David Stockman: ‘NATO is Obsolete; We Should Get Rid of It’

[drbrumley]

David Stockman: ‘NATO is Obsolete; We Should Get Rid of It’
Written by Adam Dick
Tuesday January 22, 2019

MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski seemed taken aback when economics and politics writer David Stockman told her in a Monday interview:

“NATO is obsolete; we should get rid of it.” Brzezinski followed up, asking, “are you saying that we should pull out of NATO?”

“Sure,” replied Stockman, a former United States House of Representatives member. He then provided a rundown of some of his reasoning:

NATO’s obsolete. It was only set up to stop the Soviet Union with 50,000 tanks on the Warsaw front. That ended 25 years ago. We don’t need NATO. Europe can take care of itself. Russia’s a pint-sized economy — seven percent the size of the US economy. NATO-US GDP combined is 36 trillion. Russia’s is 1.5 trillion. You think the Europeans can’t handle it? Germany spends one percent only of GDP on defense. If they really thought that the Russians were heading through the Brandenburg Gate, they would be providing for their own defense. They’re not pacifists."

In response, Brzezinski said the Morning Joe show will need to invite Stockman back to talk more about NATO, commenting “there might be a few people who want to debate you on that.” Hopefully, that does happen. It would be good TV.

Stockman, who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Ronald Reagan administration, also discusses in the interview the American economy, calling the stock market “way overvalued” and warning a recession is on the way.

Watch Stockman’s complete interview here:

 

[Aimiel]

We should have dumped it years ago... along with the UN.

 

[jgarden]

We should have dumped it years ago... along with the UN.

Its too bad that America's NATO allies weren't informed that their services were no longer needed nor appreciated after 9/11, when they joined with the US to defeat Al Qaeda - it would have saved then a lot of money and lives!

 

[ok doser]

Its too bad that America's NATO allies weren't ...

i don't think brum's article's author is suggesting that we unfriend them on Facebook

 

[Aimiel]

With or without a NATO alliance, we'll still have allies who will stand against the enemies of freedom, on any front.

 

[jgarden]

With or without a NATO alliance, we'll still have allies who will stand against the enemies of freedom, on any front.

Just whom might those allies be given that "The Donald" has personally insulted most of them and their leaders - starting with Canada with whom America shares 5250 miles of border!

 

[drbrumley]

Just whom might those allies be given that "The Donald" has personally insulted most of them and their leaders - starting with Canada with whom America shares 5250 miles of border!

Care to give an answer to this? I'm listening...

"NATO’s obsolete. It was only set up to stop the Soviet Union with 50,000 tanks on the Warsaw front. That ended 25 years ago. We don’t need NATO. Europe can take care of itself. Russia’s a pint-sized economy — seven percent the size of the US economy. NATO-US GDP combined is 36 trillion. Russia’s is 1.5 trillion. You think the Europeans can’t handle it? Germany spends one percent only of GDP on defense. If they really thought that the Russians were heading through the Brandenburg Gate, they would be providing for their own defense. They’re not pacifists."

 

[ok doser]

Care to give an answer to this? I'm listening...

"NATO’s obsolete. It was only set up to stop the Soviet Union with 50,000 tanks on the Warsaw front. That ended 25 years ago. We don’t need NATO. Europe can take care of itself. Russia’s a pint-sized economy — seven percent the size of the US economy. NATO-US GDP combined is 36 trillion. Russia’s is 1.5 trillion. You think the Europeans can’t handle it? Germany spends one percent only of GDP on defense. If they really thought that the Russians were heading through the Brandenburg Gate, they would be providing for their own defense. They’re not pacifists."

 

[Aimiel]

Just whom might those allies be given that "The Donald" has personally insulted most of them and their leaders - starting with Canada with whom America shares 5250 miles of border!

Every country that has even a lick o' sense. :duh:

... unless you know something I don't; last I checked: no allies had declared the United States of America their enemy.

 

[ok doser]

Just whom might those allies be given that "The Donald" has personally insulted most of them and their leaders - starting with Canada with whom America shares 5250 miles of border!

educate your dumb self: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=the-canada-u-s-defence-relationship/hob7hd8s

 

[jgarden]

Care to give an answer to this? I'm listening...

"NATO’s obsolete. It was only set up to stop the Soviet Union with 50,000 tanks on the Warsaw front. That ended 25 years ago. We don’t need NATO. Europe can take care of itself. Russia’s a pint-sized economy — seven percent the size of the US economy. NATO-US GDP combined is 36 trillion. Russia’s is 1.5 trillion. You think the Europeans can’t handle it? Germany spends one percent only of GDP on defense. If they really thought that the Russians were heading through the Brandenburg Gate, they would be providing for their own defense. They’re not pacifists."

NATO was established on the premise that an attack against one is an attack against all - given that this has prevented another World War for almost 75 years, nobody from the US military seriously questions the value of this alliance!

The era of American "isolationism" disappeared s of December 7, 1941 - putting one's faith in border walls and cutting ties with NATO allies doesn't make the US safer!

North Korea has already demonstrated that even nations with "pint-sized economies" can pose a serious military threat to world peace!

 

[Aimiel]

Anyone who presumes North Korea as more than a pint-sized threat is unaware of US military capability. Same goes for Iran, Yemen, etc..

 

[drbrumley]

NATO was established on the premise that an attack against one is an attack against all - given that this has prevented another World War for almost 75 years, nobody from the US military seriously questions the value of this alliance!

More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose — for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989—1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased.

The era of American "isolationism" disappeared s of December 7, 1941 - putting one's faith in border walls and cutting ties with NATO allies doesn't make the US safer!

North Korea has already demonstrated that even nations with "pint-sized economies" can pose a serious military threat to world peace!

Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with "economic, social and political difficulties…ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states," in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.

And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign state that threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In Yugoslavia, NATO abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of the illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself: NATO troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has been attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent dependency on US foreign aid.

The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond.

Thanks to Ron Paul for the answer.

 

[drbrumley]

In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.