-
Restrain the Abusive Administative State
May 22, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Delivering Serbs to the Wolves
May 21, 2013 | 27 comments
-
The Perils of Intervention in Syria
May 7, 2013 | 37 comments
-
America on Welfare
April 25, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Thursday Is Tax Freedom Day
April 17, 2013 | 5 comments
At Large
Shrinking NATO
It’s becoming an alliance without a military.
(Page 2 of 3)
Despite manifold deficiencies of their militaries, European governments still have been able to support peacekeeping operations — until now. However, warned Moelling, “Several European countries have already started withdrawing their troops from multinational operations in order to save money.” As the militaries of smaller nations dwindle to nothingness, the alliance will place increasing responsibility on larger European nations even though they are reducing their forces as well.
The negative cycle seems destined to accelerate. With Europe in economic crisis, there is ever less public support for foreign expeditions, warned Moelling. Indeed: “At a time of significant financial hardship, some may raise difficult questions about the legitimacy of such militaries, and others might even begin to question the merit of having armed forces at all.” Despite the dream of European elites to turn the European Union into a Weltmacht to compete with the U.S. and China on the global stage, the continent increasingly seems destined for geopolitical irrelevance.
After all, even Europe’s stalwarts are cutting their militaries. Andrew Dorman of King’s College in London wrote about the United Kingdom, considered to be America’s most faithful ally. Two years ago the new coalition government announced a four-year real reduction of 7.5 percent in military outlays, but, noted Dorman, “in reality defense spending has dropped by nearly 25 percent” due to a shift in financing of new nuclear submarines and over-commitments by the previous Labour government.
Manpower of 104,000 is slated to fall to 82,000 to 84,000 by 2020. The number of different weapons platforms and number of units acquired will drop essentially across-the-board. Concluded Dorman: “The reductions in the armed forces will have a significant impact on Britain’s ability to project and sustain military power.” The only silver lining in the dark cloud is that Britain’s withdrawal from Afghanistan will restore a limited ability to intervene, but on a smaller scale, with a longer response time, and over a less extended period.
France joins Britain at the top of Europe’s military hierarchy. Determined to maintain an independent global presence, French military outlays dropped just .6 percent in real terms from 2002 to 2011. Although Paris has cut the number of military personnel, it professionalized its force.
But all good things must come to an end. Financial constraints forced Paris to reduce its planned spending from 2009 to 2014 by three percent. Moreover, noted Camille Grand of the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique: “it will become increasingly difficult for Paris to meet the 2013-2017 budgetary increases envisaged in France’s 2008 defense strategy.” Indeed, with the Socialist Party taking control of the French presidency and parliament, “it is widely assumed that significant military spending cuts will be introduced.”
Grand figured military outlays could fall short of current targets by about 10 percent annually. Almost inevitable are a smaller force and a reduced ability to intervene abroad. Moreover, such a change would essentially end the fantasy of a continental military. Grand warned of the possibility of “abandoning the cause of EU defense cooperation: France would no longer be in a position to sustain its long standing efforts to turn the EU into a leading player in global security with autonomous military capabilities.”
Most important for the U.S., with a reduced military capability France is likely to become another shameless defense “free-rider.” Observed Grand: “Like most other Europeans, France risks relying on the U.S. to address global crises.” Surprise, surprise!
Germany, despite its storied (though at times discreditable) military history, is a lesser military power than Britain and France. Its military cuts so far have been less draconian than Britain’s but, reported Bastian Giegerich of the Bundeswehr Institute of Social Sciences, budget concerns are driving reductions which “are likely to accelerate in the period 2014-2016.”
While the government hopes to maintain “the broadest spectrum of military capabilities possible,” it will be reducing force and equipment levels across-the-board. Moreover, this approach means “a reduced ability to sustain troops for long deployments abroad.” With the end of conscription, which should increase the quality of Berlin’s armed forces, personnel levels are falling. The positive is that Germany currently is able to sustain no more than 8,000 of the 14,000 that it claims to be deployable for international crises; ongoing reforms are supposed to bump that up to a still paltry 10,000.
However, these are not likely to be the last cuts. The government is pushing to renegotiate existing procurement contracts, with the threat to reduce research and development on new capabilities if companies refuse. That may not be enough. The Euro crisis continues to expand with Berlin expected to bankroll any and all rescue efforts. The squeeze on German finances will worsen even if the country avoids the recession which has hit many of its neighbors.
The study includes a review of American military spending. Washington’s outlays almost inevitably will fall too. President Barack Obama appears to accept the impossibility of maintaining America’s current outsize outlays, nearly half of the world’s military expenditures.
Adam Grissom of the RAND Corporation predicted that coming reductions will lead to additional personnel withdrawals and base closures in Europe. He argued that the actual cost of basing American units in Europe is small, but his analysis ignores the cost of raising the units. Commitments require force structure. If Washington is going to protect Europe from unknown threats and garrison the continent forever, the U.S. must maintain a larger military. The cost of raising those units is part of America’s NATO cost.
Nevertheless, he correctly contended that the basic issue is one of strategy, a “fundamental decision to cease being a global power altogether,” as he put it, or, more accurately in my view, to stop attempting to micro-manage the world. Being a global power does not require forever subsidizing the defense of those capable of protecting themselves. It certainly does not require doing so when those capable of doing so don’t believe there is any reason to do so. Some Europeans don’t believe there is anything they need to defend against. Others believe that America always will step in if such a need emerges. It doesn’t matter which opinion predominates: the effect is the same.
The Brookings Institution report demonstrates that the Europeans are moving away from even the pretense of maintaining capable militaries. The authors are strong advocates of a relevant Europe, but have no solution to offer. For instance, Christian Moelling admitted: “It will not be feasible for most NATO allies to increase their military spending in the years to come.”
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
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Razing Reagan
- The Continuing Crisis
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
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.