Posted on Jun 23, 2015
What do you think of the U.S. commitment to contribute weapons, aircraft, and forces for NATO's new rapid reaction force?
4.07K
17
10
1
1
0
The U.S. committed Monday to contribute weapons, aircraft and forces, including commandos, as needed for NATO's new rapid reaction force, to help Europe defend against potential Russian aggression from the east and the Islamic State group and other violent extremists from the south.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the specifics of American contributions to the rapid reaction force a year after President Barack Obama made a commitment to such assistance at the NATO summit last year in Wales.
Carter said the U.S. will provide intelligence and surveillance capabilities, special operations forces, logistics, transport aircraft, and a range of weapons support that could include bombers, fighters and ship-based missiles. It would not provide a large ground force.
Carter announced the new details in Munster, Germany, after meeting with defense ministers from Germany, Norway and the Netherlands. Those countries had agreed to provide the initial troops for the rapid reaction force. The U.S. had pledged to support the task force, but NATO has been waiting to hear specifically what America was willing to provide.
The U.S., with its massive military and high-tech capabilities, has generally carried the greatest load in NATO operations, including in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. U.S. officials made it clear early on that it would provide the enabling capabilities that other nations may not have, and not send ground forces, which other allies may be more able to do.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/06/22/us-to-provide-weapons-and-aircraft-for-nato/29127821/
Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the specifics of American contributions to the rapid reaction force a year after President Barack Obama made a commitment to such assistance at the NATO summit last year in Wales.
Carter said the U.S. will provide intelligence and surveillance capabilities, special operations forces, logistics, transport aircraft, and a range of weapons support that could include bombers, fighters and ship-based missiles. It would not provide a large ground force.
Carter announced the new details in Munster, Germany, after meeting with defense ministers from Germany, Norway and the Netherlands. Those countries had agreed to provide the initial troops for the rapid reaction force. The U.S. had pledged to support the task force, but NATO has been waiting to hear specifically what America was willing to provide.
The U.S., with its massive military and high-tech capabilities, has generally carried the greatest load in NATO operations, including in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. U.S. officials made it clear early on that it would provide the enabling capabilities that other nations may not have, and not send ground forces, which other allies may be more able to do.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/06/22/us-to-provide-weapons-and-aircraft-for-nato/29127821/
Posted in these groups: NATO
International Affairs
International Affairs
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
So we are announcing we are going to be providing the same things we have been providing...but made it clear we would not be sending ground forces...something we at least had at least maintained the possibility of doing? I think when you read the story closely it is the opposite of what it pretends to be?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
LCDR (Join to see)
Agreed Senior, while I don't like the high optempo that being the policemen of the world saddles us with I also think we have to send a clear message to Russia and China that we will be there to thwart their aggression.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
In My opinion If we are the nations force of readiness and 911 dispatch and we are low on man power, equipment, and income. Why are we assisting somebody else's war. With that being said If we do not do something to assist than we are also elevating the possibility of future attacks on our soil. So we must participate in some fashion. The ultimate goal of the USMC is to protect our land from foreign attacks and or terrorism. If we do this prior to their growth in numbers than it will be easier for the longer duration of any conflict. The answer to this question is in how we implement our resources without getting too involved but getting involved enough to help others in the region in question to help themselves. Or completely take over the region and mandate policy. either way it is not a question of should we get involved but how long and how much. It would be nice to see other nations help with the tab.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google