Weekend Wars: USA vs. NATO
After a wee break, the wars return with perhaps the ultimate question of the 21st century for America’s finances. Not shockingly to government spending analysts, the issue is not one of an economic nature. Well… not precisely. The reality is that NATO is expensive and we have better ways to spend our devalued dollars. Such a complex subject, easily summed up in three words… NATO or not?
As America continues its slow slide from global sheriff dominance a semi pre-emptive warning was fired this past week by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. All I can say is that it is about time.
With all 26 of NATO’s European members spending a total of $220 billion on defense that leaves the U.S. fronting $700 billion or almost 3/4ths of NATO’s budget. For years America has been the military force behind this military alliance. Many European nations have shown a great reluctance to send their troops on NATO missions and more Americans are reluctant to defend European territory on their tax dime.
We often have debates here on foreign policy related issues. Some of us are liberal, some conservative and some just don’t give a fuck. But let’s be honest, we all care more about our own bank account than we do about what may or may not be going down in North Central Shitholeistan. Is it time to say goodbye to the love child of America’s post-World War 2 elite?
I have to admit that I have always leaned a bit to the hawkish side in terms of foreign policy. That said, there are just no justifications anymore. When you are bombing some third world despot all day long and you can’t even get a single German jet to join you…you have redefined diminishing returns.
Why not hop out of NATO? We will improve our overall economy instantly. We will force our fiscal rivals across the globe to take greater responsibility for their actions. Heck, we will even bring the Euro back to heel a bit (unless Brussels can somehow persuade Moscow into the big happy family).
As time goes by, I see less and less reason for America in NATO or in the least, an America backed NATO.
How do you guys feel about this notion? Would anyone care to give me a breakdown as to why continuing to be the world’s policeman is in our long term strategic interest?
You have the NATO countries operating the same aircraft, veichles, and weapons as the US, going after the same targets, but they can't achieve the level of success that we can. The reason is training. The military is a "club" in most NATO countries, and they don't put nearly as much money and effort into training as the US does. So that is why they can't do what the US can do.
Not true at all. Norway has maybe 10 aircraft in the Libya operations yet has been responsible for 1/3 of targets being destroyed.
I definitely have mixed emotions on the topic. In one sense, NATO's non-U.S. and UK members are basically deadbeats (I believe the UK actually spends its required minimum GDP percent on military expenditures), but on the other hand having an alliance of 26 nations that has agreed to declare war if one of its member states is attacked is kind of nice security, especially with the Russian oligarchy reawakening, seeking out some form of world prestige through Western antagonism. That said, I really don't have a good feeling that all or even most of the 26 nations would respond if a member state came under attack. In fact, in modern warfare I'm not sure it's even necessary to have dozens of nations fighting together outside of allowing access to waterways and air space.
What we ought to do is remain in the alliance but quit fighting foreign wars that aren't necessary and quit fighting in Europe at all unless our national interests are threatened or unless a NATO member state is attacked.
I see little reason to continue to police the world. I want to see the CIA of the 70's come back in full force.
Personally, I see NATO as the unofficial DOD to the UN's unofficial and protean world government: it is the closest to a consensus world police force that exists and will likely be absorbed into the emerging world order. Is it frustrating for the US to contribute so heavily while the other nations simply shirk their duty? FUCK YEAH. Does NATO make it easier for America to not-so-openly maintain it's massive power differential? yup
Provided things continue on the current trajectory, the USA will be the Washington DC / New York City of the emerging global system. The current net effect of NATO is global US military presence. Whose tank sits in front of the trade table makes a rather large difference......
Leaving the NATO would be sooo French.
You guys gotta stop thinking the world revolves around your country.
I assure you on this: It does. I don't mean it in an ignorant way either. I mean it in that America is the alpha dog in global politics. Thinking otherwise is foolish.
I just love stuff like this...
I tell you what... you toss out 25% of the annual budget and see how philanthropic you feel the US has been. The same goes for the UN and just about every other global organizations budgetary funding, not considering who's hardware, infrastructure and technology you use.
I'd love to see how you'd feel about working off of 75% of your annualized budget with 25% of the equipment and assets to carry out your do-gooding. Good Fuckin' luck...
When the League of Nations was started after the First World War to provide security and peace, it failed because the United States wasn't a member. Is it frustrating to be in NATO now that it may seem no longer necessary? Yes. But I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking that conventional war is no longer possible. Just because the UN seems to believe that doesn't mean NATO should.
Honestly, I say we ought to close pretty much all of our bases in Europe, except maybe for the Germany base just as a central area for logistics purposes. We're basically subsidizing the EU's defense spending, which is flat out stupid. Those countries aren't bombed-out post-WWII piles of ash anymore under threat of Soviet invasion. Let them pay for their own national defense.
What really annoys me though are things like Darfur when people say, why hasn't the US acted? Yes, there is probably more that we could have done. THAT SAID, there is a lot more that the rest of the world could have done as well. You don't need a superpower to put down a bunch of barely-literate dudes riding in the back of a pickup truck with AKs.
I believe in a partnership. NATO is not a partnership. Some nations are partners and some nations are free riders. The USA simply cannot keep paying others portion of the bill.
What I think we need is to get rid of NATO and come up with a new and more appropriate treaty. One that doesn't put so much pressure on the US to police the world and forces Europe to actually take control of its own security. NATO made sense when it was created but in todays world for one country to be single handily protecting 25 others and itself seems out of whack and waist of money.
Here is the big issue (in my mind). Having an active and ready military is not cheap. Europe honestly would rather pay for other things. Now I don't blame them. Europe bares the scares of two horrendous wars as well as the Cold War and Bosnia.
The problem is, if you want to be relevant on a world stage, you need a military. There will always be people who do bad things and don't listen to UN treaties. You need force to back up words sometimes. Without the USA, NATO is simply a paper dragon.
If we are going to cut back on military spending and leave the world alone I think we all need to be OK with allowing people to commit horrible crimes. I don't know if I am ok with that, but it is something we need to think about.
Mark Steyn (brilliant as usual) on NATO:
Thanks to American defense welfare, NATO is a military alliance made up of allies that no longer have militaries. In the Cold War, that had a kind of logic: Europe was the designated battlefield, so, whether or not they had any tanks, they had, very literally, skin in the game. But the Cold War ended and NATO lingered on, evolving into a global Super Friends made up of folks who aren’t Super and don’t like each other terribly much.
My Austrian professor on military actions in Europe
"I think Austria has about 3 planes right now and 2 of them are broken with no plans to repair them. This is because we know that if something happens, the US will be here with their bombers and their soldiers before we can pick up the phone."
Kinda sums it up for me.
I'm usually with you guys, but given Europe's history, I prefer that they've neutered themselves and let the grownups in the US run things. If the EU has a problem with this viewpoint, I suggest they make another espresso and go back to debating Kant while we continue to make sure the global system continues to develope in a constructive way.
I do agree with the sentiment that it would be nice if they contributed more, but honestly, watching Europe's role in world affairs being reduced to bitching about how great they once were and how the US should 'be more like them' is kind of comical.....and we get to do what we want to.
Logically, the Europeans don't need a military. They dont have any strategic objectives outside of continental Europe. They know they can't contain China and they don't need to. They don't want to control Arab oil. They don't have any colonial possessions to protect anymore. But most of all, with their aging populations, they need all the working age males to be employed by the civil secotor instead. So as long as Russia doesn't start getting any ideas, the Europeans dont really need a military.
Anyway, we might see an American-Japanese-Indian-Aussie alliance soon, to contain you-know-who.
Fuga molestias esse quidem exercitationem iusto. Eum possimus dolores vitae delectus laboriosam laudantium libero. Atque iusto assumenda animi quis et quos quae.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Optio aut amet molestias autem libero et omnis. Voluptatum doloremque qui saepe minima porro. Quae et aut ad saepe ut. Cupiditate expedita est molestiae commodi quasi.
Ipsa perspiciatis rem reiciendis eum. Architecto quasi aliquam eum. Qui doloribus qui suscipit distinctio repudiandae totam nam.
Praesentium neque voluptas harum. Qui deserunt deserunt eos architecto sit.
Totam cupiditate dolorem perferendis aut. Vel qui in necessitatibus hic inventore voluptatem voluptatum quia. Nemo blanditiis veritatis possimus repudiandae ut omnis dolores.