Politics

[mdwest]

How many countries were in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11? It was the only time Article 5 was invoked.

I have no doubt if a NATO country were invaded/attacked Trump's first reaction would be "What's in it for me?"

We already know he speaks loudly and carries a twig. Look at what he did with Iran, told people of Iran that he was with them, gave ultimatums to mullahs about killing demonstrators and TACOed even though tens of thousands seem to be killed and more to come.

See earlier post..

51 countries participated in Afghanistan in some capacity (most with troops on the ground, but some helped with logistics, provision of airspace, etc only).

50 participated in Iraq (actual boots on the ground).

FAR more non NATO countries got involved in both conflicts than NATO countries.. in Iraq in particular several NATO countries sat it out..

Regarding Article 5, believing that was all of our "friends" rushing to the aid of the US is naive.. all 18 standing members of NATO voted in favor of invasion.. 4 NATO nations had been attacked by Al Queda prior to 9/11.. planned/attempted attacks were foiled in 4 others.. 9 NATO countries lost citizens in the 9/11 attack... All of NATO had skin in the game and all of NATO wanted to rid the world of Al Queda (as well as 33 non NATO nations)... Article 5 being invoked had little to nothing to do with US security and foreign interests.. it had everything to do with NATO security and NATO's foreign interests as well as the foreign interests of most of the NATO nations individually..

 

[Brent in Az]

How many countries were in Afghanistan after 9/11? It was the only time Article 5 was invoked.

I have no doubt if a NATO country were invaded/attacked Trump's first reaction would be "What's in it for me?"

We already know he speaks loudly and carries a twig. Look at what he did with Iran, told people of Iran that he was with them, gave ultimatums to mullahs about killing demonstrators and TACOed even though tens of thousands seem to be killed and more to come.

Edit: Oooops, I guess others posted the same thing for the most part.

Oh good gawd man.

I think I'll go beat my head on a brick wall. Less painful then trying to get a point across with this lot.

 

[Red Leg]

Oh good gawd man.

I think I'll go beat my head on a brick wall. Less painful then trying to get a point across with this lot.

Illogical or incomprehensible points are that way.

 

[Aaron N]

Whether Iraq thing was to finish off what Sr started or not is completely inconsequential..

If the argument is going to be made that NATO is "loyal" to the US and is going to support whatever the US demands.. well.. that is clearly false... some of NATO chose to support the US in Iraq... and some of NATO chose not to...

24 Canadians died on 9/11... 67 brits died on 9/11... 11 Germans.. 3 French.. 10 Italians.. 1 from Spain.. 1 from Sweden.. Perhaps all of those countries had skin in the game on 9/11, and that was a motivator for them all voting yes to Article 5 on 9/12?

I dont believe NATO would leave the US high and dry.. not because of any loyalty to the US.. most of Europe and much of Canada has made it pretty clear what they think of the US.. and not just when Trump is in office (if just gets worse with Trump).. they wouldnt leave the US high and dry, because its simply not in their interest to do so... no matter how much NATO might hate to admit it, NATO is incredibly vulnerable without the US, and NATO knows it..

I also dont think the US would leave NATO high and dry... if anyone has missed it, the US is pretty warlike... 20+ years in Iraq and Afghanistan.. Syria.. Gulf War 1, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam.. strikes in Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela, Iran, etc..etc.. all are in just my lifetime.. The US isnt going to miss an opportunity to flex muscles and push its military might.. if NATO calls, the US will be there.. anyone that thinks otherwise is clearly not paying attention...

The US however wont get involved because its being "nice".. it will get involved because it is in its national interest to do so.. the list of benefits for the US war machine staying engaged (both in peacetime and in war) is lengthy..

Another thought I had while nailing some trim in the basement, NATO is a defense pact, “The organization serves as a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any outside party.”

If you want to be a warmonger and be the aggressor, the organization does not have to follow your lead. Hence Iraq. If the UK wanted to re-take India, no one is required to assist. BUT if a member country were to be attacked, then every country better damn well get boots on the ground, and I am certain every member would, should Siberian troops land in Alaska.

 

[Red Leg]

We've been down the Afghanistan path before.. Most of the world participated in Afghanistan.. it was not just NATO..

Australia
Jordan
Georgia
New Zealand
Sweden
Finland
South Korea
UAE
Azerbaijan
Bosnia
Ireland
Maylasia
Singapore
Tonga
El Salvador
Colombia
Macedonia
Switzerland
Ukraine
Kyrgestan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbeckistan
Pakistan
Japan
Egypt
and even RUSSIA

all participated to one degree or another.. NONE of those countries were members of NATO at the time they were involved in Afghanistan... None of them had an obligation to the US.. and most of the NATO members participating got involved for reasons not related to the US..

some of the countries listed above are not even remotely friendly toward the US.. many of those countries do minimal trade with the US.. and again, NONE of them were bound by any treaty, pact, alliance, or otherwise..

The world participated in Afghanistan because the world recognized it was in the worlds best interest to rid itself of the problem of Al Queda... The world participated in Afghanistan because many of those countries saw it as an opportunity to field test their troops and equipment in a tough environment and prove their battle readiness and to battle harden them (believe it or not, a lot of people in the military, regardless of which country they serve, WANT to go to war.. they are warriors.. its what they train their entire lives for.. they want to be proven.. and their countries want to know they are capable if/when the time comes and they are needed)..

Lets not forget that prior to the invasion in 2001, Al Queda had attacked not only the US, but had also attacked Germany and France (France multiple times)..

Plots were foiled where Al Queda planned on attacking Canada, Spain, and the UK.. Al Queda actively participated in the Bosnian war.. They supported militants in Russia (specifically Chechnyia)..

If you think everyone jumped in solely because of some loyalty to the US or even NATO.. youre fooling yourself..

Canada specifically knew it would be attacked sooner or later by Al Queda (again, multiple plots had already been foiled prior to 2001)..

And.. if we want to play the "remember Afghanistan" game... I'd ask, where was Canada and most of NATO in Iraq? Where was France? What about Germany? how about Belgium?

Article 5 was invoked on Sept 12, 2001.. All 18 members of NATO unanimously voted in favor.. there was not a single vote of dissent.. everyone WANTED to take out Al Queda.. it was in each countrys national interest and in the collective interest of all of NATO..

Iraq was a "coalition of the willing".. the US literally said they would accept the assistance of anyone that wanted to be involved..

And the most of the largest militaries in NATO outside of the US chose to sit on the sidelines..

While, oh by the way, several NON NATO countries did get directly involved in Iraq... Australia, Ukraine, El Salvador, South Korea, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, Japan, and many others (43 nations in total) all fought in Iraq... but.. again... Germany, France, Canada, and Belgium.. all NATO members.. all large forces in NATO.. sat it out..

In fact, Canada went so far as to declare it would not go to Iraq unless the UN mandated it...

You and I agree at about the 95% level on most issues, but assuming I am reading the intent of your post correctly, Iraq is a red herring. The Article 5 evocation had everything to do with collective defense against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. On 9/11, I was part of the briefing team (all three of us) that went to the Hill late that evening to offer the Army's high confidence assessment the terrorists were Al Quaeda and that Bin Laden and his leadership group were in Afghanistan. That was hardly a surprising assessment, and NATO along with, as you correctly note, a number of other nations, stepped up to support operations against this common enemy.

Iraq was very different. It had not attacked a NATO member. It is why the US did not attempt to make the case for NATO collective defense, but rather attempted to duplicate the success of George H W Bush and Margaret Thatcher in putting together a Euro / Arab coalition. We can debate the wisdom of the invasion or the courses of action taken over the long years of American occupation for pages of this thread. But, they are irrelevant to the issue of NATO, as a treaty organization, noninvolvement in Iraq.

 

[Brent in Az]

Illogical or incomprehensible points are that way.

No shortage of conjecture and emotional based opinion around here.

 

[Alistair]

Oh good gawd man.

I think I'll go beat my head on a brick wall. Less painful then trying to get a point across with this lot.

Fine.

I guess I'll explicitly answer your question.

The US motherland gets invaded. Or more realistically, you guys need to fight China for Taiwan, or S Korean... again. Would NATO step up?

18 months ago, that was a resounding, 100% yes. No doubt. No hesitation. There's historical precedent; Bosnia. Kosovo. Afghanistan. Libya. Iraq. Afghanistan. Anti piracy support in Somalia. Anti drug support in S America. Australians and new zealanders died in Vietnam, and brits and aussies died in Korea.

The nato nations trusted that the US would honor its nato commitments, and in turn they'd follow theirs. It's a trust based system, and the trust was never in doubt.

Today, the situation is a little different. Most nato members don't 100% trust that the US would do the same. Unless it benefits them.

There's a very high probability that this administration would demand bribes or other forms of payment in order to fulfill their obligations. Just the same as they did for Ukraine, and are trying to do with Greenland. Many seriously worry if they'd fulfill then at all. The more nervous (and frankly, slightly silly) ones see a world in which the us might even be the enemy. The trust is gone, or at least is seriously degraded.

In that context, well. It's hardly unreasonable for other nato members to play the same game. Oh no, the us is being threatened and you want nato support? Let's chat about those tariffs, maybe a bit of reverse lend lease is in order... etc, etc.

The US wants a purely transactional foreign policy. Only fair to give them one.

For what it's worth, I don't think relations have broken down to the point that the support is really in any doubt. NATO would still step up, the alliance would survive.

But even the fact that it's a question... is a big problem.

 

[Brent in Az]

Fine.

I guess I'll explicitly answer your question.

The US motherland gets invaded. Or more realistically, you guys need to fight China for Taiwan, or S Korean... again. Would NATO step up?

18 months ago, that was a resounding, 100% yes. No doubt. No hesitation. There's historical precedent; Bosnia. Kosovo. Afghanistan. Libya. Iraq. Afghanistan. Anti piracy support in Somalia. Anti drug support in S America. Australians and new zealanders died in Vietnam, and brits and aussies died in Korea.

The nato nations trusted that the US would honor its nato commitments, and in turn they'd follow theirs. It's a trust based system, and the trust was never in doubt.

Today, the situation is a little different. Most nato members don't 100% trust that the US would do the same. Unless it benefits them.

There's a very high probability that this administration would demand bribes or other forms of payment in order to fulfill their obligations. Just the same as they did for Ukraine, and are trying to do with Greenland. Many seriously worry if they'd fulfill then at all. The more nervous (and frankly, slightly silly) ones see a world in which the us might even be the enemy. The trust is gone, or at least is seriously degraded.

In that context, well. It's hardly unreasonable for other nato members to play the same game. Oh no, the us is being threatened and you want nato support? Let's chat about those tariffs, maybe a bit of reverse lend lease is in order... etc, etc.

The US wants a purely transactional foreign policy. Only fair to give them one.

For what it's worth, I don't think relations have broken down to the point that the support is really in any doubt. NATO would still step up, the alliance would survive.

But even the fact that it's a question... is a big problem.

There is some truth to some of this, but it seems to be flavored.with anti Trump bias, and somewhat skewed.
Bribes?
As far as the Ukraine, Zelinskyy basically stabbed Trump in the back and brought it upon himself. Z came crawling on his knees when Trump was elected. You dont cross Trump. That is a simple equation in how he does things
What you may perceive as bribery, Trump simply bullies others into paying a fair share.
For to long, NATO, and European countries became far to comfortable with the American dollars paying the Lions share .
Along came Trump.
Trump has rocked the proverbial boat, and called everyone out. Now they have been taken out of their comfort zone, and all of a sudden the U.S is being seen as an unpredictable allie by these very same people? Gimme a break.

It still doesn't answer the question as to what these so called allies would do if the USA was invaded by the combined might of the other Super Powers. Would they bribe us for providing military assistance? Would they spend Trillions ?

It's all theory, as it is highly unlikely the USA will ever be invaded. The next world war will be at Sea, by air, and by missile. I don't foresee boots on the ground in the countries of the super powers.

That begs the question of will there be equal reciprocity?
All of our allies want a Country they can count on, but so do we.
Let's hope we never have to find out.

 

[mdwest]

You and I agree at about the 95% level on most issues, but assuming I am reading the intent of your post correctly, Iraq is a red herring. The Article 5 evocation had everything to do with collective defense against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. On 9/11, I was part of the briefing team (all three of us) that went to the Hill late that evening to offer the Army's high confidence assessment the terrorists were Al Quaeda and that Bin Laden and his leadership group were in Afghanistan. That was hardly a surprising assessment, and NATO along with, as you correctly note, a number of other nations, stepped up to support operations against this common enemy.

Iraq was very different. It had not attacked a NATO member. It is why the US did not attempt to make the case for NATO collective defense, but rather attempted to duplicate the success of George H W Bush and Margaret Thatcher in putting together a Euro / Arab coalition. We can debate the wisdom of the invasion or the courses of action taken over the long years of American occupation for pages of this thread. But, they are irrelevant to the issue of NATO, as a treaty organization, noninvolvement in Iraq.

I think we're actually in agreement on this, and maybe just looking at things from a different vantage point..

I 100% completely agree on everything in your first paragraph..

There is also nothing in your second paragraph I'd dispute..

In my earlier post I stated that Iraq was a "coalition of the willing"... there was no attempt to or as I understand it, desire to invoke article 5.. not unlike other conflicts (Gulf War 1, Vietnam, etc) where we have fought with a coalition or partner nations and not invoked article 5..

My point was a counter to Aarons post about NATO reliably jumping in to assist the US whenever it calls vs the US's willingness to do the same for NATO..

4 major NATO countries (including Canada) chose to sit Iraq out.. They thought it wasnt in their national interest to engage, so they didnt.. While 33 nations that were not NATO members chose to get involved..

The US did call upon its NATO allies (ie those that are willing to fight are free to join us), without calling for a vote on Article 5.. Some NATO allies made the choice not to get involved, while others (UK, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Portugal, and Turkey) made the choice to get involved..

Some (Canada as an example) went out of its way to not only not answer the call, but to make it clear that it would only consider joining the coalition if Iraq became a UN action..

My point to Aaron was simply that countries will act in their own strategic interest.. they dont just blindly follow the US wherever it leads out of niceness or being a "friend".. and there should be no expectation that the US would blindly follow another NATO nation either...

Trump is an asshole.. I dont think anyone to include the most avid Trump followers would dispute that..

but, Trump or not, I dont see that as any reason to believe that were Article 5 invoked tomorrow (which I dont think most on this forum understand requires that ALL 32 members of NATO have to vote yes to invoke Article 5.. a unanimous decision is an absolute requirement) that the US wouldnt participate in the supposed conflict.. The US would have had to have already voted "yes" and agreed to the fight to have Article 5 invoked in the first place.. The US then suddenly deciding to not send troops would be nonsensical...

 

[mdwest]

Fine.

I guess I'll explicitly answer your question.

The US motherland gets invaded. Or more realistically, you guys need to fight China for Taiwan, or S Korean... again. Would NATO step up?

18 months ago, that was a resounding, 100% yes. No doubt. No hesitation. There's historical precedent; Bosnia. Kosovo. Afghanistan. Libya. Iraq. Afghanistan. Anti piracy support in Somalia. Anti drug support in S America. Australians and new zealanders died in Vietnam, and brits and aussies died in Korea.

The nato nations trusted that the US would honor its nato commitments, and in turn they'd follow theirs. It's a trust based system, and the trust was never in doubt.

Today, the situation is a little different. Most nato members don't 100% trust that the US would do the same. Unless it benefits them.

There's a very high probability that this administration would demand bribes or other forms of payment in order to fulfill their obligations. Just the same as they did for Ukraine, and are trying to do with Greenland. Many seriously worry if they'd fulfill then at all. The more nervous (and frankly, slightly silly) ones see a world in which the us might even be the enemy. The trust is gone, or at least is seriously degraded.

In that context, well. It's hardly unreasonable for other nato members to play the same game. Oh no, the us is being threatened and you want nato support? Let's chat about those tariffs, maybe a bit of reverse lend lease is in order... etc, etc.

The US wants a purely transactional foreign policy. Only fair to give them one.

For what it's worth, I don't think relations have broken down to the point that the support is really in any doubt. NATO would still step up, the alliance would survive.

But even the fact that it's a question... is a big problem.

you have no understanding of how NATO works..

many NATO nations have been involved in many conflicts.. sometimes other NATO nations are involved, sometimes they are not..

without invoking Article 5, a conflict is NOT a NATO conflict and there is no requirement for any NATO nation to get involved..

As just one example France has been involved in more than a dozen conflicts since NATO was formed.. in some cases they have been part of a coalition, in some cases they have fought on their own (zero assistance from any NATO nation).. and in 1 (Afghanistan) they have participated in a NATO conflict..

Aussies and Kiwis and the South Koreans all fought in Vietnam... None of those countries are NATO.. A few NATO countries (UK, France, Canada) provided limited technical and humanitarian support but did not actually fight.. the rest of NATO sat out (it wasnt a NATO conflict)..

There were 16 member nations in NATO during Bosnia. All got involved, but Bosnia was NOT a NATO conflict, and most did not put troops on the ground (although 12 participated in denying airspace over Bosnia using their air forces)...

All NATO nations HAVE NOT participated in Anti-Piracy operations off the coast of Somalia.. There are 32 NATO member nations currently. 15 NATO nations participated in Operation Ocean Shield. 17 NATO countries sat the bench for that one.. 23 non NATO nations joined the coalition.. several of those countries are actually adversaries of the US and NATO (Russia and China, both participants in Ocean Shield, would be at the top of that list)..

Intervention in the Libya civil war was largely led by NATO countries, but was NOT a NATO action, and many NATO countries sat that one out as well.. 18 NATO countries actively participated (with the US, France, and UK doing the overwhelming majority of the heavy lifting with the other 15 countries playing much more minor roles).. 14 NATO countries played no role at all..

ALL NATO countries participated in Afghanistan because Article 5 was invoked.. ALL NATO countries voted "yes" to the conflict..

MOST NATO countries participated in Iraq.. but several did not.. because it was not a NATO conflict there was no requirement for them to do so..

Regarding "18 months ago" would NATO have stepped up and that being a "resounding yes"..

to what end?

By even the many Europeans admission on this forum Europe wasnt even prepared to adequately support Ukraine... 18 months ago, what exactly was it going to do for the US in the event of a major invasion?

Its only been since NATO started getting kicked in the balls by Trump that theyve even begun the process of modernizing and properly equipping their militaries (with a few exceptions like Poland, which has been out in front of most of the rest of Europe for a fairly long time).. Its great to say "we'll support you"... but talk is cheap.. if you dont have the tools, training, manning, or experience to do it.. then all it is, is talk..

2023 and 2024 studies show that only a tiny fraction of German armor units were operationally capable of deploying..

in 2025, by Canadas own admission, only 40% of its fighters were serviceable and available for immediate operations.. and oh, by the way, those fighters are archaic CF18's that were delivered in 1980.. the first F35 isnt going to be delivered to Canada until later this year and delivery wont be complete on their order until 2032.. those F18's are going to be 52 years old once they are all phased out of service..

and the list goes on and on and on..

Before anyone attempts "the US still flies F18s!".... The F18F Super Hornet is NOT the same animal as the CF18, which is a "legacy" aircraft roughly equivalent to the US F18 A and B models.. The F18E and F models that are still flying in the US Navy are among the most (if not the most) advanced 4th generation fighters on earth.. The US phased out the last legacy hornet in 2019 and started phasing them out many years before that.. The US has also already started phasing out the Super Hornets.. the Navy and USMC are expected to be rid of their last Super Hornet no later than 2032..

 

[spike.t]

 

[SaintPanzer]

OK... I remember Afghanistan. I mean, I was there. I even have a NATO medal for having been there. So yeah, I know about NATO in Afghanistan.

There is a difference between Article V, and Article IV. It's important to know the difference, and important to know when each was used.

Oh, now that we've discussed other nations involved in Afghanistan, let's discuss the term "National Caveats". Those are important too.

PS: See "Myth 1".

Unpacking Misconceptions About NATO’s Role in Afghanistan - Seton Hall University

Sara Bjerg Moller, Ph.D., of the School of Diplomacy and International Relations, offers analysis of the geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

www.shu.edu

Five Myths About NATO and Afghanistan

Commentators trying to pass blame for the handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal get the alliance's role in the conflict wrong.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[Sideshow]

you have no understanding of how NATO works..

many NATO nations have been involved in many conflicts.. sometimes other NATO nations are involved, sometimes they are not..

without invoking Article 5, a conflict is NOT a NATO conflict and there is no requirement for any NATO nation to get involved..

As just one example France has been involved in more than a dozen conflicts since NATO was formed.. in some cases they have been part of a coalition, in some cases they have fought on their own (zero assistance from any NATO nation).. and in 1 (Afghanistan) they have participated in a NATO conflict..

Aussies and Kiwis and the South Koreans all fought in Vietnam... None of those countries are NATO.. A few NATO countries (UK, France, Canada) provided limited technical and humanitarian support but did not actually fight.. the rest of NATO sat out (it wasnt a NATO conflict)..

There were 16 member nations in NATO during Bosnia. All got involved, but Bosnia was NOT a NATO conflict, and most did not put troops on the ground (although 12 participated in denying airspace over Bosnia using their air forces)...

All NATO nations HAVE NOT participated in Anti-Piracy operations off the coast of Somalia.. There are 32 NATO member nations currently. 15 NATO nations participated in Operation Ocean Shield. 17 NATO countries sat the bench for that one.. 23 non NATO nations joined the coalition.. several of those countries are actually adversaries of the US and NATO (Russia and China, both participants in Ocean Shield, would be at the top of that list)..

Intervention in the Libya civil war was largely led by NATO countries, but was NOT a NATO action, and many NATO countries sat that one out as well.. 18 NATO countries actively participated (with the US, France, and UK doing the overwhelming majority of the heavy lifting with the other 15 countries playing much more minor roles).. 14 NATO countries played no role at all..

ALL NATO countries participated in Afghanistan because Article 5 was invoked.. ALL NATO countries voted "yes" to the conflict..

MOST NATO countries participated in Iraq.. but several did not.. because it was not a NATO conflict there was no requirement for them to do so..

Regarding "18 months ago" would NATO have stepped up and that being a "resounding yes"..

to what end?

By even the many Europeans admission on this forum Europe wasnt even prepared to adequately support Ukraine... 18 months ago, what exactly was it going to do for the US in the event of a major invasion?

Its only been since NATO started getting kicked in the balls by Trump that theyve even begun the process of modernizing and properly equipping their militaries (with a few exceptions like Poland, which has been out in front of most of the rest of Europe for a fairly long time).. Its great to say "we'll support you"... but talk is cheap.. if you dont have the tools, training, manning, or experience to do it.. then all it is, is talk..

2023 and 2024 studies show that only a tiny fraction of German armor units were operationally capable of deploying..

in 2025, by Canadas own admission, only 40% of its fighters were serviceable and available for immediate operations.. and oh, by the way, those fighters are archaic CF18's that were delivered in 1980.. the first F35 isnt going to be delivered to Canada until later this year and delivery wont be complete on their order until 2032.. those F18's are going to be 52 years old once they are all phased out of service..

and the list goes on and on and on..

Before anyone attempts "the US still flies F18s!".... The F18F Super Hornet is NOT the same animal as the CF18, which is a "legacy" aircraft roughly equivalent to the US F18 A and B models.. The F18E and F models that are still flying in the US Navy are among the most (if not the most) advanced 4th generation fighters on earth.. The US phased out the last legacy hornet in 2019 and started phasing them out many years before that.. The US has also already started phasing out the Super Hornets.. the Navy and USMC are expected to be rid of their last Super Hornet no later than 2032..

Very interesting about the F18. I genuinely agree with what your saying in that you also need to look at each countries political history and why it is where it is in regards to NATO Germany for example wasn’t allowed didn’t want (due to there history from WW2 and the guilt that was laid on them) and didn’t “need” an army if you are lead by an eastern block Angela Merkel she’s not going to poke, annoy her brother in arms Putin. For the UK every time labour came to power military spending cuts were pretty much invoked. Apart from Blair who joined the coalition of the willing because when he first stood as a politician, he was voted out because at that time Margaret Thatcher won the war in the Falklands and he never forgot that, he knew that he would most likely lose his next election if he did not have a war which he knew would win him the election so he chose to join Bush even though the intelligence was fairly clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction. As for NATO and its current situation with Trump I have to agree that Trump was right and NATO needed a good kick and it’s nuts.
China must be laughing there bollocks off. Russia is a weak state because of what is happening in the Ukraine.
We also should not forget the economic ramifications of what Trump is doing because most of the European nations are now siding economically with China, if you have a leader of an ally that you cannot trust and is being a twat you will look elsewhere for someone who is more reliable? It is just human nature rightly wrongly.

 

[pilar]

You and I agree at about the 95% level on most issues, but assuming I am reading the intent of your post correctly, Iraq is a red herring. The Article 5 evocation had everything to do with collective defense against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. On 9/11, I was part of the briefing team (all three of us) that went to the Hill late that evening to offer the Army's high confidence assessment the terrorists were Al Quaeda and that Bin Laden and his leadership group were in Afghanistan. That was hardly a surprising assessment, and NATO along with, as you correctly note, a number of other nations, stepped up to support operations against this common enemy.

Iraq was very different. It had not attacked a NATO member. It is why the US did not attempt to make the case for NATO collective defense, but rather attempted to duplicate the success of George H W Bush and Margaret Thatcher in putting together a Euro / Arab coalition. We can debate the wisdom of the invasion or the courses of action taken over the long years of American occupation for pages of this thread. But, they are irrelevant to the issue of NATO, as a treaty organization, noninvolvement in Iraq.

Red leg as a decision maker or advisor, was any decision made about Afghanistan being a Empire Killer or was Al Quaeda and Bin Laden the main focus and long term put on the back burner for a different time?
I remember thinking Afghanistan! “ oh crap bad idea “
Just wondering how the decision makers made the call concerning the history?

 

[Nyati]

@Hunter-Habib , I wish you a wonderful second retirement

 

[Red Leg]

Red leg as a decision maker or advisor, was any decision made about Afghanistan being a Empire Killer or was Al Quaeda and Bin Laden the main focus and long term put on the back burner for a different time?
I remember thinking Afghanistan! “ oh crap bad idea “
Just wondering how the decision makers made the call concerning the history?

I can only speak to the original intent and my job at the time was not so much a decision maker as a decision explainer. That intent was to use US forces to enter Afghanistan, destroy the Al Qaeda organization, and eliminate the ability of the Taliban regime to harbor them. Tommy Franks, CENTCOM Combatant Commander at the time stated in testimony his mission was the "destruction of the al Qaeda network inside Afghanistan and the illegitimate Taliban regime harboring them." The first part of that mission statement was a rather straightforward military objective, but the second half resulted in a 20-year political/military sojourn in Central Asia. And yes, both military and civilian leadership were aware of the British experience in Afghanistan.

I personally have always wondered what would have happened in a parallel universe had US forces been successful in killing or capturing Bin Laden when he was trapped in Tora Bora in December 2001. I believe that was the initial failure from which two decades of misfortune sprang.

The military/CIA developed plan that would have used Army Rangers and perhaps marines to seal the escape routes from the Tora Bora mountains to Pakistan was rejected by the SECDEF and then Franks (who never challenged Rumsfeld.) It is quite possible that the early destruction of the Al Qaeda organization and death or capture of Bin Laden would have offered an early potential exit ramp following the election of Karzai.

That deployment would have taken time and might not have worked, but what we do know is that failure to seal the border and counting on Afghan allies to deal with the trapped Al Qaeda leadership failed completely. A path not taken.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Yes, there are some Army vets still pissed off about Tora Bora. The one I know that was one of the first up the hill. Is very confident they had Bin Laden pinned down in that cave. And he was allowed to slink out.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Yes, there are some Army vets still pissed off about Tora Bora. The one I know that was one of the first up the hill. Is very confident they had Bin Laden pinned down in that cave. And he was allowed to slink out.

I mean absolutely no disrespect when I ask this some of you gentleman have first hand experience or were in command roles at the time and I don’t wish to offend anyone with my question but if you all had bin Ladin cornered in a cave why didn’t the military/air force just bring the mountain down on him ? From my reading there are smart munitions that can be placed in a cave mouth or window?

 

[Corey0372]

Pretty good ad for Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2022334793044885787

 

[Altitude sickness]

That video really makes it hit home. The rich culture that England has. Centuries of tradition being flushed in 20 years. Churchill is rolling over