Are we doing enough to aid NATO allies France and Belgium after terrorism attacks?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:04:34 -0400

An attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all. If we are to uphold our end as a member of NATO, it means support of France and Belgium and in the end, going to war for or with them.

ISIS represents a challenge to traditional NATO doctrine as they are not a military tied to a specific country. They control entire regions, but are not bound to said regions.

We are already fighting them in limited strikes. Should we go all in? Or is NATO meaningless at this point?

I understand this is a loaded question, but I want people to think further about what it means to be apart of NATO. Also, think about the current strategy and war on ISIS. This is two-fold. Are we holding up to our NATO obligations, and is what we (and the world) are doing against ISIS enough?

I understand POTUS has said that ISIS does not represent an existential threat to the U.S. I respectfully disagree. I can do that right?

At any rate, with word that there are 400 possible terrorists prepared to work independently in individual cells, is it time we up the ante? What support should we provide to Europe and NATO Members?

We are weary of war, but we are still very much at war against an enemy that is not bounded by time.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 10:07 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:07:59 -0400

Deleted and added to main subject.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 10:28 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:28:31 -0400

They need to declare Article V first. I'm wondering how many more attacks it's going to take before someone does.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Mar 25 at 2016 10:55 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:55:52 -0400

Good question. IMO, NATO was formed years ago to counter the Red Threat and did not envision a threat from World Terrorism(WT) which would be worse and greater than the USSR ever was or is. European countries and the US are treating WT largely like a law enforcement issue and not a full blown military threat, except on a limited nature in Syria and elsewhere full scale military assault from WT is in process. European countries are still as parochial as they used to be as tiny kingdoms each viewing the other as a potential threat to take them over. Much of this lingers today in the absence of a 'coordinated' plan of attack against WT or a reluctance to share intelligence, accept intelligence from each other or even publicaly ask for or seek help from each other.

Response by SGT Aaron Atwood made Mar 25 at 2016 11:00 AM

SGT Aaron Atwood — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:00:35 -0400

ISIS never should've had the opportunity to form up in the first place, but that's just my opinion. Once those terrorists go to individual cells taking them down without violating our laws and foreign laws becomes that much harder to do. At the very least we should be providing to Europe and NATO every bit of intelligence we have regarding ISIS that they need. Israel already does that for us with our enemies in the middle east.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Mar 25 at 2016 11:37 AM

SSG Carlos Madden — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:37:38 -0400

Another member asked a similar question generally regadring medial aid to a NATO ally. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/under-nato-rules-shouldn-t-we-send-our-select-medical-trauma-specialists-from-landstuhl-to-provide-assistance-in-belgium

Under NATO rules, shouldn't we send our select medical trauma specialists from Landstuhl to...

This is an attack. We could do the following: (1) Send individual military trauma specialists to assist the overloaded Belgian Medical Community. (2) NATO USA offers to send an entire field hospital( based in Ramstein, Germany) to Brussels and begins operations within a week.(3) If options 1 or 2 staff is overwhelmed, set up USAF airlift to from Belgium to Landstuhl, Germany.(4) Walter Reed option

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Mar 25 at 2016 11:45 AM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:45:01 -0400

This is a terrorist attack, Russia has not rolled their tanks across the border. NATO nations are not responsible for the lax border security and irresponsible admitting of Syrian refugees just as NATO nations are not responsible for the southern border invasion of the United States and the irresponsible open borders policy of President Obama.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 1:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:02:01 -0400

First, Daesh (ISIL) isn't a nation state... it's a criminal organization/ideology that holds some territory. Second, I suspect the thousands of air strikes and thousands of militants we have already killed constitute us being in a state of war with Daesh (ISIL).

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 25 at 2016 7:00 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:00:12 -0400

Charity begins at home. The EU needs to police it's immigration policies and needs to crack down on radical home grown and imported terrorists. They need to stop allowing their "citizens" to travel to ISIS controlled territory then return without serious scrutiny. This is a problem of their own making. No outside army invaded them, they either allowed these people to walk in freely or they have been born and raised there and live in isolated enclaves of middle easterners and have been radicalized.

Their government needs to maintain law and order inside their borders and crack down on this before looking for external help (except for law enforcement/intel cooperation etc.). This is almost 100% preventable. That is the sad truth. 33 people are dead and a couple hundred injured at the alter of political correctness and a government not focused on their citizens security and safety.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 25 at 2016 10:21 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:21:05 -0400

Every SM starts as a specialist (not the rank) and become generalist and team builders as their rank increases. The good leaders try to remain specialist but that is hard to pull it off as the totality of the operations can be complex.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 10:39 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:39:00 -0400

Even if they declare Article V, we can make a statement that condemns ISIS and it satisfies the requirement. Several nations did that for Afghanistan.

Response by SFC Stephen Carden made Mar 26 at 2016 8:08 AM

SFC Stephen Carden — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 08:08:13 -0400

I'd like to answer your question with a question: After 9/11, or any of the other terrorist attacks in this country since, what did France and Belgium do for us? We are not NATO. NATO is comprised of 28 member countries. Did any of them do anything for us except send condolences? If so, please enlighten me because if I am wrong, then I am wrong. Let them learn to take care of themselves. We can support them with intel and such, but let them handle it.
As to your question about ISIS, yes, we should go in and remove the threat. We need to stabilize the middle east again so that all of these refugees can go home and we can get back to properly clearing people before they come to our country.