Mr. Gates is relentless, and the American press cites him profusely:
“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” Mr. Gates said.
Mr. Gates complained of what he called a “two-tiered” membership structure, “between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership but don’t want to share the risks and the costs.” He added that some NATO partners are “apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/europe/11gates.html
This is just a plain bullying. But yes, he is partially right - it was the NATO's upper tier: France and Great Britain - that, for whatever reason they had, started all of that. But Mr. Gates should be advised to re-read what was already said two months ago in Washington Post:
Think about it: There was no NATO discussion of the operation, no debate, no vote, no joint planning. Technically, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization operates only in the wake of an attack on a NATO member. The war in Afghanistan followed such an attack and was, in the beginning, widely perceived as a war against a common enemy. Libya is different: There was no attack, there is no common enemy, and now there is no consensus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-the-libya-intervention-bri ng-the-end-of-nato/2011/04/11/AFhvpoMD_story.html
|
