Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized NATO nations on Friday for what he said were shortages in military spending and political will, warning of “a dim if not dismal future” and “irrelevance” for the alliance unless more member nations contribute weapons, money and manpower. ... The United States accounts for about three-quarters of total military spending by all NATO countries, and has in the past taken the lead in military operations and provided the bulk of the weapons and matériel. But in a post-Soviet world, there is growing resentment in Washington about NATO effectively paying for the defense of wealthy European nations.If anything, that is understated, for there will be growing resentment across this country for NATO.
NATO is an artifact of the Cold War. We got NATO going because of a realization that we could not afford to let the Europeans deal with the defense of Western Europe without us-- we got sucked into two wars there in less than a quarter century and we were not anxious for a third.
But the reason for NATO is done. The USSR is long gone. Russian troops are no longer on the Elbe, let alone the Oder. The Russian Army is several hundred miles to the east and I don't know of anyone, other than a paranoid neocon, who seriously thinks that the Russians are capable of an armed stroll to the Rhine anymore.
As time goes on, Russia will be even less capable of a war. The life expectancy in Russia is 66 years, which is the lowest of any industrial nation and is worse than that of Bangladesh. Russia's population is well into decline.
Unless Russia enters into another military alliance with Germany to divide up Eastern Europe, the days of the Russian threat are almost certainly done for all countries which were not once part of the Russian empire, and maybe even for those nations as well.
This is probably the take-away: The Americans are getting tired, as we here see it, of shouldering the military security burden. Other nations had best think about stepping up their game. Or they may suffer the consequences.
11 comments:
Paranoid neocon is an oxymoron.
And what are those consequences going to be? Peace? I suppose if you're a rabid neocon that's the most horrible thing since mayonaisse on french fries, but for the rest of us, where's the downside?
- Badtux the Peaceful Penguin
It's amazing. Americans assume that their overspending on the military is of any benefit to European countries, which it isn't. I doubt that any European country would feel compelled to increase military spending if Pentagon budget was slashed by half.
The opposite is more likely, as some European modernisation projects are being justified only with "interoperability" concerns.
The Eastern European NATO countries most at risk - the Baltic countries - were pressured by NATO (especially Americans) to turn their forces into specialised military adventure auxiliary troops - unfit for national defence).
Right now, the U.S. with its thirst for military adventures seems more like the security policy burden to its allies than the other way around.
BadTux, I don't know what the consequences are.
SO, so let's dissolve NATO and the Europeans can form whatever defense alliance they feel like forming.
But I will note that, when the Orthodox Christian Serbs were slaughtering Muslims Serbs, all that the Europeans were able to do was engage in Advanced Hand-wringing.
It is time for Europe and America to go their own way on national security. We can cooperate on specific issues.
It's time to end NATO.
Actually, the Europeans have formed an alliance without the U.S. already. It's called EU. The EU has become a defensive alliance with the Lisbon treaty.
The EU power were able to bomb the shit out of Yugoslavia at will. The NATO effort in 1999 was one of many examples of trying to give NATO a meaning, to keep NATO together.
Even the French Armée de l'air alone would have sufficed to defeat Yugoslavia. Look at the tiny detachments of European air forces that were sent to participate in the attacks; less than 10% of overall EU air power.
This "Europeans needed us in Kosovo" is another American misreading. The Europeans want to stay friends with the U.S. because nobody would benefit of an intercontinental rivalry.
On abolishing NATO:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/05/utility-of-nato.html
On the other hand, lets say we pull our own military levels down (not that that would ever happen)and then devote of percentage of that draw-down to NATO. Much less crap to follow a NATO war than one of our own.
Never happen tho, I agree.
w3ski
SO, do you really see the European Union nations deciding to quadruple their military spending and begin a trans-Atlantic rivalry? I don't.
(For that matter, I can't really see the British and the French going to war over Estonia.)
Or is the idea of NATO a way to forestall German adventurism? If so, I don't see that happening.
European countries wouldn't really need to triple their expenses to rival the U.S..
The Pentagon is even more wasteful than European MoDs, it's more burdened by transcontinental logistical requirements, the Pentagon budget will collapse because its unsustainable... and most important: Rivalry is not the same as an arms race.
The French could simply veto the shit out of whatever the U.S. wants in the USNC, we could have trade wars, cut the intelligence cooperation ties, kick the U.S. out of European and European-controlled military bases, U.S.-backed third world regimes could be toppled by European actions...there's much to be lost for the U.S. in a rivalry.
The cost:benefit ratio of rivalry is worse than for cooperation, thus it makes sense to keep NATO as a transatlantic bond.
The EU nations had/have plenty of military power to operate within their sphere of influence, EBM. Their militaries combined have more soldiers, fighter jets, and tanks than the United States has. I still maintain that the whole Serbia thing was a European problem that the Europeans should have cleaned up, I no more supported U.S. intervention in that war than I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (beyond a limited operation to capture or kill OBL). What the EU nations don't have is significant ability to project power *outside* of their sphere of influence. (Which, BTW, is the same deal with China -- they have a large military, but it has virtually nil power projection capability, lacking aircraft carriers, heavy bombers, a large air transport and air refuelling force, and so forth, when the neocons froth about China as a military threat to America they're just yankin' their pud from habit).
What Gates is upset about is that the Europeans have built their militaries for *defense*, not for military adventures in far-flung places, and he wants to use NATO as his play-toy for some of his far-flung adventures (like the Afghan one) but because the European militaries aren't built for that, he has to carry the burden of, e.g., resupply, tanker refueling, and so forth. So he wants the EU to bankrupt themself on far-flung imperial wars and they refuse, instead building their militaries for purposes of defense? Oh wahhh! See this . ? World's smallest fiddle, yo.
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Badtux, I largely agree (especially about the military adventures thing), but you're incorrect about the # of combat aircraft.
The European powers have still more combat aircraft than necessary to defeat almost all non-allied European North African and MidEast air powers at once, though.
The EU would need to wage war on Egypt, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Syria and Switzerland at the same time to be really short on combat aircraft.
Post a Comment