On or about 25 Oct 2003 17:43:14 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

Peter,
From a US perspective, we would much rather have an increased burden
in an alliance that can actually function. Right now, with France, Belgium and
Germany NATO is impotent and unless the policy of unanimity is dropped in favor
of some kind of majority vote, it'll remain so. The US understands very clearly
that several NATO nations would rather be in a pan-European alliance than NATO,
what are we to do if they choose this avenue? The general view of the situation
among US military (including leadership) is, if Germany wants to quit NATO,
great, we'll go elsewhere.

Well, put, but the US is among the nations (as is the UK) opposing the
majority vote, for the same reasons we'll never voluntarily give up
our UNSC veto - we want to be able to stop things *we* don't like.
Short of the other NATO nations saying that we alone can keep our veto
it's not going to improve, and I don't see that happening.

For what it's worth I fully support the move towards deploying forces
further east. There is zero point in having several bases in Germany
in this day and age, and keeping large forces abroad is horribly
expensive. I would suggest providing 1st line bases around the
periphery of the NATO area, fully up to scratch with at least some
munitions in place, but with a minimal manning outside the host
nation. then when necessary forces can easily surge forwards. Of
course there would need to be very regular exercises to keep the
integration of the forces together (IMO the best part of NATO these
days is the relative ease that multinational forces can be put
together - we've been training an equipping together for 50 years).

Then more US and UK troops can be based at home, far cheaper and
giving a better personal life for the forces.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster