“Angela, it’s me, the most amazing President that there has ever been. I heard that my friend Putin – great guy, knows the best hookers – dropped a nuclear bomb on Berlin. Sad! Well, the U.S. can’t come to your defense because we spent an awful lot of money on that Iraq war that started a decade and a half ago. As everyone knows, I supported that war at the time, but now I think it was a terrible idea, so I never supported it. Anyway, good luck with the war. Look at the upside of this: the U.S. is now going to have a trade surplus with you because your country is in ruins. Don’t bother calling me back, because you remind me of Rosie O’Donnell if she spoke, uh, what’s your language called? Germanish? P.S., I’m worth ten times what the American taxpayer paid for that Iraq war. Isn’t that amazing? I’m truly the elite. I know you’re in awe of me. Trump out.”
I was agreeing with Voyager: War costs more than peace. And most definitely: The Iraq war was colossally stupid.
Where did I suggest backing out of all military commitments? And where did I suggest cutting the military budget to the bone? Just because I think we overspend doesn’t mean I think it should be “cut to the bone.”
Of course, we will naturally have to make cuts to the existing branches of the military to make way for the super-cool Space Force. 
And the parade. Don’t forget Trump’s parade. Sure, we might have to shut down a few VA hospitals to pay for it but let’s not overlook the vital strategic importance of having our military units march down the street while Donald Trump waves at them.
Got it. And total wars cost a lot more than the pissant wars we’ve been fighting - though I appreciate they are not pissant to the people caught in tham. Especially Iraqis.
It isn’t a real war until they issue ration books, if you ask me.
Your proposal to make significant cuts is perilously close to suggesting we cut to the bone. Have you heard of the two major regional conflict principle? It’s the notion we used in to “right size” the military in the wake of the Cold War. It replaced the notion of being prepared to fight a World War on relatively short notice. The new notion was that we had sufficient combat power to, in conjunction with our regional partners, fight and win two large regional conflicts simultaneously. The driving notion was that if we got into a major conflict we wouldn’t present an opportunity to other potential adversaries. If say we got involved in a major ground war on the Korean peninsula it’s not an opportunity for Russia to attack Europe while we are otherwise busy.
We no longer have that capability. The concept was abandoned in 2012 and cuts that made it reality were implemented. We’re now using the goal of having enough to be able to delay long enough in the second theater to try and not lose until the first conflict is over. The goal is having at least enough to make that second conflict really costly, as a form of deterrence, in case we can’t hold out long enough to win.
It got worse than even the Obama administration assumed. The sequester, and the resulting Budget Control Act of 2013, made even more serious cuts than initially projected. Some additional cuts got put in place weakening the deterrent for a second adversary. Even then SECDEF Ash Carter was warning about a hollow force (i.e. one with low readiness) without either more funding or even greater cuts.
The European members of NATO need to be preparing to carry the bulk of the load in their own defense. In the last 5+ years the amount of help the US can guarantee has dropped quite a bit. We’re probably closer to being able to carry a WWI share of the load than WWII if we are engaged in another MRC when the call comes. Our technical advantages relative to Russia have also eroded to a degree in the last decade plus. Trump has been casting doubts on our willingness to meet our Article V commitments. Significant cuts present real risks to our ability to meet them in a significant way.
But expansion means occupation, and occupation means problems. Once you occupy territory, you have to maintain control of it. That requires money, and the more territory you acquire the more people you have to keep happy. I don’t think Putin necessarily wants that headache. What he wants is to weaken the Western democratic alliance. Why would he need to occupy Hungary when he can just manipulate Orban’s Hungary or Croatia or Poland with soft power?
Everyone just walked right past this but I think you’ve got the answer in one here.
Trump does not care how much NATO countries spend on defense. Trump cares about how much money those NATO countries are paying to buy hardware from the United States of America. All this talk about this percent and that percent is nothing more than pathetic begging for corporate welfare.
Comparing the US 3.5% to Germany’s 1.4% is very misleading.
The US projects power all around the world and only a fraction of that money could be considered to be to support NATO allies, or even for obvious deterrents to Russia. The US’ eyes have not been on Europe for the same reason that European government spend little on their military; no-one thought there was much risk of war.
However since the annexation of the Crimea, military budgets in Europe have started going up. If Trump had just said “I know you’re heading towards 2% but hurry up already!”, I’d be right behind him.
What he did instead is
- say a bunch of stuff that shows he doesn’t understand what NATO is (e.g. about paying back money)
- tell a lie about germany, and in the process show he doesn’t understand trade (again) “Germany imports 70% of its energy from Russia…therefore Germany is Russia’s bitch” (paraphrased)
- suggest everyone should shoot for 4%. This is more than even the US spends now, and we can ask what future does Trump want? Note that it’s a feature not a bug that the US spends considerably more on its military than the Europeans: helping to keep europe more stable. Now, while it’s true that motive may be a little out of date now, I’d rather see us go in the direction of all de-escalating rather than all spending shedloads on our militaries.
Maybe people walked right by it because it was kind of a silly drive by? Let me ask you something…how much money do you suppose the other NATO members spend each year on US equipment? Do you think it’s a lot of money, relative to our economy? Feel free to look it up…I’ll give you a hint though. It’s a number so small that it isn’t even 1% of our GDP. Put it this way…if the major NATO members spent ALL their budgets on US military equipment it would be around what China spends on it’s military…which would be about a quarter of our entire military budget. That would be a reasonable chunk, no doubt, though less than our other trade with Europe. But they don’t…almost all of the major NATO members have their own military and industrial complex for weapons, or they use European ones primarily.
Of course, we are talking about Trump, and he’s fairly clueless, so he might think it’s a lot more than it is, or that the US gets some sort of kick back on all sales or something. But you need to put things in perspective.
Fair enough but Trump straight up admitted it:
(relevant section is about halfway down, “Trump promotes the U.S. weapons industry”)
Well sure he does. He’s an idiot and probably hasn’t bothered to look up the numbers. It’s more money than he has, so he probably figures that’s a lot. But IIRC the total US arms export is something like $60-70 billion annually. It doesn’t even make the top 10 for exports and puts it around gems and precious metals. And I think the lions share of that export business isn’t going to Europe. Even when they are thinking about buying big ticket stuff like the F-35 they are buying only a few of them and then over several years.
Not really a drive by, just an observation. You mentioned that there were obligations other than NATO, I pointed out that some of them are political, not military in nature.
I had not thought of the purchases of other NATO members at that point, only the spending that is done on our own military.
Your “silly” accusation is much more of a drive by.
The same perspective that has trump talking about bringing back coal jobs.
Yours was a one liner that was going for laughs, I assume. I at least bothered to explain my point. 
While there is some merit to what you are saying (in your one line drive by), our commitment to NATO and throughout the world goes a bit beyond "defense contractors, lobbyists and PACs’.
As for Trump and his bring back the coal jobs, well…as I’ve said repeatedly, he’s an idiot. But the US commitment to our various military alliances as well as military stances throughout the world predates him by decades, so not sure what point you are trying to make there. If it’s ‘Trump doesn’t have a clue how any of this works’, well…yeah, he doesn’t.
I meant it with at least as much gravitas as you meant with your one line post that I replied to.
Yes, but that is one of its commitments, and a large part of why our military spending is so high. There is also congressmen campaigning on bringing defense dollars to their districts.
Our military could be much less expensive, and cover more militarily relevant obligations, were it not for political considerations that come first.
When it is a question as to why trump did something, then reminding ourselves that trump is an idiot is useful in getting your head around it. While you are correct that these alliances go back to well before trump, that he is changing these alliances is a recent development, and is centered on him.
Ah, I see. Well, it’s debatable. I think your reply was overly simplistic and glosses over a lot of reality, and that it was mainly going for a sound bite that SOUNDS reasonable but when you dig in really is just gloss. YMMV of course. I will say that my posts rarely have much ‘gravitas’ so that’s kind of a low bar you are shooting for there. 
I disagree. Our military spending is so high because we are covering a large percentage of the planet with a relatively small force, and part of our edge is to have weapons that are technologically superior to most enemies, and when on par we have more of them. Those basic requirements necessitate a large expenditure and have to do with the overarching requirements given the military more than political considerations which basically ride the coat tails of those requirements.
Not substantially less expensive as long as we have the requirements we have. Oh, you might be able to shave off a few billion, but that’s not even drops in the bucket. The only way you could save a substantial amount is to change the requirements. Don’t need to participate in NATO? Save some money. Don’t need to do freedom of navigation exercises to keep China in check? Save some money. Don’t need to ensure our relatively small force (from a global perspective) is technologically superior or at least on par with anything out there? That would save some money. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse with your statements…IOW, IMHO you have it exactly backwards.
Sure he is, but the meat of what we are discussing right now has little to do with Trump. Actually, this thread was my way of putting one of Trump’s assertions to the question to see how 'dopers feel about things. I’ve been pleasantly encouraged by the response. I’m a bit disappointed in my Taiwan thread…no one seems to care much about that subject. Perhaps because of China, or just lack of interest.
For the better part of a century, the United States has proudly served as a guardian of freedom throughout the world. I think Americans should be proud of their country’s role. The United States has given its solemn oath that it will protect countries like Latvia from aggression.
The United States has the world’s best equipped and most expensive military. What is this military for if not to honor our commitments to allies? Is it to fend off hungry Guatemalan children?
America’s sacred pledge to NATO has been so effective at keeping world peace that it has only been necessary to invoke Article Five of the Treaty of Washington one time:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Is it ancient history now? Do all Dopers recall the one occasion when Article Five was invoked?
Surprisingly, it was not the U.S.A. coming to the defense of Central Europe. The Treaty was invoked on 12 September 2001 after an attack against New York City.
TL;DR: A better question might be:* Is the U.S.A. obsolete?* Organizations like the UN and NATO remind us of a more rational world, and may serve as inspirations helping America to regain its once-great stature.
Exactly!
Ideally, the Europeans would have forces such that they’d be able to mostly deter the Russians by themselves, and standing US forces in Europe would be, while not token, not the primary combat power of NATO. I think we’re pretty much there now, but the Europeans haven’t shouldered the rest of the load, so NATO is historically weak in Europe these days.
The big problem with NATO is that a lot of countries feel really secure in Uncle Sam’s shadow, and don’t spend on defense like they should. Look at Canada; with the exception of NATO, UN and humanitarian commitments, they have no need for more than an essentially token military, most of which would be polar interceptors and naval forces. Same with Germany; who’s going to attack Germany directly these days, especially being part of NATO and one of Uncle Sam’s good buddies. So to some extent, the high US spending begets lower European spending. For a point of comparison, the ENTIRE German Army is about the same as the active duty Army forces in Texas combined with the Texas National Guard. Roughly 3 divisions (2 armored, one not)- if anything, the forces in Texas are larger by a little bit due to independent commands.
That, I suspect is why people are annoyed with the spending on the part of the European allies. In reality, it’s the four or so G7 countries in NATO who aren’t spending their 2% who are the problem (Italy, Germany, Canada, and France, although they come close). You could have a lot of Latvias paying 2% before you even get to Canada paying 0.99%, much less Germany.
I disagree. I think Trump has no more attachment to the U.S. defense industry than he does to, say, the U.S. dishwasher industry. He will happily laud pretty much any U.S. industry over anyone else’s just as a matter of his kneejerk nationalism. But like his approach to virtually all other public policy matters, he is profoundly ignorant of any substance and views it through the lens of “Whatever is best for me and my ego.”
Same with his idiotic 4% goal for defense spending. It’s not based on anything other than his own personality disorders, primarily narcissistic. He wants to push other people around for no other reason than to push them around. In my opinion, that’s where this whole issue starts and ends.
Speaking as a liberal who is generally a defense hawk, if all NATO members met their 2% spending commitments, NATO would be a really, really powerful military force. That would be in the ballpark of an additional $100 billion in European defense spending each year. Seeing as how the U.S. just increased its budget by about $80 billion a year, and that’s a hell of a lot of money on top of a lot of money, getting to an additional $100 billion of NATO spending per year is just great – there’s no substantive reason to add $200 or $300 billion of defense spending just to soothe Trump’s insatiable ego.
They did reasonably well with this for 40 years, didn’t they? I’m sure there are plenty of Russians still working with experience on how to occupy countries.
Not that these issues ever stopped anyone. They can convince themselves that the people will welcome them with flowers. Just like the Iraqis welcomed us.