Talk:NATO/Archive 3

Got it. I also added a little border for Kosovo while I was at it, if anyone wants to open that can o' worms here.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Great!

talk

) 20:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If French Guyana is included, then why not Réunion, Hawaii and Guam? Apcbg (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the orthographic projection isn't perfect for showing places on both sides of the globe. However, most of the time when you highlight the United States, you leave out the territories, so I don't think Puerto Rico need be included, for example, even though it could be on the orthographic display.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Outer regions of member states do not fall under the defense provisions of NATO. See article V of the North Atlantic Treaty: "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." It was explicitly formulated like that to avoid the US being mired in Europe's colonial wars. Being so, NATO was also not involved in the Falklands War. Sijo Ripa (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Sijo. This was the point I was thinking of making. The exception is French Algeria, which was for a limited period under the Treaty's provisions. I suggest we take a look at the actual wording of the treaty before any more countries are added. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Relevant article is Article 6 (1):

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.

Thus is it possible to put a green line along the tropic of cancer?

Cheers, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely, Article 5 is most important for the Alliance. However, the Washington Treaty is by no means confined to Article 5. Articles 2, 3 and 4 are highly relevant too; as a matter of fact most of NATO's activities are based on these articles, which have no geographic limitations. Therefore, it would seem unjustified to exclude from a NATO map proper parts of NATO member states. Apcbg (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know NATO's stance on American English versus British English, but there is a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defence that should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense instead. I will edit the former page to redirect to the latter, but I would recommend that the link itself be edited. ("Why don't you register and do it, yourself?" "Fight The Man, etc etc.") --171.66.137.66 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rawr, beat me to it. ...Thank you! --Genkracken (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Deputy Secretaries Generals are here listed as full-term S.G. during the periods of vacancy (Balanzino in 1994 and 1995, Minuto-Rizzo in 2003-2004), but the link reported shows that NATO itself considers them only as acting secretaries, and doesn't list them together with the "proper" secretaries generals. I think they should be removed from the list. -- 79.31.243.40 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please give Kosovo the right colour in the map under the section "Membership", because Kosovo has the intention to join NATO. Here a source from a meeting between Macedonia-Kosovo officials http://www.vlada.mk/?q=node/4665 Habel (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Which color would you give it? Tomeasy _{T C} 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the word you have used, "defence", should be spelled defense. I thought it might have been spelled differently in British English so if it is "defence" where you are, just ignore this.

Thank you for your time.

Defence is the British spelling. I imagine that no particular spelling takes precedent in an article on NATO so the article would keep which ever spelling was used first.--79.44.235.229 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As discussed

But what about: Greenland (maybe considered NA/Europe, but it is partly north of the Arctic circle), Svalbard (maybe considered Europe, but it is north of the Arctic circle), Jan Mayen (maybe considered Europe, but it is north of the Arctic circle), Akrotiri and Dhekelia (maybe considered Mediterranean and thus Atlantic north, but it is in the asian part of the Mediterranean), Plazas de soberanía (maybe considered Mediterranean and thus Atlantic north, but it is in the african part of the Mediterranean) including Ceuta (Africa, but on the Mediterranean coast) and Melilla (Africa, but on the Mediterranean coast)? This question seems relevant, espicialy in the Svalbard, Plazas de soberanía, Ceuta, Melilla cases, where the possibility for disputes with non-NATO states exist. Alinor (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere the text refers to 49 participants, while it has been said that they are 28 + 22. I suggest that correction be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.158.86 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to find French Guiana coloured as a member, but not Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. Are there Any specific reasons for this? If not, I would suggest to remove French Guiana, as it does not fall within article 5... L.tak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

French Guyana should indeed be removed, or at least be coloured differently. To avoid confusion an explanatory note should be added. Sijo Ripa (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I added French Guiana back in April after some discussion here. If you want it gone just revert the most recent edit on the file page on the commons. I'm not sure if French Guiana should be included, but it is part of France in a way that the Antilles or Aruba aren't part of the Netherlands.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved much of the last part of the article, which was just a long list of NATO offices and taskforces, onto a separate article,

The map of NATO's potential enlargement that I try to maintain is a touchy subject, but hopefully this will be pretty straightforward. With Bosnia getting a MAP, it meant that the only "Intensified Dialogue country" (in light green) turned light blue. Today, a new user removed "Intensified Dialogue" from the legend, since its no longer used on the map. I see a few choices here, and I'd like some advice. First, Ukraine and Georgia are also in Intensified Dialogue, but they are dark green for "Promised Invitation", a level I came up with to describe their situation two years ago. So which should they be listed as, and which shade should that use?

Secondly, I've also considered that we could use light green (or another color, maybe yellow) for countries with Individual Partnership Action Plans. That would be Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Serbia. Azerbaijan and Moldova are currently listed as undecided, but that's also a bit of a nebulous category, and those probably could just be red anyways. But maybe that's too much info on this map? Thoughts?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also considering a better term for the red countries. "Membership not goal" isn't great, but it was short enough to fit on the captions. Perhaps "Not under discussion", "Unaffiliated", or "Associated with other programs". Maybe list them as "Partnership for Peace" or just "Other"?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been made abundantly clear that NATO membership is not a current goal for Ukraine. Implying otherwise is misleading, regardless of NATO's "official status" on Ukraine. The map is to demonstrate each country's own intent, not NATO's desires, and right now both the leadership of Ukraine and the Ukrainian public are against NATO membership. LokiiT (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Showing "intent" is not how I'd phrase it. The map shows the status of a given country in relation to the enlargement process. Ukraine at least remains in the Intensified Dialogue category. I'm not sure if it can withdraw from ID, or how it would do that if it wanted to. But that brings us back to changing the term "Membership not a goal", since as you point out, membership might not be a (current) goal while a country is still part of a process.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a category called "membership not a goal", and we have a country whose stated numerous times that membership is not a goal, yet this country is not coloured red. See the problem? LokiiT (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just posted the alternative version I made last month, so let me know what people think. I'm intentionally getting away from what I felt was ambiguous or subject to political change with this version. The name, "NATO affiliations in Europe", reflects that. The color red is also removed, which I felt had a certain Cold War association, and I'm just not sure it helped. Also gone is color tan and the "Undeclared intent" category, and I've taken the opportunity to add in gray the Middle Eastern countries in the lower left, though not the sliver of Morocco, which I felt was just too small and distracting from the map. Opinions on this version?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As I see it, the upper map has some

original research

issues. It is certainly fine to color the members dark blue, and MAP countries in light blue. These lists are official, and not fabricated by Wikipedians.

Now, if "intensified dialogue" is another NATO program, for countries not yet admitted to MAP, and Ukraine and Georgia are part of this official program, then they should be colored in light green. In this case it would be possible to find something about "intesified dialogue" and the associated countries on the NATO website, I guess. If, however, "intensified dialogue" is just a prescriptive name, given by Wikipedians to summarize the quality of bilateral relations between the NATO and the respective countries, then this category should be removed.

The dark green category, in any case, is subjective and should be removed. I would guess that the rational behind the dark green listing is a statement made by de Hoop Scheffer amidst the Bucarest summit. This would not be enough, I think, to justify a color-coded listing. It may well be possible to cite other NATO voices, before or after this event, which call for the opposite.

The red and gray categories should simply be deleted, and all associated countries be shown in the same color (e.g., gray) without explaining what this means. We are not here to fantasize about the intent of countries that are not actually taking part in any NATO program. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To the lower map:

If all these categories apply to official NATO programs, which seems to be the case, then this map is a pretty good shot. If you are able, you could put original references to these programs. The best would be to have references to the NATO cite.

The coloring might still be improved. The orange/yellow still appears to be in stark opposition with the blue, but this is perhaps the last thing to do. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! Sorry I must have caused an edit conflict there. If you have thoughts on the colors, they're very easy to change. I know Intensified Dialogue is a program that NATO has used with four countries so far, but I couldn't tell you what it specifically entails.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize; edit conflicts are beyond our control. I know, it's easy to change colors. I edit maps myself. However, I think this is secondary. More worthwhile would be to add references to the programs underlying the color coding. Perhaps I will do it one day :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have installed the new map, which makes only use of existing, verifiable programs and does not speculate on intentions of countries. I have also wiki-linked to articles or sub-sections that specify the category. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw some errors in the new map (but have no suitable SVG editor) and made a third version with the corrections: Serbia has no IPAP (or I can't find a source for it); Cyrpus and Kosovo are not in PfP; Malta is in PfP; the rest of the european OSCE members are shown. Otherwise I generaly agree with your decision here to change the initial map (with declared/undeclared intention to join NATO) with the new map (showing only official NATO PfP/IPAP/ID/MAP affiliations) - intentions could be described in the sections for each country on the Enlargement of NATO page. Alinor (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'd based my map off the info on the Enlargement of NATO page, but I guess it needed to be fixed there too. I updated the SVG map accordingly. It does actually show Malta, but its just a really really tiny dot. So we can use which ever. I was thinking using the SVG here and the PNG on Enlargement, mostly because there's the larger world map right below the Membership section here.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I know, the new president of Ukraine applied that Ukraine won't join NATO, means intensified dialogue doesn't include Ukraine anymore. Some body should ask why don't NATO make agreement with partly recognized countries, like Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and others.118.71.144.115 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 118.71.144.115 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here have the guts to tell me there is no criticism of NATO? Because I am somehow failing to find the appropriate section within the article. I guess closing articles is legitimate only if thereby ensuring objective coverage, which the absence of a criticisms-section is a blatant parody of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) publishing a chronological comparative graph showing how blatantly misproportionate is the USA military power in the alliance, and (2) including a few quotations about how the USA have discouraged and undermined an authentic European self-defense force. These two steps would add a bit of "natural" and "factual" criticism.

We could also argue how much democratic or undemocratic (or just failed states) are some of the new courted NATO candidates (eg, Georgia) and how much compatible their democratic credentials are with the values NAto purports to defend... in fact, the democratic values that should be officially defended against invaders have been already violated in NATO history and pratice, as Gladio case proves beyond any doubt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Parliament_resolution_on_Gladio ... the alliance was NOT entirely directed by the democratically elected governments.....it involved forces that answered only to the United States of America while acting on European soil; via such Stay-behind forces NATO operated even in countries officially neutral. uhm, criminal and illegal activities formally speaking; always for a wonderful cause, mind you - only that the voting populations that were protected were "too dumb" to have a right to know. the USA KNEW BETTER.

Come on boys, if Gladio had been a Soviet Union initiative, we would still read and hear over n over and over ad nauseam how the Empire of Evil contaminated with dormant terrorist cells its vassal countries - it would be on Wikipedia Warsaw Pact page, on the NYP archives, and repeated all the time during every official speech for every adniversary of any cold war memorial.:P

Another note should go on how much really popular and supported is NATO membership in the member countries....: "if there were refererenda on NATO membership, would people of this given country vote to stay in the organization or not"? I just saw a poll about Afghans voting for NATO staying in their country, but some space should be given on the fact that support for the ALLIANCE is all but undisputed in the member countries themselves,..... I mean boys, if we go to democratic vote, you defenders of European democracies risk to be democratically dissolved (yes there are polls about this and CIA knows, several wikileaks documents talk about it).

We may find some famed quotations to uphold that some countries (eg, Italy) have excluded the referenda on foreign policy at constitutional level itself, exactly to prevent the sovereign people from interferring with their voting on such delicate topics as NATO membership (AKA protecting NATO from democracy).

A proposed source on good and evil in the Holy Alliance. http://www.deutscher-friedensrat.de/pdf/NATOMilitaryStructure.pdf and a shiny quote from it.

"On the German airbase Büchel US special forces with 50 soldiers guard the nuclear bombs.
 In case the order comes from Washington they would release the safety catch and fix them
 under the German Tornado-plane, which the German pilot then has to fly to the designated
 target. That these nuclear bombs still has to ready for the German Tornados from the
 33rd Air Squadron makes no sense, because against whom can they be used?  The Tornado has
 a range of 1853 km. In this range are only NATO allies."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.76 (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

cosmos, where is it located ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.137.101 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• [TYPE HERE]

--Baftir (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) hello

Declined — no requested fix specified, coords appear to be correct. Please repost with a specific request, removing the "tlc|" from the {{geodata-check}} tag, if you still think something needs to be corrected. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I signal the file :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:L%27amateur_d%27a%C3%A9roplanes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.36.58 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

"defence" is supposed to be spelled "defense" 99.106.250.80 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the guidelines on

spelling for Wikipedia. Because NATO was initiated and most affiliated with the British, a Oxford-British spelling is used in this article. Thanks, Stickee (talk)

03:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change "Bush era economic crisis" to "2008 global economic crisis". Associating a former U.S. president with a crisis is misleading and potentially damaging to his reputation. This article on NATO should be completely unbiased and especially should not disparage a former U.S. president.

Dmcamens (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe past and present NATO missions should be separated in their own section - currently some are mentioned in the history section. Something like

Maybe this info could be added at the bottom of the NATO page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For completing Further reading:

General history:

Lothar Schröter: Die NATO im Kalten Krieg. Die Geschichte des Nordatlantikpaktes bis zur Auflösung des Warschauer Vertrages. Homilius, Berlin 2009; Band I. 1949–1975. Eine Chronik,

This is a chronicle of 1196 pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.152.178 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a lack of an explicit European geographical perspective in the wikipedia NATO article. I therefore propose the following draft section to be inserted together with completion of references:

"NATO is and has always had a genuine European perspective and origin. It has historically operated on the old European military theatre aiming to safeguard the western European territories from potential military threats from the Soviet Union. NATOs political (Brussels, Belgium) and military headquarters (Rocquencourt, France and Casteau, Belgium) have always been located in Europe.

To defend European territory NATO is primarily and practically an alliance inbetween European states to defend their respective territories: Twentyfive (25) out of the twentyeight (28) NATO countries are entirely located in Europe. Only two (2) members (United States and Canada) are located outside of Europe and only one (1) NATO member (Turkey) is located partly in Europe and partly in Asia.

Twentyone (21) out of those twentyfive (25) entirely European NATO members are States within the political

The only two (2) Non-European members of NATO (United States and Canada) have since 1940 had their own

Done The following date in the "Arms embargo against Libya" needs to be changed from 20 March 2010 to 20 March 2011, the embargo was initiated in 2011 and not 2010, the source cited shows this. Realmadrid2727 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

With the conflict in Libya about to necessitate the creation of a new subsection under History, I decided to do a little organization, and split out the subsections about the Balkins, Afghanistan, Libya and other conflicts into a section right after History named "Military actions". Does that make sense to people? The History section can be for general discussion, like "Post Cold War", while details about recent interventions can go under this heading.

Also, a second question about maps: We have seven of them, and I bet some could be combined. Maybe with an animation? And I'm hesitant to keep the NATO/CSTO since I also don't want to portray those as opposing forces with the map of countries of each.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In the "Structures" section of the article it states that the new NATO Headquarters will be completed in 2012. However according to the source cited below, it is really due to be completed in Fall of 2015. http://wireupdate.com/wires/12377/world-war-ii-bomb-found-at-construction-site-of-new-nato-headquarters/

05:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrgood1 (talk • contribs)

Under the picture right beneath the heading "Détente and escalation", the caption says that Richard Nixon was President of the Soviet Union, which he of course was not. Reportersnotebook (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. JOJ ^Hutton 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Article it says, under Military Structures

"NATO's military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split into two Strategic Commands both commanded by a senior US officer assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO."

This is clearly wrong as one of the two Strategic Commands (Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia) is commanded by a senior European officer, not US officer. 83.176.225.95 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For a clearer understanding of NATO it should be inserted in text with a NATO-EEA-EU map that all NATO nations outside of North America are either States (21) or Applicants (4) of the political and economical

My computer marks "defence" as misspelled, and suggests that it be spelled "defense." However, Dictionary.com considers it to be a real word.

No, that's not an error, its just

WP:ENGVAR, use a consistent style, and that style would be British, rather than American spelling. So "defence", except where referring a title like the "Secretary of Defense". That said, its the Treaty Organization, not "Organisation".-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞

13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The recent Gates speech has quotes of potential relevance to the article (transcript using the same reference from the edit request above):

I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. Today, just five of 28 allies – the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania – exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense.

Regrettably, but realistically, this situation is highly unlikely to change. The relevant challenge for us today, therefore, is no longer the total level of defense spending by allies, but how these limited (and dwindling) resources are allocated and for what priorities. For example, though some smaller NATO members have modestly sized and funded militaries that do not meet the 2 percent threshold, several of these allies have managed to punch well above their weight because of the way they use the resources they have.

"In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark, have provided 12 percent of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution.

67.101.7.143 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Third paragraph states "After the fall ... and later Serbia in 1999". This should be changed to Yugoslavia. Serbia was not independent at that time, but part of Yugoslavia along with Montenegro. Targets in Montenegro were also attacked (eg. airport near Podgorica, fuel stores, communication..). Also, Montenegro theritory was activly used for defence. Ns.code (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ARITCLE NEEDS UPDATING

I believe has now been demonstrated NATO is no longer an “organization (that) constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party” but has evolved to, as in the case with Libya, an offensive military organization used against what is perceived to be an oppressive government.

Would someone please include in the text (I don't know how)that the use of NATO military force in Libya is the first time NATO has been utilized to conduct a preemptive attack a nation (Libya) that has not threatened any NATO nation.

At this point, it is rather silly to describe NATO as an “organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party”.

ALSO Regarding NATO Operations in Libya.

Commander of NATO military forces: Admiral James G. Stavridis USN

It may also be important to let folks know the Commander of NATO is/has always been a US Flag Officer who is also the Commander of all US Forces in Europe. May folks are under the misinformed impression the US Forces has turned control of Operations in Libya over to a “Non-US entity” NATO. Only some control, less then most think has been moved.

The fact is, NATO is commanded by the Senior US Military Officer in Europe.

I feel someone should include and specifically the Command structure of OUP. Most would be surprised to find the first line “Non-US Officer” is further down the chain then they would think.

The chain of command is from Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James G. Stavridis (U.S. Navy),through his command structure down to acting operational commander for Libya Operations, Lt. General Charles Bouchard (Canadian Air Force. From the operational level, command is further delegated to the Commander of Allied Maritime Command Naples, Vice Admiral Rinaldo Veri (Italian Navy) for the naval operations and Commander of Allied Air Command Izmir, Lieutenant General Ralph J. Jodice II U.S. Air Force Europe (USAFE) for air operations.[9]

Folks somehow have been told OUP is a non-US action…folks should know NATO military is a US Commanded Military orginization, supported by member nations, originally intended to provide a common defense in Europe but is still, mostly a US run, driven orginization.

Thank you

don't know how to sign this

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.4 (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the section describing the command structure of NATO, there is already one, with the role of each strategic commands clearly identified: NATO#Military_structures

The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is Giampaolo Di Paola of Italy, since 2008. [...] NATO's military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split into two Strategic Commands commanded by a senior US officer[87] and a senior French officer[88] assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO.[...]The Military Committee in turn directs two principal NATO organizations: the Allied Command Operations responsible for the strategic, operational and tactical management of combat and combat support forces of the NATO members, and the Allied Command Transformation organization responsible for the induction of the new member states' forces into NATO, and NATO forces' research and training capability.[89]

And more informations about the location of the commands and a diagram can be found here

Military_units_and_formations_of_NATO#Military_structures

Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand

I had the same thought...WP:NOTNEWS isn't an issue in this case, since he specifically noted he was speaking in his "last policy speech" as U.S. Defense Secretary. 67.101.7.143 (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the end of the introduction, use the last two existing sentences to start a new paragraph, resulting in a final paragraph that consists of the following:

The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of

the world's defence spending. The United States alone accounts for 43% of the total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy account for a further 15%. This reflects what Robert Gates, speaking in his "last policy speech" as U.S. Defense Secretary, characterizes as an unacceptable two-tiered alliance, with "members who specialize in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the 'hard' combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership — be they security guarantees or headquarters billets

— but don’t want to share the risks and the costs.<ref>{{cite web| date= June 10, 2011| url= http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Activities/Activitiesoverview/tabid/1292/EventType/EventView/EventId/1070/EventDateID/1087/PageID/5141/Reflectionsonthestatusandfutureofthetransatlanticalliance.aspx | author= [[Robert Gates]]| title= Reflections on the status and future of the transatlantic alliance | publisher= [[Security & Defence Agenda]] | accessdate= 2011-06-13}}</ref>

Thanks in advance. 67.101.7.143 (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: While Gates' comments probably should be in the article (along with any responses, briefly), that wording is rather non-neutral. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a quote, attributed as such and introduced in a relevant context. It isn't coming from a pundit or columnist, it is coming from an about-to-retire political leader who was offering "parting thoughts about the state of the now 60-plus year old transatlantic security project", something he has been involved closely with for a number of years. In the same speech, he says he speaks "with the understanding that true friends occasionally must speak bluntly with one another for the sake of those greater interests and values that bind us together." Are you suggesting that I expand the request to include that quote as well, or is there some other issue? 67.101.7.143 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I believe that adding this to the introduction may put undue weight on it while it could go elsewhere in the article. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

NATO After Libya: The Atlantic Alliance in Austere Times by Anders Fogh Rasmussen Foreign Affairs July/August 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be informative to know the supplied or potentially available number of military personnel from each member country. -- Beland (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically all troops are to be used in the event of war. I could get those numbers for peace time I think. --

chi?

01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)