-
The Great Secession
December 10, 2012 | 95 comments
-
Kidnappers Incorporated
December 3, 2012 | 8 comments
-
A New Republican Agenda for the Future
November 27, 2012 | 190 comments
-
Defaming Islam: Malaysia Lectures America About Freedom
October 18, 2012 | 27 comments
-
Religion Under Harassment
September 25, 2012 | 25 comments
At Large
Shrinking NATO
It's becoming an alliance without a military.
NATO is moving to station Patriot missiles in Turkey along its border with Syria. But if war erupts, it won't be the Europeans doing the fighting.
The organization is moving toward a first. With the Europeans continuing to shrink their militaries, it may eventually become an alliance without a military, at least an effective one.
From its start the organization has generated international dependency. While Europeans understandably concentrated on economic reconstruction after World War II, they proved little more ready to spend their money on their defense after they recovered. Throughout the Cold War -- when there really was a threat to their security -- the Europeans preferred to let Washington provide it.
At the time, the U.S. also carried a disproportionate defense burden in Asia, eventually adding the Middle East and even Central Asia to its long list of military responsibilities. So American officials routinely badgered their NATO allies to do more, but the Europeans just as routinely broke their promises to do so. It was almost as if Uncle Sam enjoyed being taken advantage of.
At least the trans-Atlantic alliance had a purpose during the Cold War. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact there was no longer the slightest chance that Moscow could dominate Europe, let alone Eurasia. The Europeans were capable of defending themselves against whatever dangers remained.
NATO should have transformed itself. America could have turned the alliance over to its European members. The Western Europeans then could have decided whether to add the newly freed Central and Eastern European nations. Washington and Brussels could have built a strong cooperative relationship to handle issues of genuine trans-Atlantic concern.
Instead, NATO's organizational survival instincts took over. Its members decided to get involved in "out of area" activities, that is, controversies in which they had no direct interest. As a result, countries increasingly drag each other into conflicts that they would have better avoided. America ended up fighting in Kosovo, occupying Bosnia, and intervening in Libya for no good reason. The Europeans have spent more than a decade trying to turn Afghanistan into a modern, democratic nation state, also without justification.
Yet NATO's non-American combat capabilities continue to atrophy. The Europeans have essentially decided that it isn't worth their while to have militaries capable of doing what militaries are supposed to do: fight wars.
A recent Brookings Institution report, "The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO's Largest Members," highlights the problem. Before retiring, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates blasted the Europeans for doing so little as to court "collective military irrelevance." NATO Secretary General and relentless cheerleader Anders Fogh Rasmussen nevertheless admitted: "if European defense spending cuts continue, Europe's ability to be a stabilizing force even in its neighborhood will rapidly disappear."
Several authors contributed to the paper. Admitted editor Clara Marina O'Donnell: "current military spending trends are reducing the ability of most NATO allies to contribute to international security." Unless the Europeans change course -- which seems unlikely -- both Gates and Rasmussen will be proved right.
Christian Moelling, with the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, reviewed military efforts within the European Union. Cuts in military spending are pervasive, with smaller states making the largest reductions: 36 percent by Lithuania in 2010, 21 percent by Latvia in 2009, 19 percent in 2011 by Greece, 13 percent by Romania in 2010, 11 percent by Portugal in 2010, and 10 percent by both the Czech Republic and Ireland in 2011.
Of even greater concern are cutbacks by the larger nations upon which European efforts necessarily depend. Both Germany and Great Britain are planning an 8 percent cut in military outlays by 2015, though economic exigencies could accelerate and intensify the cuts.
Along with reductions in the budget have come cuts in the number of military personnel -- down about 160,000 continent-wide from just 2009 to 2011. "The United Kingdom, one of Europe's most important contributors of deployable troops, has been amongst those making significant personnel cuts," said Moelling. Others are likely to follow suit.
Equipment procurement, too, faces significant cutbacks. Governments are delaying acquisition of equipment, reducing order size, retiring weapons early, and reselling equipment. Explained Moelling: "The largest equipment cuts have taken place in small and medium-size EU states, some of which have canceled entire military capabilities. For example, the Netherlands and Denmark are eliminating their main battle tanks. Denmark is also getting rid of its submarines and land-based air defense."
With U.S. officials determined to maintain an outsize military despite the enormous cost to the U.S. economy, the disparity between American and European capabilities continues to grow. For instance, Washington modernizes its forces more often, "leading many to suggest that NATO was already a multi-tier alliance," noted Moelling. Increasingly, the Europeans won't be capable of doing much of anything serious when it comes to war.
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/06/shrinking-nato
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Unreal Realities
- My Orwell, Right or Left
- Pollice Verso and Pigskins
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 2005
-
Chuck McHagel
It won't take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
-
Open Season on Bill Gates
Bill Gates and Microsoft have committed the crime of understanding the Information Age better than anyone else. Now the Reno Justice Department has joined forces with Gates's competitors to teach him a lesson, ignoring what his brilliant career could teach them.
-
RINO Survival Guide
On the trail with Arlen Specter.
-
PBS, R.I.P.
-
Confessions of a Beer Snob
-
Portrait of a Civilized Man
-
Why the Rescue Failed
There was more to Operation Eagle Claw's failure in the desert of Iran than Jimmy told us.
-
Crash Course
In mid-July, fragments of a fearsome comet are scheduled to blast into Jupiter -- just as the U.S. gets set to commemorate the silver anniversary of man's first steps on the moon. What are we doing watching it all from down here?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 12.6.12 @ 8:03AM
Lets get the hell out of NATO, Afganistan, The Middle East, Pakistan, Africa, Japan, Korea, Germany, Guam, etc. We could save at least one half trillion a year with getting rid of foreign aid and foreign entanglements. We have bankrupted the country in the last 20 years doing defense for people who can pay for it themselves in their own blood and treasure. Let the world defend itself.
mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 8:17AM
Very interesting article....But it ignores the 10-Ton, Pink elephant in the room...socialist/statist policies. Hidden almost to the last, a small blurb on although, "they could make more cuts elsewhere, but their publics will not allow them to do so." Sounds an awful lot like Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare here in the US. They may get a "decrease in the scheduled increase," but only defense ever actually gets cut.
A. C. Santore| 12.6.12 @ 9:51AM
Respectfully, Mike, the "10-Ton" elephant in the room is Russia.
Mr. Bandow's first mistake was to write "With the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact there was no longer the slightest chance that Moscow could dominate Europe, let alone Eurasia. The Europeans were capable of defending themselves against whatever dangers remained."
Then he says absolutely nothing about Russia's military, which is now in a major rebuilding phase. And with Putin rattling his sabres like has not been seen since the Cold War.
Putin can pretend all he wants to, but a dyed-in-the wool KGB big wig does not become a democratic stalwart overnight. Never, in fact.
The false sense of security was invented in Europe, and lives on unrelentingly there.
mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 10:09AM
AC,
I stand most firmly and correctly rebuked Sir! I turn over my King!
Regards,
Mike
mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 10:11AM
Actually, your comment about Putin was spot on. Think about it, taking NO other factors into consideration, If you had to hire a guy for the sole purpose of ensuring your country was safe from EXTERNAL threats, which guy would you hire, Obama or Putin?
Occam's Tool| 12.6.12 @ 12:00PM
A good point. However, within 10 years Russia will cease to be a military great power except for nukes---no men. Life expectancy of Russian male is 58 years, and no kids.
mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 12:04PM
True enough...But Putin is still a badass....Kinda makes me recall the side-by-side pictures of Netanyahu & Obama when they both were in their 20's. Google it...it's a stark difference. If you had to make the chioce back then and based on that pic, who would you choose to be your Commander In Chief (Nationality aside)?
Cobalt| 12.6.12 @ 5:36PM
Commander In Chief?
Obama couldn't manage a McDonalds franchise.
Meister| 12.6.12 @ 1:27PM
Russia = plenty of posturing but little of any real substance. They effectively have no choice but to rebuild as most of their kit is obsolete and will be more or less useless by the 2020s.
If you look at their plans for the Navy, for example, they are still very modest. A fleet with maybe a dozen SSNs and a similar number of destroyers split between the Atlantic and Pacific isn't exactly a candidate for global domination. Most of the new ships they are building (e.g. corvettes, patrol frigates) are more defensive than offensive. Maybe this will change, but given the economic and demographic challenges they face I can't see it.
mike 3/505| 12.6.12 @ 1:33PM
True....Bit one thing our adversaries used to say about us...America has awesome military capabilities, with no will to use them effectively.
Louis Jenkins| 12.6.12 @ 8:54AM
The American Military is stretched thin enough and the european nations keep cutting back. Soon enough, if not already, when Nato meets the only one with any muscle in the fight will be the US. They have grown soft, and yet the US is growing soft too. Thanks to OBama. Defense of the US is one of the few things granted by the Constitution, not welfare, food stamps, etc. Try to fight a war with an EBT card and see how far you get!
Meister| 12.6.12 @ 9:41AM
France is actually cutting defence spending by 7% in 2013 and 4% in both 2014 and 2015, so 15% over 3 years rather than 3% as stated here. Denmark decommissioned its 4 boat submarine squadron in 2004. It isn't going to happen, it already has. The UK has only itself to blame - the inefficient use of resources and trying to do much with too little (e.g. the regeneration of limited carrier strike) have resulted in the hollowing out of the British military to the point where entire capabilities are no longer viable.
Harry the Horrible| 12.6.12 @ 9:58AM
There are no threats in Europe, right?
Cancel out, pack up, and go home.
Also, that gets our troops out of the lines of fire when Europe erupts in war again over the EU and its policies, and we can decline to participate...
Doctor Right| 12.6.12 @ 10:28AM
Time to pull-up the stakes and come home from Europe.
If they don't want to defend themselves with an adequate force, why should we do it, instead?
And the next time the Germans get restless, or the Russians get paranoid, or the Muslims start attacking the southern border, it's their damn problem.
Occam's Tool| 12.6.12 @ 12:01PM
Doctor Right: you are correct. We cannot save them and they are unwilling to fight for themselves, unlike Israel. Further, as Euroweenies, they have no interest in fighting to protect freedom.
See Kratman's Caliphate.
Ronsch| 12.6.12 @ 12:47PM
NATO is like the club everyone wants to belong to, but really doe not accomplish much of anything. Or just like fluff on a resume (such as "community organizer") that fills in gaps but provides no solid substantive experience or skills.
Dean V| 12.6.12 @ 1:18PM
You could put the entire British army in the stands of Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor–and still have room left for the Royal Marines
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 12.6.12 @ 4:13PM
The day NATO ceases to exist I will celebrate. I will never forget NATO bombs falling on my Serbian Orthodox brothers and sisters or that the Serbian Jerusalem known as Kosovo was stolen from them by NATO using KLA terrorists as their ground troops. NATO's actions in Bosnia and later Libya are no less criminal. Hands off of Syria!!!
RJ| 12.6.12 @ 9:47PM
Under the developing circumstances, it is hard to see the benefit for the US remaining in NATO and I doubt that Obama would be against US withdrawal from it.
Bilejones| 12.8.12 @ 11:26PM
"This won't change while Americans allow the Europeans to free ride. "
Free ride on what?
There are no material credible threats to Europe.
Providing political cover to US hegemonic violence threatens, not enhances European Security. Nato was always about US expansionism, not Euro security.
Bandow is one more Statist clown buried into the Koch's libertarian false flag organization.