FTR (and in apparent contrast to others posting here) I’m not saying that the US should spend 2% simply because they signed up for it. They should spend whatever it is that they need to spend for their defense without having to rely on the US to spend it for them. I assume that’s 2% based on their having signed up for it, but if they hadn’t signed up for it then I might make the same argument on other grounds.
Bottom line is that everyone should be responsible for dealing with their own issues and not shirk their responsibilities and rely on others to bail them out. Seems straightforward to me.
Couple of things about this struck me. First off, no one is saying that the Europeans should spend what the US does (either the raw amount, which would frankly take the entire EU, not just NATO, OR the percentage of GDP). The US is a major super power with world wide commitments, and obviously, the Europeans don’t want to be that. They, of course, have the luxury of having the US on their side, so they really don’t need to. What people are saying is that the members of NATO agreed to a 2% of GDP spending threshold. The counter argument to this seems to be that this is just pirate rules…really, countries in NATO can spend as much or as little as they want without negative consequences. They aren’t REAL agreements, after all…probably why they went to the bother to define them, I’m sure.
The second thing that struck me here is this seemingly persistent idea that the US is stupid and/or crazy for continuing to spend money on it’s military, since it’s clear there are no threats in the world that necessitate such spending. I guess when you look around the world that’s what you see…it’s a pretty big disconnect from what I see. The largest disconnect, to me is not seeing WHY the US spends what it spends, what it’s spending it on and what it’s goals and requirements for it’s military is. This is a common theme in any sort of discussion…the perennial ‘but you spend as much as the next 10 nations!!’ or whatever the meme de jure is.
Leaving that aside and the 3rd thing I see here is this (incomprehensible to me) idea that if NATO nations spent what they agreed to, it would be ‘wasteful’. To me it’s a sort of catch-22 disconnect…NATO doesn’t need to spend what it should on defense because it doesn’t need to. Why? Well, because the US does and the US is there for NATO. But the US doesn’t really need to spend what they do and they are stupid for doing so. Why? Because there aren’t any threats of course. And even if there are (grudgingly admitted by some folks who are sympathetic to this side of the argument), the US is there…so NATO doesn’t need to spend what they should for the common defense because the US does it already.
In the end, all of this handwaving basically boils down to the question…are the non-US members of NATO spending what they need to fulfill their requirements to provide an effective defense. I suppose we could go country by country and how and why most of NATO’s militaries are simply unable to fulfill this requirement outside of the defense of their own countries (in some cases not even that), but in the end it’s not going to matter because most people don’t seem to understand the basic premise that the amount of money one spends only matters in relation to the requirements one has. And, simply, most of NATO isn’t spending what they need to in order to fulfill their basic requirement…they are, instead, almost completely reliant on those stupid Americans who spend too much to do it for them. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen lately, America is being run by an idiot who ALSO doesn’t get it, and who is a bull in the china shop. One of the greatest alliances in the history of man, one that’s done so much good is in danger of folding because of apathy and ignorance on one side and stupidity and inflated ego on the other…as well as just a drifting apart of core principals and focus.
Sure, no doubt they do. But they have drawn down a lot on their military capabilities. Having a few advanced weapons does you no good if that’s all you have…and can’t project those effectively to where they need to be. There are a ton of articles on Germany and how they have hollowed their military. I just picked this one as it goes into some of those advanced weapons (it’s also far enough from the weeds that hopefully folks eyes won’t glaze over):
And these are just the highlights. If you dig deeper you see outer, even more alarming issues. The German logistics capabilities are even smaller, meaning that what little they do have that’s actually available to be used can’t be easily deployed outside of Germany or maybe a few bordering states. They are almost completely dependent on the US to be able to move a lot of this anywhere outside of Germany it would need to go. Feel free to dig deeper if you like…you’ll see that the German military, while having some VERY advanced technology, is a pretty hollow shell and one not able to fulfill it’s basic requirements. And Germany SHOULD be the strongest.
France, however, is another kettle of fish. Basically, while a similar hollowing has happened in France it’s much less so, because the French until fairly recently DID continue to maintain their military at a higher level that Germany has. It’s only in the last year or so that they finally slipped below that 2%. The issue, however, is that 2% was a MINIMUM threshold, and, again, it’s not how much you spend relative to what others spend, it’s spending to meet your requirements. I will say that France, along with the UK has done better at this than most of the other NATO members. The big problem with relying on France is…how do you get the French army from France to, say, the Baltic regions in the event of a Russian invasion of one of those states? France, by itself, can’t project a lot of it’s military force from France to the Baltic states, certainly not in the face of Russian strikes against European infrastructure.
Russia, of course, has their own issues. They aren’t the big red bear of the cold war anymore. Sure, they basically got the legacy of all that large (massive really) Soviet era spending, but they then had economic collapse and stagnation and simply haven’t been able to spend what they need to either. They are trying to fix that, but their brilliant leader has gotten them into a series of messes that have disrupted those plans. Basically, Putin et al shouldn’t even be able to contemplate a confrontation with NATO. But he can because NATO has allowed itself to hollow out, and instead of being able to speak from strength, NATO is about fractures and weakness, relying on the US to provide the real sword and shield of the alliance. Trouble is…how keen will the US under a Trump be about supporting NATO if it means war because Russia decides to invade the Baltic states, perceiving that weakness and division? Perhaps the US is so overwhelming and will be so unflinching in its support that Russia won’t go down that path (and Trump will either be impeached or won’t be the idiot I think he is, or want to cut a deal with the Russians or some such)…but it’s an actual question. And, I guess the point is…it doesn’t really have to be.
I’ll frame the question a different way that has nothing to do with Europeans fulfilling a promise: if someone criticizes me for not eating enough rutabagas, and threatens to withhold rutabagas from me as a result; but I feel like I am perfectly happy with my rutabaga consumption, the threat to withhold rutabagas from me is pointless and not worth commenting on.
However, if I say: “Oh no! Withholding rutabagas from me is a step too far! How dare you threaten such a thing!” then its pretty clear that something is wrong with my assumptions about how many rutabagas I really need.
So, Europe, if you have enough rutabagas on your own, why should you care at all about the US withholding rutabagas from you?
Mostly because Europe is not a country. It is made of different countries, with different needs and economies.
You see it as inconsistency and hypocrisy, even if the countries themselves have been consistent.
It’s more like saying that if your sister doesn’t eat her rutabagas, then your sister, you, and the rest of your family will be cut off. Just because your sister is fine with her consumption level does not mean that you are.
Not as much as you seem to think. Why do you think the UK spends 2%+ GDP, to keep the Germans safe?
And why the French maintain a hugely expensive nuclear option - maybe to keep safe the wines and pasta sauce of Italy?
Tell me, because after 4 pages all I see here is 30-year old nonsense - and what was already then parochial - of boys talking about toys. It’s like reading Go.
I’m curious as to which NATO countries have a significant potential to be enemies of the United States. Are you expecting Norway to go to war with the USA? Will the Portuguese Navy blockade the Atlantic coastline?
In fairness, I don’t think that there’s any debate that touches the military in which you wouldn’t be totally dismissive of anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
So again, were the US to “moderate” its commitment to the defense of Europe, I can’t see why you’d think that is a bad thing. Obviously the French are equipped to maintain nuclear deterrence of Russia, right? So why does Mattis’ threat matter at all?
[QUOTE=up_the_junction]
Tell me, because after 4 pages all I see here is 30-year old nonsense - and what was already then parochial - of boys talking about toys. It’s like reading Go.
[/QUOTE]
That word…parochial…I dinna thin’ you know what that word means, kimo sabe. Or, put another way…the irony of you calling the opposing position ‘parochial’ while trying to explain how European nations really only think about their own defense and not about the common defense of the alliance (leaving aside how many of them basically CAN’T defend themselves, and are almost completely reliant on the collective defense to defend them individually) is…well, it’s off the charts. Maybe we need a new calibration just for your posts, actually…
Why don’t the Germans, who are pretty obviously more threatened than the UK spend enough to keep their military even basically effective? As for nukes, France and the UK are about the same (about what China has). Not sure how ‘hugely expensive’ that is for any of those nations. Maintenance is cheaper than making the things in the first place, though it does cost. It’s hard to tell with you if you ever have any sort of point or if your statements are even connected, but…well, is your point that France shouldn’t have any nuclear capability at all? Should France (and the UK?) give up all their nuclear weapons? Or something?
When ‘you want they to wave pitchforks’, ehe? Gotcha.
Um…ok, I’ll bite. What’s it got to do with then (or who)? Or, how little is ‘very little’?
Oh, give me a freaking break. The force de frappe had literally everything to do with, in the eyes of de Gaulle, the United States maybe not thinking it is worth trading Paris for Washington DC, thus necessitating a French nuclear deterrent.
Or as a French general put it: "“Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could destroy ten Russian cities; and France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities.”
Consider this: you can’t achieve fuck all with 2% of GDP. The largest economy in the world can’t even succcessfully occupy a 25 million third world nation with 4% GDP plus $2 trillion plus the national reserve plus thousands of private security experts.
For Gods sake, the UK lost in Basra - a city. To a militia. Then it managed to lose a third world province in Afghanistan, to more militia.
Russia almost broke itself trying to control Chechnya and only persevered because it lost in … Afghanistan.
The USA hasn’t won a war for 70 years. Stop living some kind of bizarre fantasy about what is achievable through warfare.
War is asymmetric, it’s cyber space, it’s clickbait, it’s sanctions, it’s reducing freedoms through threat.
Fwiw, the UK and France have nuclear capability in order to try and maintain the archaic and bankrupt post-war consensus - in particular their vetoing power through permanent membership of the UN security council. Without nuclear power they have no credibility at that table.
Enough of this nonsense. Try and understand the real world, not the 1950s fantasy version.
Basra, huh? If you want to say that Europe’s defense policy is to spend a million lives – as Iraq did – to try and fail to beat back an adversary, then you could do that without the United States.
So if warfare doesn’t achieve objectives, why should the US be in an agreement to get into more wars? That’s the problem with any of the arguments that try to paint military operations as outdated, because they also argue that the US shouldn’t be in an alliance that commits them to warfare. And, conversely, if warfare is so useless, why are NATO countries worried about the US scaling back it’s warfare commitments - shouldn’t they be indifferent to it, since it’s all useless anyway?
Agreed that the Korean War, the Vietnam War and Gulf War II were not among the US’s stellar achievements, but Gulf War I was a complete success, accomplishing the goal of liberating Kuwait.
[QUOTE=up_the_junction]
Enough of this nonsense. Try and understand the real world, not the 1950s fantasy version.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the irony is just off the scale. For someone who clearly doesn’t know the first thing about the military, and in fact revels in that ignorance and constantly waves it around as a badge of honor, it’s funny to hear you spout stuff like this.
It’s also funny that you so clearly don’t understand the point anyone is trying to make to you that you knee jerk to some sort of 1950’s fantasy stereotype of your supposed dinosaur cold warrior Republican meme. Since you never actually engage with anyone in debate but instead simply run some kind of tape recorded rant it’s hard to discuss anything with you.
So, they don’t keep their nuclear weapons for deterrence, but instead they do it, in your opinion, to keep their UNSC seats? What do you base such a weird view on? Precedence perhaps? AFAIK, the only nation to ever be booted from the UNSC was Taiwan…and, really, it wasn’t. What actually happened was the definition of who was or wasn’t ‘China’ was sort of kind of modified, so that instead of Taiwan representing all of China the mainland represented it. Had zero to do with nuclear weapons and who did or didn’t have them.
Again, clearly you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about and are ranting about stuff by babbling words like ‘UK and France have nuclear capability in order to try and maintain the archaic and bankrupt post-war consensus’ while thinking this has to do with their seats on the UNSC.
It’s all of those things. Clearly, however, it’s also dropping bombs and putting boots on the ground when those are needed. I know you don’t believe that, but then it’s pretty clear that you don’t actually understand this stuff at all. Sadly, many countries who are unfriendly towards Europe or European interests don’t feel the same way. And by not spending the money and resources to ensure a strong ability in all the stuff you DIDN’T think are important in the above you ensure that you are seen as weak. NATO is seen as weak, especially if you take the US out of the alliance. And weakness can be exploited over time.
It’s you who is living in a fantasy. What the US (and NATO) have achieved in the last 70 years is PREVENTING WAR, by and large. Strength…the strength of the alliance…is what’s prevented war in Europe or, by and large, against European or American interests. We, together have been able to maintain one of the more peaceful times in human history…certainly breaking the trend of the proceeding several hundred years of warfare getting more and more deadly killing more and more 10’s of millions. And at the same time been able to protect and expand our mutual interests. I know in your own mind this all just happened by happy chance and good fortune, plus peace on earth and good will towards man. But the reality is that it happened becaues NATO was a bulwark against any sort of aggression or expansion against the alliance. The very strength of the alliance meant no one was going to fuck with it, certainly not directly and in their face. Something like what is happening in the Ukraine and the backdoor threats against the Baltic states wouldn’t have been thinkable by Russia 10 years ago. It is today because folks like you think peace just happens.
As to the US no winning any wars in the last 70 years…depends on the definition. It’s moot, regardless. The US has certainly fucked up a lot. Doesn’t mean that military options are defunct or obsolete, however. While the US hasn’t won wars (according to you), by engaging in military operations we’ve kind of straddled the fence…we’ve provided stability and assistance with some, instability and chaos with others. But nothing we’ve done wrt military engagement has demonstrated that war is obsolete now, that having a capable military is somehow old school and outdated, or that other nations out there don’t think that there is a military option.
Gods know what point you are trying to make here…or think you are making. It’s all over the board. The UK was attempting to project force halfway around the world with a force that didn’t have the requirements or funding to do so. What this has to do with spending money on the military for mutual defense is lost on me (I doubt you actually had a point, so I don’t feel that bad). It would be like saying that a semi-pro soccer team lost to an amateur home town rugby team and scratching your head as to how this could happen when clearly the soccer team members are paid professionals! I know…you totally don’t get the analogy.
Apples to orangutans. The US isn’t (wasn’t) exactly putting everything it has in the field to occupy…well, anything, really. Not anymore. Presumably, you meant Iraq here. But the US wasn’t fully engaged with conquering Iraq for our empire. What we tried to do (on the cheap) was basically regime change. That part worked fine…our military, stripped down as it was (IIRC, we sent in basically 125k troops with armor, mechanized infrantry, artillery, fighters and bombers), basically was able to go in and remove the regime (at the time, the 4th largest military on the planet). We did that with a fraction of our entire military capabilities. Where it went wrong was…our idiotic leaders didn’t plan on what to do AFTER the government fell and we had far to few troops to occupy Iraq with.
But the reason why your rant here makes no sense is that we aren’t talking about Germany, France, the UK etc sending out their forces to take over and control a 3rd world country half way around the world. We are talking about their ability to send defensive forces to the aid of other NATO members in the event of an invasion of NATO members territory or to protect or defend NATO and their members interests. They can’t currently do it…or, at least they MIGHT be able to do it (certainly with the US’s aid), but that it would take time and cost a great deal if they had too. That 2% you handwave away is for THAT…not for invading and occupying 3rd world nations to enlarge the European Empire. And it’s the cumulative effect of 2% over time. It’s not going to solve over a decade of underfunding tomorrow. But over time? Yeah, it would make a difference for the security of Europe.
Or, put another way…the irony of you calling the opposing position ‘parochial’ while trying to explain how European nations really only think about their own defense and not about the common defense of the alliance (leaving aside how many of them basically CAN’T defend themselves, and are almost completely reliant on the collective defense to defend them individually) is…well, it’s off the charts. Maybe we need a new calibration just for your posts, actually…