of some Grouse and with Caruthers away, I had run out and was suffering from the 'withdrawl sympom thingies!' - do forgive me.
Lond live NATO, but lets run it the way it should be run eh??
Kind regards
TSM
'Caruthers, good to see you back, now cut away to Tescos and get stocked up on the Famous Stuff!!'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transformers...
TSM - thanks for your comments. No offence taken.
How would you like NATO to be run, bearing in mind the defence of the Sovereign state is an inviolable and unalieanble right? UN Charter Art 51 describes the 'inherent - ie natural - right of Self Defence' and as such it is rarely delegated by a State; although States can agree to collective self defence under Chapter VII. In other words, States are loathed to allow other parties to make unilateral decisions about their sovereign right of self defence, so the one country - one vote principle - with right of veto, will continue in the North Atlantic Council. Thus, at least theoretically, Lithuania has the same weight as the US, under the equality principle of pari parem non habet imperium ie no state should be expected to submit to the laws, rule and findings of another.
Considerable restructuring has taken place in the course of the 18 months under the Transformation programme. The Joint Sub Regional Commands (which served no operational purpose, save for augmentation) have been abolished. The NRF has been stood up, which has raised the game for all participants. The two declared JFCs have trimmed staffing levels and drastically reduced the numbers of civilian staff, and are increasingly being run as a joint HQ should. This is a remarkable effort given the political needs of 26 nations - and the political climate since 9/11 - albeit that some political compromises continue.
I am not here as a NATO appologist; I am simply a student of political-military affairs. The NATO alliance, whilst not without many faults, is a remarkable organisation without historical precedence or parallel.
CC
ps Thank God you're back Carruthers! Your chap is in need of some attention!
How would you like NATO to be run, bearing in mind the defence of the Sovereign state is an inviolable and unalieanble right? UN Charter Art 51 describes the 'inherent - ie natural - right of Self Defence' and as such it is rarely delegated by a State; although States can agree to collective self defence under Chapter VII. In other words, States are loathed to allow other parties to make unilateral decisions about their sovereign right of self defence, so the one country - one vote principle - with right of veto, will continue in the North Atlantic Council. Thus, at least theoretically, Lithuania has the same weight as the US, under the equality principle of pari parem non habet imperium ie no state should be expected to submit to the laws, rule and findings of another.
Considerable restructuring has taken place in the course of the 18 months under the Transformation programme. The Joint Sub Regional Commands (which served no operational purpose, save for augmentation) have been abolished. The NRF has been stood up, which has raised the game for all participants. The two declared JFCs have trimmed staffing levels and drastically reduced the numbers of civilian staff, and are increasingly being run as a joint HQ should. This is a remarkable effort given the political needs of 26 nations - and the political climate since 9/11 - albeit that some political compromises continue.
I am not here as a NATO appologist; I am simply a student of political-military affairs. The NATO alliance, whilst not without many faults, is a remarkable organisation without historical precedence or parallel.
CC
ps Thank God you're back Carruthers! Your chap is in need of some attention!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC
I understand that you are probably far more emmenantly qualified to talk about NATO and its history blah.
I am simply talking as someone who has worked directly with NATO at the front end.
I flew NATO AWACS during GW1, and I wasn't joking when I said I came the closest to dyeing in an aeroplane, and if it wasn't for a pretty switched on Canadian, we may well have scratched 17 crew.
Maybe I am being a bit simplistic, but it makes a mockery of NATO when you find that aircraft cannot take off from GK on this day, because of this bit of niff naff. The Italiamns can't fly on this day because its the Popes birthday or whatever. Come on, if you work within NATO, you will know exactly what I am reffering to.
This is what is wrong with NATO, the day-to-day running of a 'so-called' fighting force.
Of course I can only speak about the flying side, and AEW in particular, but I have litttle doubt that things are the same with the grunts on the ground??
Anyway, I'm not knocking it with a view of binning it, just putting in my 'two penneth' of personal experience.
kind regards
TSM
ps Caruthers says its good to be back, and he's doing his best to getting me back in line!
I understand that you are probably far more emmenantly qualified to talk about NATO and its history blah.
I am simply talking as someone who has worked directly with NATO at the front end.
I flew NATO AWACS during GW1, and I wasn't joking when I said I came the closest to dyeing in an aeroplane, and if it wasn't for a pretty switched on Canadian, we may well have scratched 17 crew.
Maybe I am being a bit simplistic, but it makes a mockery of NATO when you find that aircraft cannot take off from GK on this day, because of this bit of niff naff. The Italiamns can't fly on this day because its the Popes birthday or whatever. Come on, if you work within NATO, you will know exactly what I am reffering to.
This is what is wrong with NATO, the day-to-day running of a 'so-called' fighting force.
Of course I can only speak about the flying side, and AEW in particular, but I have litttle doubt that things are the same with the grunts on the ground??
Anyway, I'm not knocking it with a view of binning it, just putting in my 'two penneth' of personal experience.
kind regards
TSM
ps Caruthers says its good to be back, and he's doing his best to getting me back in line!