Reply With Quote
Europe is a ripe peach. Primed for the plucking.
US starts backing out, there will be chaos. Nothing deters agression more than strength...and Europe is flacid.
Pull Your Weight, Europe
by Sally McNamara
European leaders were shocked this week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a NATO audience that the alliance faces a “crisis” because the continent has largely demilitarized. Why the surprise — have they been in a coma?
Europe’s free defense ride — thanks to the rock-solid US security guarantee within the NATO alliance — has been a problem for decades. Taking the US protective umbrella for granted, the continent has raided defense budgets to cover its ever-growing welfare bills.
Just four of NATO’s European members (Bulgaria, France, Greece and Britain) spend the alliance’s recommended benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Just 2.7 percent of Europe’s 2 million military personnel were deployed overseas in 2007, reflecting badly on NATO’s 1999 pledge to engage in important “out of area” operations.
And it’s no recent trend. Back in 1999, for the NATO air campaign against Serbia, the US provided 100 percent of NATO’s jamming capability, 90 percent of the air-to-ground surveillance and 80 percent of the air-refueling tankers. US fighters and bombers delivered 90 percent of the precision-guided munitions.
The divide’s grown even worse since 9/11, as America has moved into a new political and security space. Now Gates seems to be saying, “Enough’s enough.” America finally appears unwilling to continue shouldering such a disproportionate amount of the regional and global security burden.
Why now? It’s Afghanistan, stupid.
The inequitable sharing of risks and responsibilities playing out there has raised the stakes considerably: America and Britain account for nearly 60,000 of the 86,000 NATO troops. And many more US forces serve outside NATO: By July, we’ll have almost 100,000 in-country; France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined have just 12,000.
But the true disparity is worse. Take one of the crudest indicators of a nation’s commitment to the mission: troop losses. Nowhere do we see a starker picture of who’s actually doing the fighting — and who’s not.
America has lost 1,006 servicemen and -women in Afghanistan. Britain has lost 265 — more than the rest of Europe combined. (It is past time for President Obama to recognize the sacrifice of British servicemen alongside the US military.)
Through 2008, many assumed that continental Europe wasn’t stepping up to the plate because its leaders didn’t like George W. Bush. But nothing’s changed with Obama in the White House: When he asks for more support for Afghanistan, the countries that step up are the same ones that responded to Bush.
When Obama threw his weight behind Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s new strategy, he plainly expected Europe to commit at least 10,000 more troops plus equipment, trainers and money. Yet Europe is sending just over 7,000 more troops — and at least 1,500 of them will come from non-NATO members, including 900 from war-torn Georgia.
And even those numbers overstate Europe’s contribution — because what most of these troops can do is strictly limited by their home governments. As Gates said in 2008, “Some allies are willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and others are not.”
Although NATO closely guards the comprehensive list of “national caveats,” NATO Supreme Commander Adm. James Stavridis said last June that there were 69. Here’s some of the caveats we know about:
German troops are restricted to conducting operations in northern Afghanistan before nighttime and never more than two hours away from a well-equipped hospital.
Turkish troops are restricted to Kabul.
Troops from most southern European nations are barred from fighting in snow.
One country prohibits troops from other nations from flying in its aircraft.
Worse, caveats are sometimes unofficial, unwritten and not declared until an operation’s underway, presenting military leaders with the risk that troops they’re counting on can become unavailable after combat’s begun.
Nor is Europe pulling its weight in training and development in Afghanistan. A key part of McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy is a rapid expansion of the Afghan Security Forces, requiring nearly 2,500 added NATO or EU trainers. The European Union has dispatched just 281 personnel, only some of them actually trainers. Most are restricted to Kabul, teaching Afghan policemen such pointless tasks as how to issue speeding tickets.
With a few honorable exceptions (such as Britain, Poland, Denmark, Estonia and the Netherlands), NATO’s European members (especially France, Germany, Italy and Spain) have stinted on resources for the UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan. That is, they’ve not only provided too few troops (with too many national caveats) but also too few helicopters.
Save for such warrior nations as Britain, Europe today fundamentally lacks both the military resources and (more important) the political will to fight long wars abroad.
But America doesn’t have the luxury of choosing its wars. And if Europe still believes that the trans-Atlantic security alliance is in its best interests, then it’s going to have to recalibrate its at ude toward war-fighting — and it’s going to have to start with Afghanistan.
Europe is a ripe peach. Primed for the plucking.
US starts backing out, there will be chaos. Nothing deters agression more than strength...and Europe is flacid.
which aggressors will look to Europe once the US leaves?
USA, World Champion Capitalists, aided socialist Europe wonderfully with the US banksters suckering European finance into the toxic assets/CDS/MBS hole. If nothing else, America was supposed to know how to run its economy. Nobody believes that myth anymore.
Goldman is in deep , perhaps criminal , for helping Greece hide its debts, that wonder "off books" trick, now that Greece is a bankrupt as US's TBTF banks.
UK and France have nukes. Russia isn't gonna attack Europe.
Who else, Southern ? China? India? Iran?
Outright aggression and invasion to grab resources is an American specialty.
Don't worry about it. The US is the only aggressor in the world. We back out of Europe...they're wont be any aggressors around to take advantage. Not now...not in the future.
That's how the history of the world has always worked, right?
ahhhhh It's nice being on a different side of the world than everyone else.
Yeah, no other state has done so in the last century, let alone in the full scope of human history. It's only been the American state, but only when the evil "Repugs" have been in charge. Maybe you and Southern can duel and rid the world of both of youse.
The article overblows this but the core of the article is no surprise.
I think most Euro states rather fight the terrorist treat within their borders... Now we can discuss wether this is a good idea or not, but ultimately it's their choice.
IMO, the reluctance of providing troops steams from the open ended nature of the military operation. Nobody knows what the goal really is, or how can you really know if you're victorious.
Probably the dumbest thing ever written. SnC may as well have written it himself.But America doesn’t have the luxury of choosing its wars.
Nah. NATO approved treating terrorists as an attack by an enemy and they are all obligated to return fire in exchange. To that end they all agreed to go head hunting in afghanistan. Of course, only a few countries have actually carried the burden, almost all of it shared by the U.S. and the U.K.
They aren't dumb. They know well that they are part of a mob so to speak. When you are part of a large group, your responsibility is diminished. Why spend a ton of cash on military equipment when someone else has superior technology, training, cash reserves, and everything else? Plus they are obligated to protect you if your nation with 500 unarmed army dudes gets invaded.
Its just economics. Nations are still joining NATO, so it isn't political. Its in their best interest to commit nothing and gain full protection from the strongest military alliance on the planet.
Will the euros ever pull their weight? Probably not, unless some requirement to be in NATO changes. They have no reason to do so.
Cold war is over, no one is using nukes on anyone else. Russia isn't invading unless their pseduo-demoncracy devolves into another crappy dictatorship. The only possible fighting in europe in this day and age? Rebel groups, revolutionaries, or some war declarations stemming from some world war 3 in the middle east.UK and France have nukes. Russia isn't gonna attack Europe.
Psuedo demoncracy devolving into crappy dictatorship?
Baloney. They rather fight the terrorists out of their borders... but they don't want to pay for it.
Well, by 'rather fight the terrorist treat within their borders', I meant as opposed to 'spending gazillions of money fighting it outside their borders'.
My apologies if I wasn't clear.
How do you know? So far they've had the luxury of having both.
But considering the long and unique tradition Europeans have on waging wars outside of their borders, I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.
What war that was not an outright invasion where they could extract resources was not a strain in the economy?
And by strain I mean that it didn't provide them with direct economic gain as a result of the action.
For the brits I would say falklands. Maybe kosovo. But then again, in all those there was a tangible and attainable goal, not an open-ended compromise.
Yeah, I've been reading about that. Clinton met Kirchner today...
Argentina is going to take it up the ass standing, as usual.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
