SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, echoing his boss in Washington, warned on Wednesday that the amount of American support for NATO could depend on whether other countries meet their own spending commitments.
"Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do," Mr. Mattis said in his first speech to NATO allies since becoming defense secretary. "I owe it to you to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms."
"America will meet its responsibilities," he said, but he made clear that American support had its limits.
In his speech to NATO defense ministers, Mr. Mattis repeated a call made by previous American secretaries of defense, for European allies to spend more on their militaries. His comments on Wednesday give teeth to President Trump's expressed skepticism about the alliance.
What's more, Mr. Mattis went further than his predecessors in apparently linking American contributions to the alliance to what other countries spend.
"If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense," he said.
Source: The New York Times
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:08PM
The Soviet monster was slain long ago. The Islamic monster isn't yet recognized as a monster.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:47PM
The monster of not being the pre-eminent power in the world. Authoritarians hate what they cannot control because it makes them crap their pants.
I am being serious here. Much like for elections where the phrase is "Its the Economy, Stupid!", the phrase for US foreign policy should be: "Its Hegemony, Stupid!".
Trump just wants it cheaper.
So to translate this statement in this context:
"We want to own the world for cheaper guys, so stump up some cash!"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2017, @11:02PM
Yes, I recognize that you are serious. And, you are also right. But, as England discovered, empire is costly. We can't afford to maintain the hegemony, especially with America's wealth being steadily leached away by the megacorporations moving to China, or anyplace else with no regulation, no taxes, but lots of slave labor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:29AM
I did not say it was a good idea. I did not say it was not going to end. I was also not disagreeing with you rather just answering your question in an albeit generic/generalised way.
I also agree with you on China. Most people miss it because they only feed the noisy chick but China is better at the long game than...well...anyone. (and have been for 1000s of years to my knowledge)
The authoritarian mindset is that that they cannot afford NOT to maintain it. It is in the subtext of pretty much all their foreign policy/budgets. What we (and to a large extent even US citizens) personally think about "their" reasoning is irrelevant.
Note the statement here is to stop it because it is a waste of money, just to make other people pay for it to spread the waste around.
I am not a US citizen if that was not obvious - not that this should matter...
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:08AM
the megacorporations moving to China, or anyplace else with no regulation, no taxes, but lots of slave labor.
That's what megacorporations [wikipedia.org] do [wikipedia.org].
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:25AM
That's why megacorporations should have been regulated several decades ago. When I was a child, I read futuristic stories of corporations exercising more power than any nation could. I thought that was kinda crazy at the time. I had to exercise that "suspended disbelief" to enjoy the stories. Today, we see that exact thing happening.
True, it was already happening when I was a child, I just didn't recognize it at the time because I was a child. All the banana republics, for example. And, Operation Ajax, which literally destroyed a healthy democracy, at the behest of a a corporate entity. Today, those corporate monsters are becoming more obvious. There are at least two dozen corporations today, which could hire a mercenary force to overthrow any number of smaller nations. Of course, open armed conflict isn't really their style. They prefer more subtle methods of overthrowing a government. Still - there it is - corporate entities with more power than established governments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:54AM
Yeah because if they went forward with open armed conflict the entire world (except a few nutjob countries) would annihilate them SO FAST! Right now they're trying to gain enough control to let them operate on the same level as nation states.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:14AM
Dr. Mutwara's first language probably isn't English, but he's still a good read.
https://southernafrican.news/2016/03/15/private-military-companies-go-way-back-in-history/ [southernafrican.news]
You might do a little web searching on blood diamonds, along with the nations listed in Dr. Mutwara's article. I think it safe to say that the wages paid to many, if not most, mercenary forces come from corporate coffers. The mercenaries may bankrupt the nation that hired them, but their wages are guaranteed by a corporation, somewhere. With lots of money, and a little disinformation, much can be accomplished.