Troop redeployment from Europe should end Eurocentric security policy... but it won't.
The most recent plan to redeploy around sixty to seventy thousand troops from bases in Europe and elsewhere is long overdue. Everyone knows that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the value of such static defenses has been declining rapidly. The real question though is what will this do for our "alliances" (if we can even call them that any longer) there?
(Edit note: I had originally written 200,000 troops, which is of course insane because the total US troop strengths outside of the current conflict areas is around 200,000.)
Europe for too long has relied on America for its defense. Statistics from 2000 indicate that the United States spends 251.2 billion dollars more on defense then its closest NATO ally (Great Britain, which spent 35.2 billion $ in 2000. NY TIMES 16 March 2002) The fact is that the Europeans simply aren't willing to spend the money to provide for the kind of military which the United States maintains. They lack air-lift, or even air-strike capabilities, they can not deploy troops, or provide those troops with on-site tactical intelligence. The countries of Europe no longer possess militaries which are capable of furthering their interests abroad, or even defending themselves.
Their solution as we saw from the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom is to prevent anyone else from doing the same. It's worse than the old adage, "Take your ball and go home." Our so called allies are trying to take OUR ball home with them.
Which makes one wonder exactly what allies Bush has alienated us from, and which Kerry will joyfully reunite us?
It is something of a vicious circle. The less the Europeans are able to participate in essential military actions, (we can debate what those are if you like, provided you are willing to agree that they exist) the more unilateral the United States will appear. The less the Europeans can participate, the more convinced they will be that the unilateral actions of America are at best foolish, and at worse morally repugnant. As a result they will cut funding to their militaries even more, which will, correspondingly make even coalitions of the "willing" impossible, forcing us to rely on a coalition of the "able," namely, ourselves alone.
(Edit note: I had originally written 200,000 troops, which is of course insane because the total US troop strengths outside of the current conflict areas is around 200,000.)
Europe for too long has relied on America for its defense. Statistics from 2000 indicate that the United States spends 251.2 billion dollars more on defense then its closest NATO ally (Great Britain, which spent 35.2 billion $ in 2000. NY TIMES 16 March 2002) The fact is that the Europeans simply aren't willing to spend the money to provide for the kind of military which the United States maintains. They lack air-lift, or even air-strike capabilities, they can not deploy troops, or provide those troops with on-site tactical intelligence. The countries of Europe no longer possess militaries which are capable of furthering their interests abroad, or even defending themselves.
Their solution as we saw from the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom is to prevent anyone else from doing the same. It's worse than the old adage, "Take your ball and go home." Our so called allies are trying to take OUR ball home with them.
Which makes one wonder exactly what allies Bush has alienated us from, and which Kerry will joyfully reunite us?
It is something of a vicious circle. The less the Europeans are able to participate in essential military actions, (we can debate what those are if you like, provided you are willing to agree that they exist) the more unilateral the United States will appear. The less the Europeans can participate, the more convinced they will be that the unilateral actions of America are at best foolish, and at worse morally repugnant. As a result they will cut funding to their militaries even more, which will, correspondingly make even coalitions of the "willing" impossible, forcing us to rely on a coalition of the "able," namely, ourselves alone.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home