What do you think of the U.S. commitment to contribute weapons, aircraft, and forces for NATO's new rapid reaction force?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 04:13:27 -0400

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/

U.S. to provide weapons, aircraft for NATO

The U.S. committed to contribute weapons, aircraft and forces, including commandos, as needed for NATO's new rapid reaction force.

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Jun 23 at 2015 4:21 AM

CPT Bruce Rodgers — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 04:21:40 -0400

We should have done this a long time ago

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 23 at 2015 6:00 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:00:05 -0400

About time!

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 23 at 2015 8:21 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:21:19 -0400

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?

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 23 at 2015 9:09 AM

COL Jon Thompson — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:09:14 -0400

A NATO force without commitment of U.S. ground forces does not make sense to me. When we rule things out categorically, it weakens resolve. I also think that if this unit was actually sent to defend a NATO member, it would almost have to have U.S. ground forces.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 10:00 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:00:13 -0400

NATO in my opinion has always been a joke. Outside of the five eye nations there is little support in Europe. The best analogy I could use for NATO is weight lifting. The United States does the heavy lifting and our European allies spot us. Occasionally they offer us a towel to wipe the sweat from our brow.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 23 at 2015 5:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:05:15 -0400

Ukraine is using its imperial powers in Ukraine, and China is grabbing 90% of the South China Sea while we are decisively engaged in the ME.

Response by Cpl Richard Marin made Jun 25 at 2015 5:32 PM

Cpl Richard Marin — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:32:28 -0400

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.