Forget Niger, What are we Doing in NATO?
I think it is a safe bet that before this month, most Americans had not given a thought to the country of Niger in… oh… say… ever. Sadly, the news that came out of the African nation this month, thrust it and another US military deployment, into the news. The tragic deaths of four American servicemen, in what appears to have been an ambush by ISIS militants, has driven the media to field test several narratives that they hoped would make President Trump look unsympathetic, incompetent and like an uncaring schmuck.
After largely failing to pin Trump down on his poor bedside manner and weak criticism about the length of time it took to report the deaths, the narrative appears to have settled on questioning why the United States is in Niger.
So why is the United States in Niger?
Since gaining independence from France in 1960, Niger has suffered through a steady flip-flop of military and civilian rulers. The current (civilian) government has been in-charge since 2011. The United States has had a military presence in Niger since shortly after 9/11. American troops were sent to train the military of several African nations in hopes that they could take care of regional conflicts, without the need for wide scale US or UN deployment. President Bush was too busy chasing evil doers and spreading Democracy throughout the Middle East to actually care about Africa.
But, in the timeless tradition of downplaying what their actual mission was, the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama allowed mission creep to set in with a result of more troops deploying to Africa. The troop count in Niger currently numbers somewhere between 800 and 1000, depending on who you ask.
Even neocon Lindsey Graham was surprised to learn of the number of US troops in Niger. This prompted Senator Rand Paul to tweet, “You know you are in too many wars in too many places when even warmonger Lindsay Graham can’t keep track anymore.”
We’re not that far removed from a time when a President, a mega-hawk Senator and the Pentagon would at least attempt to justify American military adventurism. Now they don’t even bother to spend time explaining it to us commoners.
If you are on the Senate Armed Services Committee you may get a secret briefing. A briefing that, in the case of Niger, probably went something like this:
“Senators, China is exerting their influence all over Africa. If we don’t lockdown Niger we give them access to one of the largest uranium deposits on the planet. Since our reserves are down by about 25%, thank you Hillary Clinton… don’t roll your eyes, Senator Feinstein…we sort of need to replenish the uranium we gave away. A drone base makes for good cover. We can keep an eye on Libya for the French oil companies, and we cover most of the rest of the continent from there too. ”
“There is a question, in the back. Senator Illgen.”
“Yes, thanks for the update on Niger. Makes sense. We certainly don’t want the Chinese to grab all that uranium. If you want to dress it up as necessary to fight ISIS, or whatever the CIA is calling their operatives these days, fine.”
“What’s your question, sir?”
“Why the hell are we still in NATO?”
Why is the United States still in NATO? Why is an American public, suddenly concerned about having a drone base and 1000 troops in Africa, not demanding that we withdraw from NATO?
NATO was formed in 1949 as a collective defense cabal of nations with the aim of standing up to Soviet aggression after World War II. The Soviets responded six years later by forming the Warsaw pact; created in response to NATO admitting West Germany into their cabal.
Once the Soviet threat was eliminated, the organization had to find another raison d’ être. NATO’s 1994 UN sanctioned bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Herzegovina and unsanctioned, illegal bombing campaign in Yugoslavia in 1999 kept alive this belief, welcomed in Washington, London and Brussels, that NATO was necessary.
After 9/11, NATO transmogrified, and became another layer of military might to fight the so-called WAR ON TERROR. By this time, a good deal of the American forces in Europe were winding down operations and many bases were being closed or scaled back. Bush’s coalition of the willing, would have held up without NATO. There is no doubt about that. No one can convince me that any of the coalition partners would have bailed, post 9/11, because they were bummed about the dissolution of NATO.
Today, if you believe the numbers from the Defense Department, there are nearly 100,000 American troops deployed throughout Europe. This includes 35,000 in Germany, 12,000 in Italy and nearly 10,000 in the UK.
Whenever I ask, “Why does the US keep so many troops in Europe?” I’m told:
1. Putin.
2. We’re going to have to fight over there again, someday. Why leave now?
3. China.
4. Hitler designed the autobahn so that planes could land almost everywhere.
5. THE WAR ON TERROR requires a staging area.
6. Putin.
You tell me — Are any of these justification for the United States providing nearly one-quarter of the budget for NATO when most of the other member-nations are part of the EU, the third largest economy in the world?
European nations appear to be pretty chill about their internal security. Between lax border controls and admitting un-vetted refugees, they don’t seem to have any real concerns that warrant a security pact with the United States. Hell, Russians can get in just as easily as Syrians.
Where is the concern about the WAR ON TERROR? 35,000 military personnel and God knows how many contractors in Germany, defending the Germans from what? Some disgruntled refugee running around a bahnhof with a knife?
If you do not concern yourself with the well-documented body counts of George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Donald Trump, why would you ever be concerned about Vladimir Putin? Where is his drive for world domination and conquest in relation to Bush, Obama and Trump? Not a real concern, I’d say.
“But…but….Ukraine.”
Yes, but, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia……
I served in NATO. Proudly. I spent two years assigned to the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force in Kindsbach, Germany. I spent many a day locked up in an underground bunker, war-gaming on how best to destroy the Soviets while keeping the French engaged. That was back in 1985, when NATO made sense.
The only threat in Eastern Europe today, is NATO deliberately poking at the Russian bear. Putin is not pushing west. NATO is pushing east. That’s a fact. The expansion of the alliance can only be justified by lobbyists for the military industrial complex, their lapdogs in the media, and neocons like Graham.
Candidate Donald Trump recognized this. Candidate Trump questioned the need for NATO and regularly criticized how much money the United States wastes on the alliance. Candidate Trump told the New York Times that we were paying to defend wealthy nations.
What has happened in the 15 months since that interview? Early into his term, President Trump threw some red meat to the nationalists (the good ones, not the Nazis) when he chided the Europeans on paying their fair share. Since then, the Lizard People have consumed him and he’s dropped the issue. The same deep state that waited until the day of release to convince him to hold back tens of thousands of pages related to the JFK assassination will crush any suggestion that any military bureaucracy be eliminated.
Now is the time, when these little flare-ups in our outposts in Africa pop up, and are on the minds of Americans that are typically not engaged, to remind the President, the media and the American public that all troops need to come home.
It is well past time to focus our energies, talents and limited treasure on the United States. Of course that won’t happen anytime soon. Most Americans only care when their preferred political party tells them to. But short of a complete pull back of all forces, we need to end the waste and unnecessary existence of archaic organizations, like NATO.
