It’s often asserted that the US pays for the defense of Europe, by maintaining a larger, more active military than anything the European countries can – or will – muster up. This inevitably provokes people to ask what it is, exactly, that the US is protecting Europeans from.
So let’s take a stab at it. Imagine the US government decided it wanted to redirect all those military tax dollars to developing a national health care system, and as a result the military was reduced to a mere fraction of its former self: the US now has the proportional military capacity of, say, Denmark. For the sake of the argument, we’ll say the US keeps its current number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next five or so years, but that’s about it. All the soldiers stationed in Europe and Asia come home. The US is, for all practical purposes, out of the global military calculus. It will honor existing treaties to some extent, but a full-scale re-armament would be almost unheard of.
So what happens? Anarchy? Global peace? How does Europe react in the long run? Does it suddenly face itself finding new threats and challenges it didn’t appreciate before, or does life go on just as before? Would Europe strengthen its own armies to fill the gap, and if so, how does that change the global equation? What happens in the rest of the world, for that matter?
Actually, with the exception of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, most American troops already are either back in the US or scheduled to return soon. Current Army plans are to reduce all overseas peacetime forces to three brigades by 2010; the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Germany, the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, and the 4th Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea.
I don’t believe it would make a significant difference in the short term in most of the world. Russia and China would have a significantly stronger position in their respectives spheres of influence (for instance, what are the central Asian republics going to do without any counterweight to Russia?) and probably would follow a more agressive foreign policy, keeping things in line. I don’t think it would change much of anything in the India/Pakistan issue, but I bet there will suddenly be a lot of diplomatic activity in the area as these two countries scramble for other external support. Latin America is rather peaceful, and I don’t see fights resuming in the balkans in the near future, so Europe should be safe too. As for Africa, it should be business as usual, since the USA is rarely militarily involved there, leaving the issues to former European colonial powers (France, UK) or other African nations, like Nigeria. Sheeps would still graze in New-Zealand.
Which leaves us with the middle-east, filled with unstable regimes facing both external and internal tensions. In some cases, I assume that other powers would fill the gap (For instance France has a significant involvment in Lebanon, and Turkey would probably suddenly find itself a very influential regional power courted by everybody), but who is going to provide a massive support to Egyptia, Israel or Jordan? Or to back-up the Saudi regime? I suspect it could turn ugly very fast in this area. Coups, insurgencies, civil wars and probably eventually external wars. Other countries (including European countries) might have to step in, but lacking the overwhelming power of the USA, they’ll have to do so as allies to the parties in conflict rather than all by themelves.
Of course, the USA is going to lose a lot of influence (and the corresponding markets) and currently secondary and regional powers will gain a lot of it. But it wouldn’t make the USA irrelevant on the international scene, due to its impressive economical power, which certainly plays a major part in its ability to influence the policies of other countries. Of course, this economical power will take a hit (no point in buying these US aircrafts rather the competitor’s, for instance), but not a major one.
I assume a number of countries will have to devellop stronger militaries, to defend themselves, to protect their influence, to react to significant international crisis. Japan, for instance. And in all likehood Europe. Lacking a meaningful US alliance, the UK will have to turn to the continent and France will jump on the occasion in a heartbeat to push for the development of an integrated European army, with, this time, a huge argument in its favor, no opposing stance, and not much other options, actually. Both countries will probably also insist on higher military expenses for other EU countries (France and the UK spend much more than other European countries on their militaries in %age of the GNP), and I suspect many of them will see that as being in their best interest. Germany will probably renounce to what is left of its traditionnal reluctance to be involved in foreign military operations.
That would be my bets.
Careful, they’re very crafty, the Taffs. You marry one, become an honorary Taff, and before you know it your burning down your own holiday home.
If the US diminished its military presence, there would arguably be more reliance on UN peacekeeping forces. Pakistan supplies 8500+ such troops. The EU provides 4000+. The US provides 430. So long as each country pays a proportionate share of peacekeeping costs as stipulated by the UN Charter those countries signed, the rest of the world will not become less secure, IMO.
Not Europe, but wouldn’t the US demilitarizing potentially give mainland China the greenlight to invade and reclaim Taiwan? I don’t know that the US presence is the only thing preventing it, but I do believe it is a factor.
Well, that’s probably true enough for the very short term (though I’d expect China to try and take Taiwan quickly) But the real issue is the medium-and long-term results. You concede that “a number of countries will have to devellop stronger militaries;” I’d say that due to the domino effect sooner or later damn near everybody would feel the need to.
IMO, history calls into very serious question the assumption that replacing the Pax Americana with a a multi-polar world would lead to a peaceful outcome. Thta requires a rather naive faith that we’ve achieved some sort of fundamental evolution in the human psyche, that history is past and gone, and we’re we’re not prone to war as were our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers and on and on.
Color me unconvinced that the world is ready to rely on the militaries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria to replace the security guarantees currently provided by 12 aircraft carriers, two dozen B-2 stealth bombers, and a hellova lot of smart bombs.
Anyway, with respect to the OP, it is pretty hard to imagine NATO being anywhere near its current capability. The US provides an overwhelming amount of airlift capacity: the NATO mission in Afghanistan would be in big trouble without it.
The chances of stopping nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and (to a lesser extent) Iran would be gone.
North Korea might become more belligerent in provoking war with South Korea. That’s a hard one to figure.
I have no doubt that China would actively begin planning a military-style reunification with Taiwan. No question.
Commercial shipping in the Pacific Rim and the Persian Gulf would lose the security currently provided by the US Navy. Oil traffic in the Middle East could return to those days of Iran lobbing Silkworm missiles now and then. Frikkin’ pirates could have the run of the Malacca Straits.
‘Security’ technology and materiel they may be. But guaranteed what? I actually do have more faith in UN troops not to simply act in the national interest of their own particular state, but consult and plan multilaterally so that tens of thousands do not die needlessly. You know what I’m talking about.
“Security guarantee” is a term that refers both to the assurance that a guarantor will act if its ally is attacked, and to the peace of mind that the intervention will be militarily effective.
Unless you contemplate some massive restructuring of the UN – which is not realistic at all – the UN is a lousy securty guarantor for both reasons: the UNSC makes it very difficult for the UN to intervene in a violent, controversial dispute; and the overwhelming bulk of military forces that are committed to peacekeeping missions are not well-trained or well-equipped by American standards.
There are certain advantages to using Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Nigerian soldiers: they are indeed preferred because of the appearance of neutrality. I do not dispute you there. But if the North Korean hoardes are coming over the border, you’ve got to be out of your freakin’ mind if you’d prefer to have Pakistani soldiers coming to your aid, rather than the American military.
You cannot seriously tell me that a global drawdown of American military forces could be qualitatively replaced by UNPKO using Third World militaries. It is just silly on its face.
I’m saying it would actually be a better replacement in most cases entirely because they are trained to be Peacekeepers before Warmakers, under multilateral command rather than beholden to the interests of one particular state. Of course there will be situations where the Peacekeepers are inadequate: the UNSC must then sanction “all means necessary” to its more militarily powerful members (as in Gulf I, where other states would have taken the place of the US - less effectively, certainly, but the job would still have been done IMO.)
If the case is such that the UNSC does not sanction such action (and I believe that the Charter should be amended to sanction by default action in a demonstrably time-sensitive humanitarian crisis eg. a verifiably ongoing genocide), then the very real question is whether the US does more good than harm by intervening unilaterally. Your example of the North Korean hordes would, I believe, have the UNSC sanctioning such military action in response (as it did in Gulf I). Again, the US might be more effective than any other single state or alliance of several, but this is far outweighed by those cases where it stomps around in Soviet-style boots in its own interest. Removing the latter outweighs the disadvantage those marginal cases provide in the former, I suggest.
Remember as well that the UN peacekeepers are not equipped by their country but by the UN.
Over the last 20 years ~30,000 Irish troops have been deployed in the Lebanon as part of a UN peace keeping force. They are far better equipped under that UN mission than regular Irish troops. Same goes for the Irish troops in East Timor who are under a UN flag as well.
I’d also assume that if the US were to pull out of missions internationally they would be expected to supply more troops to peacekeeping missions. That would entail something that the US doesn’t like however i.e. giving up total control of their troops and mission.
BTW remember it was Pakistani (and Canadian) UN troops that came to the aid of US soldiers in Somalia when the shit hit the fan.
You know, I’d like to see the scenario presented in the OP – just to try it and see what happens. (Nothing would happen, in my view). God knows it’s an article of faith in foreign policy circles that the world would come to pieces if America demilitarized. But it’s not like our militarized approach to problem-solving has been a particularly happy experience generally. People are quick to forget the failures, and even the often-tragic collaterals to the successes.
To look at one of the examples presented here – Taiwan – is it really the American military stopping the Reds from eating it like an after-dinner mint? I don’t think so. China has become so dependent on its export economy that if the rest of the world wanted to strangle China economically, it could do so almost instantly. China knows this full well, and tailors its behavior accordingly.
Are you on drugs? You honestly think there would have been a military response to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait without the US military around to do 90% of the work?
Take the US out of the equation and you’ve basically got the British, the French, and the Saudis. How many troops would they have been able to transport to Saudi Arabia? The Iraqi army would have outnumbered them ten to one. A UN response would probably have been enough to defend Saudi against a further advance, but the overall response would have been similar to the Indonesian takeover of East Timor. The world would have shrugged, talked about how terrible it all was, and then start buying Kuwaiti oil from Saddam. Facts on the ground, you know, old chap. Realism. That’s just the way things are in this rum world. After all, what’s the difference between Saddam and the Emir of Kuwait?
Why, yes, actually. In fact, I think that some parties other than the US might have enjoyed displaying their military muscle. Whether they would actually have succeeded as quickly with so few casualties is a different matter, which I acknowledged.
But, as I said, if the operation was to be carried out by UN members after the necessary money-to-troops/materiel bargaining, you are talking about a joint force comprising thousands of troops from each member, all eager to prove their worth, and the non-negligible air support of the EU and whoever else. Just because those happened to be the only allies the way it did turn out doesn’t mean that they would have been the only allies if it was clear no US help would materialise: I happen to think the UNSC would still seek to set an example to future invaders. With generous enough offers like, say, control of some of Iraq’s oilfields, even Russia or China might have been tempted. Again, I make no comment on whether their idea of value for money would be equitable, but such a potentially profitable carte blanche might seem difficult to turn down. After all, the US took it a decade later.
It would have to be more than just a reduction in the size of the armed forces. I think a big part of the DoD budget is buying ships, planes and weapons systems. We’re still building nuclear submarines and one of the new fighter jets is costing something like $250 million each.
The British, French, Canadian and Saudi air forces would have been easily able to command the air in Gulf I if they had of deployed a bigger force. Once the air was won Iraq would have lost. It may have been a longer uglier affair but they’d have lost. Hey, and you never know with someone else calling the shots other that Bush Snr. the job might have been finished there and then and Iraq invaded and Saddam removed
In a world where the US pulled back their forces the other members of NATO would be forced to ramp up don’t forget so the current forces would be almost certainly stronger.
Ask anyone involved in the military action in Kosovo and they will tell you that NATO was completely wound around the axle on trying to coordinate a military action with a committee in charge. The non-interoperability of NATO equipment – especially among newer NATO members – is a major issue that causes problems in the field. The idea that you can just throw out a bunch of troops into the field, point them in the right direction, and tell 'em to work out who’s in charge before they start the war, is just absurd.
Good grief, man, you’re going from simply not understanding what it takes to run a war to tempting countries to get into war as a form of privateering in the name of the Holy Blue Helmet. Aren’t you one of the Administration’s fiercest critics for starting this Iraq war with lies and hidden intent to capture Iraqi oil?! And now you’re saying that we would have done better in 1991 to carve up Iraq to entice countries like Russia and China to join in on the war? Does “no war for oil” only apply to the US in your world?
Finally, on your earlier point that the UN should simply intervene in wars/civil disasters without being authorized by so much as a vote: Congratulations. I never thought anyone would actually propose that the UN become a military dictatorship. What makes a unilateral war declared by the UN Secretary General any better than a unilateral war declared by the US President?
