CROSSINGS APRIL 26, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In 1992, the foreign minister of Luxembourg, Jacques Poos, declared that “the hour of Europe” had arrived. The minister pronounced this falsehood in relation to the catastrophe in Bosnia, where, he assured, the reach of Luxembourg and that of its European neighbors would soon put an end to the slaughter. The hour of Europe stretched across three sickening years, culminating in the spectacle of Dutch troops cuffed to lampposts and ending only when an American column of 70-ton tanks from the First Armored Division crossed the Danube.
Fast forward to 2011. News of the hour of Europe has been supplied once more, this time in Libya. The Europeans haven’t declared it so; President Obama has. Going a step beyond President Clinton, who pledged to gruesome effect that it wouldn’t be our troops venturing into Kosovo, President Obama—after conducting a de facto plebiscite on the advisability of military action against Libya—vowed, “It is not going to be our planes maintaining the no-fly zone.” Instead, we would surrender command and control functions to “NATO,” an otherworldly organization that, it was soon revealed, we command and control. Thus, the administration argued itself into a “surgical” campaign of only a few days and a few hundred sorties. This effort, dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn by the Pentagon, would, at most, “diminish” Libyan capabilities. The charge of dislodging Muammar Qaddafi, or whatever the point of the exercise was meant to be on a given day, would be left to our European allies. Or, as Antony Blinken, Vice President Biden’s national security adviser, put it in The New York Times on Sunday, “We did lead—we cleared the way for the allies.”
There’s just one thing: The allies don’t have spare parts.
But this is a problem for the mechanics. The president, after all, has inaugurated “a new era of international cooperation” and has said it would be best for America “to act multilaterally rather than unilaterally.” This paradigm responds to multiple needs unrelated to national security as such. It testifies to the virtue and good intentions of its architects. It offers assurance that U.S. military power serves not only national interests but also the interests of all humanity. No one has espoused this view more vigorously than Hillary Clinton. According to the Secretary of State, “We know our security, our values, and our interests cannot be protected and advanced by force alone nor, indeed, by Americans [alone].” Alas, and however respectful of the tenets of enlightened liberalism all this may sound, it provides no adequate response to a dilemma that is the stuff of structure and concrete, not ideology: Libya has exposed the true extent of what defense experts refer to as the “capabilities gap” between Europe’s and America’s military forces.
A campaign devised to showcase the benefits of multilateral action has done exactly the reverse. Easy talk about declining power, multipolarity, and cooperation raises a fairly straightforward question: Exactly whose cooperation do we mean to obtain? Here, the reply also tends to be straightforward: the Europeans, obviously. Leaving aside the question of will—that is, whether the Europeans wish to cooperate in garrisoning the farthest-flung precincts of (what used to be) American influence—is it really necessary to point out that, given the assumption European power alone would suffice to persuade Qaddafi to back down, someone on the Obama team ought to have inquired about European capabilities—that is, whether the Europeans can do this or, more to the point, anything at all? Because, for ten years—or 20, or 60, depending on one’s reading of the international scene—it has been fairly straightforward, obvious even, that the Europeans have left their historical role to history.
Over the past few years, they have gone further, decisively repudiating that role. There is, to begin with, the massive and ongoing wave of defense cuts that has swept the continent. Ten years ago, the U.S. contributed roughly half of NATO’s defense budget; today, it accounts for three-quarters of the alliance’s military expenditure. During the same period, the number of active duty military personnel in Europe declined by more than one third. (The day after he proposed to take military action against Muammar Qaddafi, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government said that it would be cutting 11,000 troops from Britain’s armed forces. Just before the war, he also announced that the U.K. would scrap its only aircraft carrier.) For ten years now, it has been clear that, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has put it, NATO is “evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people’s security and others who are not.” What Gates said was true in Kosovo, where 83 percent of the bombs dropped came from U.S. planes; in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops account for two-thirds of the NATO presence (and a much higher fraction of the combat force); and now, in Libya, where, at least before it abandoned the battlefield, America’s strike aircraft were flying more than one half of the sorties.
If it reveals anything, the war in Libya shows that Obama’s predecessors didn’t spin their proclivities for unilateral action out of whole cloth. “The Libyan crisis has strikingly exposed the lack of a European defense policy: no ability to achieve a common political vision and no capacity to take on an operation of this kind,” said French defense analyst Bruno Tertrais, while a European diplomat predicted to the German news agency Deutsche Press Agentur that a common European defense policy “died in Libya—we just have to pick a sand dune under which we can bury it.” Indeed, the Germans have remained strenuously neutral during the conflict, other than to snipe at the French and the British, while the latter, according to The Washington Post, have nearly run out of bombs to drop.
Far from caviling about the American hyperpuissance, the Europeans have been reduced to pleading for an escalation of U.S. involvement (such as it is). To which the American response has been swift, unequivocal, and wholly beside the point: “Unilateral, open-ended military action to pursue regime change isn’t good strategy, and wouldn’t advance American credibility anywhere,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor insisted, even though what was on the table was a request for multilateral, limited action to pursue a humanitarian end. Perhaps sensing that if America wills the ends, America really ought to will the means, the administration has now dispatched Predator drones to the skies above Libya. Animate pilots, according to the Beltway buzz, may soon follow.
The conceit here is that President Obama enjoys as much room to maneuver as his rhetoric appears to suggest. In fact, from America’s emergence as a power on the international scene through to the present, the main thrust of U.S. national security policy hasn’t budged: The world will permit nothing else. This unilateral bent has less to do with American exceptionalism, or liberalism, or neoconservatism, or any philosophical preference than it does with the preponderance and immensity of American power. As a result, U.S. policy has boiled down to variations on the same theme, not fundamentally distinct sets of policies.
Where all this leads is clear. Regardless of his own inclinations, President Obama has been presented with successive crises to which he has been obliged, kicking and screaming, to respond. The United Nations has not been able to. Europe has not been able to. Either the United States will respond, or no one will.
“The demilitarization of Europe…,” Gates has said, “has gone from a blessing in the twentieth century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the twenty-first.” This hardly applies in Washington, which spends substantially more on defense than all of Europe’s nations combined. So, deluded about what can be accomplished through mere professions of powerlessness, and advertising their fears as if they were virtues, those who guide the fortunes of the world’s only superpower have embarked upon an experiment in virtual demilitarization.
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a contributing editor for The New Republic.
55 comments
If you don't want to fight to stop aggression you might as well present your fear as a moral qualm. The Euros are experts at pretending that cowardice is morality. Orwell gave us the wrong slogan, it’s not “war is peace,” but “fear is bravery” and “cowardice is moral goodness.”
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 12:18am
Obama declares repeatedly that regime change is not our policy in Libya, protecting civilians is, with what can be achieved by air power. Although Kaplan as I recalled begged and pleaded for just this policy ("no-fly zone"), he was lying. He really wanted regime change, under the guise of humanitarian intervention, and was trying to create a pretext for initial intervention that would, he believed, thenforce the US to remove Qaddafi at more or less whatever cost. But, Obama has stuck to his declared policy and stayed pretty much within the limitations of what was authorized by the UNSC -- which is the most important meaning of multilateral. Kaplan is of course discontented as he was counting on rapid mission creep. Accordingly, he now spins some utterly confused account about the failure of European defense (is Libya a matter of European security? How do that come about?) and "virtual demilitarization." All bullshit, from one end to the other. This particular warmonger has been looking for the US to remove Qaddafi since the start, raising whatever pretext seemed most likely to succeed at any particular moment. That is not, however, the policy of the United States, for very sound reasons, and it seems that it is not likely to be. Good for Obama for sticking to his position despite the pressure from neo-cons and "liberal interventionists" who are neo-cons with a fig leaf someplace or other, if they could only remember where they are supposed to hold the leaf.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 12:23am
The problem here doesn't have to do with Kaplan's politics and foreign policy goals. (I'm not going to comment on them, either way). Sadly, as someone who has studied US and world military capabilities, there is one glaring fact in the world right now: the US, and ONLY the US, has a sustained power-projection capability. On paper, a half-dozen other countries can project power independent of the US: the UK, Russia, France, Germany, and Canada, with India and China trying to build that capability. The problem is that real power projection involves the whole logistical chain, not just the fancy "spear tip" hardware. Nobody else has invested in the support logistics equipment and infrastructure as the US has. The Euro countries in particular have significantly hollowed out their millitaries; they've severely underspent on basics that are needed for power projection: munitions stocks, jet fuel reserves, airlift capability, and spare parts to support a combat op-tempo, not to mention food and ordinary soldier basics. The result is a military power which looks good, but can't sustain more than a week of combat, even if that military hasn't committed a significant portion of it's overall (paper) strength. Kaplan's right here (unfortunately): while the US is loathe to go it alone nowadays, it can't hand off any real responsibilities to someone else. What ends up happening is, after a week or so with others in the lead, they end up coming to the US for the logistical support. So, the US is always significantly involved, and, after awhile, it becomes more involved at the sharp end, as the weaknesses of everyone else's militaries become more pronounced. I do have to give some kudos to the Canadians, though. While they have a relatively small force, they seem to not have suffered the hollow-shell problem, and indeed can keep that small force effective over longer periods of time. But that's one country with barely a brigade of troops and a couple of dozen combat aircraft. The British used to have a substantial force-projection ability, but they're now drawn down to being an effective Reserve US combat arm. The Russian, German, and French forces have completely abandoned their former capabilities, and it would take a decade to reconstitute them. The Indians and Chinese don't seem to really understand what power-projection means (and, how to accomplish it), so they're spending money in the wrong places, for the wrong things, and won't end up with that ability. Sad fact here is that if you need military presence requiring some combat, you have to call the US, sooner rather than later. Which puts the US in a political bind. And, I think it's bad for the world as a whole to always rely on a single country. We may not want to be the World Police, but it's ending up that we're really the only SWAT in town.
- trims
April 26, 2011 at 1:44am
Better we should provide the logistics to keep others in the field when the object is of secondary or tertiary importance to us. Let them be our mercenaries if it matters to them, rather than putting our people in harm's way to serve the interests of other nations or, worse, contra to our own interest. It is not in the national interest of the United States forcibly to remove Qaddafi from power. It is not contra to our interests if that occurs as long as we cannot be held to account for it, as, for example, where we have stayed within the UNSC resolution for protection of civilians. We do not need to use our power just because we have it and someone wants us to. Its purpose is the security of the United States. That others have not the military power to achieve their ends is not our problem as long as we do and stick to using our power for our own ends within a modern regime of international law of which we, for very good reasons, are the principal author.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 8:31am
“Sad fact here is that if you need military presence requiring some combat, you have to call the US, sooner rather than later. Which puts the US in a political bind. And, I think it's bad for the world as a whole to always rely on a single country. We may not want to be the World Police, but it's ending up that we're really the only SWAT in town.” Another issue is that once military force is committed in an operation it’s not always possible to follow a script. Libya is a good example. We may only wish to protect civilians, but once the fighting starts it may not be possible to stop there. In recent years there have been very few military operations that didn’t lead one way or another to regime change.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 8:58am
Great posts roidubouloi. How a "no fly zone" came to mean strafing tanks and infantry is beyond me and now the TNR War College is calling for the U.S. to engage in regime change. Yes, we saw how well that went 8 years ago. "President Obama has been presented with successive crises to which he has been obliged, kicking and screaming, to respond." Yes, maybe because the U.S. is already inolved in two wars and is bleeding itself white with military spending. I almost had a stroke when reading Air Marshal Wieseltier's column in the print edition, complaining about 2 "war green helicopters" self-importantly flying from the Pentagon to the White House and interrupting his reverie and contemplation of the cherry blossoms. Oh, Leon begrugingly accepted their presence, part of the wonderful tapestry that is Washington - the Beltway buzz. and all that. But such an inconvient reminder.
- dubyadoubte
April 26, 2011 at 9:11am
"Regardless of his own inclinations, President Obama has been presented with successive crises to which he has been obliged, kicking and screaming, to respond." Since Kaplan's focus is on military (not purely political) matters, which crises is he talking about, other than the one in Libya? I can't recall any, unless he means continuing or escalating the Afghan War, which wasn't a new crisis but an ongoing one that Obama inherited from Bush.
- wildboy
April 26, 2011 at 9:25am
roi, what part of protecting civilians or going after the Libyan military includes bombing Qaddafi's library? Like it or not, the gradual mission creep to kill Q from the air has begun. It's the only way to achieve Obama's goal of regime change, mainly because the "rebels" are incompetent so far as being soldiers is concerned. Also, the UNSC Res 1973 forbade, I thought, foreign forces from Libya, which seems not to have bothered GB, FR and IT. Kaplan is completely correct regarding Europe's pathetic military capabilities, as trims notes. What capability there is cannot be sustained without US logistics. Like it or not, we are the only military power on earth that can project power, etc. What trims said.
- butchie b
April 26, 2011 at 10:31am
Kaplan should be asking himself: why should European countries (and their populations) be supporting these missions in any case? The large-scale interventions of the last ten years have primarily involved (a) Iraq, which was widely and correctly seen as an American invasion, supported by some European countries in the face of strong popular protest and strongly opposed in others, and (b) Afghanistan, which again was primarily a US initiative in response to September 11, supported by NATO governments but without significant popular support in Western Europe. Meanwhile, areas where real genocide was actually taking place (Darfur, Congo) don't get addressed at all. These _are_ democracies: presumably their governments must at some point respond to popular will. If Europeans see their soldiers acting simply as supporting troops in American adventures, why the hell should they pony up their tax money to increase their armed forces? Most of these countries lost their enthusiasm for the colonising game 50 years ago or more; they kept the large conscript forces that their colonial roles entailed because of the Soviet threat - and it was that threat, of course, that NATO was organised to confront. In such a case, the disappearance of the Soviet threat was a valid reason to bring down numbers of troops... why increase them? There are significant issues of governance for countries that allow their militaries to be too closely tied to those of the USA. What happens to countries like the UK or Canada, where promotion to the topmost ranks of the military almost by necessity involves engagement in American military operations, and where purchasing decisions are made with American cooperation in mind? The UK armed forces are in terrible shape right now, hollowed out and distorted by fighting under American control in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's hard to see how Britain can ever regain a truly independent national defence policy. Canada is probably going to buy extremely expensive single-engined F-35 fighters, not because they are the best aircraft for national sovereignty missions, but because (a) it makes the Americans happy and (b) they will be useful in joint expeditionary missions that will take place under American control. Both countries are spending large amounts of money buying mine-protected vehicles under pressure for Afghanistan, without any real way of fitting those purchases into longer-term military planning. (To be fair, so is America, but with far larger budgets.) What incentive do other governments thus have for copying the USA and bankrupting themselves through their military budgets, when America will call the shots on missions in any case?
- SMacEachern2
April 26, 2011 at 11:07am
SMacEachern2 “Kaplan should be asking himself: why should European countries (and their populations) be supporting these missions in any case?” Given that France and England lead the way in Libya you should ask yourself why they did that.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 11:12am
trims: "The British used to have a substantial force-projection ability, but they're now drawn down to being an effective Reserve US combat arm." Quite right - the colonial auxiliaries, worn down by Iraq and Afghanistan. And, of course, that's such a wonderful example for Europeans to copy... butchie b: "...Europe's pathetic military capabilities..." That's national interest, not some kind of macho competition. Since European powers have enjoyed no effective voice in strategic decisions in the military interventions of the last 10 years or so, why should they increase their budgets to American levels? It's been useful to American policy-makers to have them on board at times (dead European and Canadian soldiers occasion far less comment in America than do dead American ones), but how have those states benefited?
- SMacEachern2
April 26, 2011 at 11:14am
arnon: Because they saw a benefit in a no-fly zone, given that events in North Africa (especially refugee movements) affect southern Europe. But it's Americans like John McCain who are now advocating regime change and much larger-scale intervention, not the European powers involved.
- SMacEachern2
April 26, 2011 at 11:17am
Thank you for bringing that up, dubyadoubte. I had noticed that Wieseltier arranged it so that reader comments would not sully his dreamy excursion up his own ass. Is there anyone in public intellectual life so self-loving who is less self-aware? It seems that he is just having fun with us now.
- bunthorne
April 26, 2011 at 11:38am
Fine, mac. Doesn't change the fact that their capabilities are pathetic. Your point is that the Euros want it that way, which is OK, too, until they want to actually do something militarily. Then they reach for the 202 area code listing. Wait, the Pentagon is actually 703. Mac, if the Euros/Canucks don't want to buy US stuff, they can always make it themselves, or buy from the Russians, whose wonderful logistics capabilities insure spare parts for about a week.
- butchie b
April 26, 2011 at 11:39am
butchie b: Sorry, but in the last ten years, it's most importantly - in Iraq and Afghanistan - been the other way around, with America asking the Europeans, and Canada, for help. And, in the F-35 case I mentioned, the best choice for a Canadian government interested in general-purpose combat aircraft and national sovereignty would be, quite right, European - the Typhoon, which is a better-balanced combat aircraft than the F-35 and twin-engined to boot. Meanwhile, the F-35's costs are climbing faster than the aircraft will itself, overweight as it is....
- SMacEachern2
April 26, 2011 at 12:03pm
Except that regime change in Libya by force is not our policy and not authorized by the UNSC, butchie. Much as you and Kaplan would like it to be. If it is going to be, that will require a new UNSC resolution that is not likely to be forthcoming.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 12:04pm
SMacEachern2, the Europeans have taken the lead on the Libyan operation. This is a fact that seems to elude you. You seem to need to see the US as the evil empire.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 12:14pm
Libya has hardly "exposed" this situation. It's not like its been unknown or a secret for some time. While there is clearly a massive disparity between European and US military capabilities, and a non-trivial cause of that is European indifference, to put it all at the feet of the Euros is absurd. The US has a long history of bleating about declining European military capability and then attacking any European efforts to develop their own capabilities as "putting a knife through NATO". Basically the US has a long term interest in insuring that the Euros only buy our military hardware, and we actively pursue this interest. By design, this peels off various European countries from joint efforts like the Eurofighter, raising the costs for everyone else. Bush did a good job of this by borrowing money from the US treasury (!) to lend to Poland to "buy" F-16s. Clyde Prestowitz (who is hardly a soft leftist) has a whole chapter on this sort of behaviour in "Rogue Nation", which is worth a read. Now this is not to say that sans US interference with Euros would get their act together (France's dropping out of the Eurofighter is a good example), but it seems unreasonable to ignore the fact that the US has a long term interest in being the only party in town and acts accordingly. The odd political inconvenience we suffer over a case like Libya is a rather small price to pay for being the only Hyper power, let alone super power. If we really cared, we'd be in there ourselves. It's not like we actually want other countries (especially China and India) being in a position to limit our options.
- Nari224
April 26, 2011 at 12:23pm
I'm not saying that the Euro countries should spend at US defense levels. Hell, the US shouldn't spend at the current levels. However, there's plenty of reasons for the Euro countries to want to have some reasonable amount of power-projection capability. For one thing, if they *really* want to have a foreign policy that isn't dictated by the US (which, according to their various leader's public statements, they fervently do want independence in FP), they need to be able to go it alone. Right now, the case is that they talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. They bitch about the US's foreign policy decisions, but, frankly, aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is - they end up having to call the US anyway, and then wonder why the US tries to insert its point-of-view into the situation. And the US is stuck with an equally unpalatable situation of either supporting the Ally, or watching the whole situation fall apart. I would be very happy living in a more multi-polar world, where the various Euro countries could handle situations more on their own - frankly, there are plenty of places where they would be both more welcome, and have better relationships/understanding of the situation than the US can achieve. And, to counter a couple of posts - the problem with the US providing logistical support is that we're now involved (politically) in whatever the scenario is. We can't just say "Oh, we're just supporting Ally X, and don't really have anything to do with what's going on there". Politics doesn't work that way. We're stuck with the diplomatic and political consequences even if we're just providing basic support.
- trims
April 26, 2011 at 12:26pm
Oh, and Mac - the US didn't ask the Euro/Canadians for support in Iraq/Afghanistan. We asked them for COMBAT troops. Guess who's handling everyone's logistics? As far as the F-35/Typhoon - the sad fact is both are seriously over-budget, and aren't looking to be cost-effective. Neither is a good choice. The Canucks should really just buy more SuperHornets, which are more than sufficient for what their uses will be (I mean, it's not like the Canucks are going to be fighting any real military anytime soon...) Oh, and I'm seeing the "regime change" mantra coming from all sorts of areas. But NOT from any actual government policy folk (it's the various legislators and political pundits in both Euro and US - but the actual Executive governments are very clear that regime change is off the table). Not to say that anyone would be sorry to see him go, that is.
- trims
April 26, 2011 at 12:33pm
I am inclined to agree with Kaplan that the Libyan experience has proven that our NATO allies are incapable of anything at all. I agree with roid in his view of Kaplan, and Kaplan's regime change agenda. Reflecting on this experience, I find that I am also increasingly open to the possibility that this Libyan project will fail entirely, and that Obama will have cause to regret the intervention. I hope that we will decide to cut our military spend significantly, and that we will choose not to intervene every time someone gets an itch to dethrone some dictator in some distant outpost of civilization. If we can live with Iran and Syria, we can live with Qaddafi. If we can't live with these rogue states, the next decade will be far worse than the Bush years. Who wants that? Neil
- purcellneil
April 26, 2011 at 12:49pm
trims: I agree with some of what you say. But it's European governments and militaries that say they want to be able to project power overseas: popular suport for such initiatives is considerably lower. And why should it be otherwise? What they see is their soldiers involved in unpopular operations overseas, American-directed ones. Where is the incentive for the kinds of dramatic military spending increases that power-projection would require in such cases? And the really big, screwed-up interventions over the last 10 years or so have been American initiatives, not European ones - Iraq and Afghanistan. Which cases are you talking about where "... they end up having to call the US anyway, and then wonder why the US tries to insert its point-of-view into the situation...."? Super Hornets would actually be a good solution for Canadian defence needs, but are being resisted hard by the Canadian military as 'previous generation' aircraft. And just which 'real military' is America likely to be fighting soon? Oh, and trims... I know that the USA asked European and Canadian governments for combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. (To this point, Canada has suffered the highest number of combat deaths in Afghanistan of all Western forces there, per capita.) To me, provision of combat troops is support from those governments for those campaigns, even though it's not logistical support. It's also not the case that the US military is handling Canada's logistics for military operations in Afghanistan: while there certainly is logistic support from US and NATO forces, most of the logistical effort is Canadian (including the purchase of C-17s and the establishment of the Camp Mirage facility in the UAE) and use of contract services to move people and supplies.
- SMacEachern2
April 26, 2011 at 12:57pm
There is rather more to FP than power projection, trims. China has not much in the way of military power projection but it has a foreign policy that is quite successful given its goals. Part of our problem is that with cowboy government we have managed to delude ourselves that FP is chiefly about military power. It isn't.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 1:05pm
On the contrary, roi. I have never said that I wanted to get rid of Qaddafi, by force or otherwise. Obama did, not me. Not that I'd shed tears. See, I was told that attacking an Aarb oil-producing state which is clearly NOT a threat to the US or US interests was bad, very bad. Even if Congress approved. Turns out it's not so bad after all, even without Congress. Who knew? Of course FP is not chiefly about military power. But military power is an important patr of FP, at least ours for now. We know what happens when we withdraw from the world militarily and/or otherwise. No, thanks.
- butchie b
April 26, 2011 at 1:22pm
A false dichotomy, butchie. Not withdrawing from the world is not the same as military intervention to depose every noxious dictator and serial human rights violator who poses no threat to us. We are not the cops of the world. Obama said Qaddafi has to go, but he also said that the US would not use force to achieve that outcome. Saying this is called having a foreign policy. Not every policy must be executed by force of arms.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 2:13pm
That is correct, roi, and I've not said otherwise. Sorry - bombing Libya is using force. What Obama said was that we won't invade Libya or bomb Qaddafi directly, although you have not responded to my point about bombing his compound. Seems pretty direct to me. You call it having a foreign policy. I call it describing the end, without availing yourself of the means to achieve that end. That's not FP, it's wishful thinking.
- butchie b
April 26, 2011 at 3:11pm
Nari224 "It's not like its been unknown or a secret for some time. While there is clearly a massive disparity between European and US military capabilities, and a non-trivial cause of that is European indifference, to put it all at the feet of the Euros is absurd." Nonsense, The Euros could afford to spend little on its military because they thought that the US would protect them. "The US has a long history of bleating about declining European military..." Bleating? This is the kind of language the Iranians use to describe the US. Are you Iranian?
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 3:51pm
SMacEachern2 "But it's European governments and militaries that say they want to be able to project power overseas: popular suport for such initiatives is considerably lower." Yes, the left in Europe has done a ggod job convincing voters that they don't need to defend themselves. But then they were spoiled by the protection the US gave them for decades.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 3:53pm
"Obama said Qaddafi has to go, but he also said that the US would not use force to achieve that outcome." Obama likes to wish positive outcomes. That's his foreign policy.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 3:55pm
Diplomatic behavior consists 99 44/100% of "wishful thinking" in which states, by their statements, express the outcomes they wish and what they want everyone else to do. The rest is the use or threat of force. If the 66/100% were much larger, the world would be in a terrific mess and we, above all, have sought to put in place a post-war structure to keep that to a minimum. We simply do not have any important national interest in using force to remove Qaddafi from power. We have an interest in supporting the UNSC regime. We have an interest in supporting allies. We have not much interest in Qaddafi. It is the feckless waste of US power that is far more to be feared than restraint in using it, let alone wasting it on cases where we have little interest. The whole point the hawks are making is the we are unique in the world in our ability to project power. Under those circumstances, it is not terribly likely that others will tread on our strong interests when we make those known. Our display in Iraq consisted rather of showing the limits of our power in a case where we really didn't have much of an interest. That was damaging. Drawing all sorts of lines that we then have to back up with force would be equally stupid. Obama demonstrates that he has learned from the crushing stupidity of Bush, the neo-cons, and the "liberal interventionists." Thank god. Would that others would follow suit.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 5:17pm
As for the Europeans, are they faced with any threat against which they are not able to defend themselves? I don't see any. Why do our neo-cons then insist that they maintain forces for the sort of neo-colonial adventurism that has proven so disastrous for the United States? What about our failures should they want to emulate about at great cost to themselves? Our Iraq fiasco has primarily redounded to the benefit of Iran. The neo-cons just want company for their stupidity. The Europeans are right to ignore them.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 5:20pm
"As for the Europeans, are they faced with any threat against which they are not able to defend themselves?" Good let's disband NATO. There is no need for Americans to defend Europe not even against themselves. Stupidity comes in many guises as this poster sttests.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 6:10pm
arnon - I would say that "and a non-trivial cause of that is European indifference" surely covers "Nonsense, The Euros could afford to spend little on its military because they thought that the US would protect them.". If not, then I agree. The Europeans (as have all of our allies, and non-allies alike) have enjoyed a considerable degree of freedom under the US umbrella and Pax Americana. However the world isn't as simple as "thought that the US would protect them". For example, the US pushed for West German re-armament (over strenuous objections of the Brits and French) to fight the USSR to the last German. We did not push the Japanese similarly as we were quite happy to be the largest power in the Pacific. Countries like Australia have jumped into every foxhole the US went down (however stupidly) since WWII to pay an "insurance" premium in the hope that the US *would* come and defend them. However what we're talking about here is the capacity for expeditionary adventures outside of your borders. In comparison, the British and French developed (or purchased) nuclear arsenals to protect themselves, and the European states have more than than sufficient capacity to defend themselves today. As for the "bleating" comment, it was clearly followed by an argument which justifies it. Perhaps "complained with our fingers crossed behind our backs" would also serve, but I was in the mood for a bit of levity. Perhaps you would like to back up your assertions with an argument?
- Nari224
April 26, 2011 at 6:10pm
The stupidest people are the ones who think that uber-intelligence is the answer to all the world problems.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 6:11pm
"For example, the US pushed for West German re-armament (over strenuous objections of the Brits and French) to fight the USSR to the last German." Where did you get the above quote from? I am interested in the point of view of the comment. Was it something some German or Soviet writer said? Had the Soviets invaded Western Europe it would have been the French and Germans (and perhaps the Brits) who would have suffered most. Why shouldn't they have had to defend themselves?
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 6:16pm
Libya by the way was and is more of a European problem than an American one.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 6:19pm
"European states have more than than sufficient capacity to defend themselves today." Quite so, and there is no reason why they need expeditionary forces despite the silly point that it is "unfair" to the US that they don't. Nor was our defense of Europe throughout the Cold War motivated by altruism. Rather, it was to defend our own global interests against pressure and aggression from the Soviet Union in the the theater that was of the greatest geographical, economic, and cultural importance to us. We were preventing ourselves from becoming isolated in the world. Accordingly, how should we interpret the question, "Why shouldn't they have had to defend themselves?" Are international affairs suddenly something other than the arena in which states act out of their own self-interest? We could have left Western Europe to fend for itself. But it was hardly in our own interest to do so and surely would have been absurd to do so on the grounds that they were sponging off of us. They didn't FORCE us to defend them. Conversely, we have no interest at stake in Libya and it would therefore be foolish to put our troops or other relationships at risk. Quite curious the directions in which high-moralism (idealism actually) takes itself. We are obliged to intervene in Libya despite our lack of interest; the French and Germans were obliged to defend themselves and so would should have refrained despite our own interest. Makes no sense whatsoever.
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 6:51pm
Quite clearly, there are some among us who do not understand what a client state is, why a Great Power wants to have them, or what it takes to maintain the clientele. It is a clearly dependent relationship and never going to be otherwise. But both sides act out of self-interest (at least when the idealists are not stirring up too much ridiculous trouble).
- roidubouloi
April 26, 2011 at 6:52pm
"Quite clearly, there are some among us who do not understand...." True of the speaker, genius though he be; or wishes he were.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 7:38pm
arnon: "Yes, the left in Europe has done a ggod job convincing voters that they don't need to defend themselves." Ohhhhh, those wascally leftists! Actually, history has relatively little to do with it: what evidence has American history shown over the last 10 years that might convince Europeans to rearm and join in? The Brits did - and look where it got them.
- SMacEachern2
April 26, 2011 at 7:50pm
are you writing as a Canadaian or as a European, SMacEachern2? "The Brits did - and look where it got them." Where is that? Where the problems in Portigal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and some other countries caused by "rearmament?" Why should the US have to spend money for their defense. Let's disband NATO. The truth is that NATO protects Europe as much from themselves (remeber Yugoslavia?) as it does from foreign enemies.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 8:20pm
The Euro left are a bunch of bigots little different from the fascists: "Zionism, Jewishness and Israel’ "This event, ‘a panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract’, is to be held at the University of Westminster on 3 May. As Mira Vogel reports over on Greens Engage, it is being promoted by Stormfront (link to cached page) and also by at least one local branch of the Stop the War Coalition." http://hurryupharry.org/2011/04/25/%e2%80%98zionism-jewishness-and-israel%e2%80%99/ Stop the war coalition are some of Mac's friends.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 8:24pm
I am late to this but what the hell. France still has a lot of force projection, witness their recent activities in the Ivory Coast. And a lot of what Kaplan is writing is blathering. The war is pretty much Misrata and Brega, both are cities with civilian populations and in both the Gadhafi forces are relying on using the terrain to hide from air power, it is bullshit to claim we can take out every pickup truck loaded with mortars or to even know when it is Gadhafi's forces or not, the drone allows far better technical capability for this as it will allow in depth analysis, however the drones would not have been possible if not for the smashing of the Gadhafi anti aircraft capabilities. And I guarantee you that if France wanted to by invading with boots on the ground they could end the war in a week, we all know this, this has nothing to do with lack of capability but instead on not using the capability for many reasons, one being the security council resolution. The war is but a month old, lord knows this panic by the likes of Kaplan (Nato is over, its over, the sky is falling) is tiresome. This is not a stalemate, far from it. The mountain region to the south of Tripoli is firmly in the rebels hands, the rebels in Misrata just drove Gadhafi's troops out of the central city, Benghazi is completely safe and new recruits can train under clear skies without fear, you can not say the same about new Gadhafi recruits. Gadhafi is blowing a ton of money hiring mercenaries from Algeria, Belorussia, Chad, etc. We all know this, however the money will not last forever and as these mercs get ground down the lack of any coming back will scare the hell out of the next batch.
- blackton
April 26, 2011 at 8:35pm
arnon "Where did you get the above quote from? I am interested in the point of view of the comment. Was it something some German or Soviet writer said? Had the Soviets invaded Western Europe it would have been the French and Germans (and perhaps the Brits) who would have suffered most. Why shouldn't they have had to defend themselves?" Clearly it was a German perspective, but in case you are unfamiliar with European geography, have a look at what is in between France and the USSR if the latter were to have invaded. It would have been unlikely for them to come through Austria and those inconvenient Alps. Additionally, you may wish to look up where the Soviet armour and infantry divisions were situated and how there was this part of Germany called East Germany that was part of the USSR. It figures quite prominently in the Soviet-Invasion-of-Western-Europe scenarios. Also instructive is the quite public pronouncements of the US that we would fight the Russians by nuking them on the battlefield. And that would have been, well, in Germany.
- Nari224
April 26, 2011 at 8:36pm
arnon: "'For example, the US pushed for West German re-armament (over strenuous objections of the Brits and French) to fight the USSR to the last German.' Where did you get the above quote from? I am interested in the point of view of the comment. Was it something some German or Soviet writer said?" I don't know if Nari was quoting or just made the comment, but it's perfectly correct. It wasn't so long after WW2 (less than 10 years) that France or the UK (or Holland etc) could be blasé about a newly armed Germany. The French in particular wanted to keep the German navy as small as possible. Thus NATO was crucial to embed West Germany in a command structure that would prevent any odd self-starter moves by the Germans. Another knotty problem came later with the implications of integrating the German Luftwaffe into NATO tactical air command, with the German version of the Lockheed Starfighter offering a nuclear-capable fighter-bomber. Stories tell of the security procedures in the early days being quite crude/dramatic, with American soldiers detailed to keep weapons trained on German pilots before take-off on the rare occasions they carried nuclear payloads. I don't know if that's true, but even as an urban legend it's quite suggestive of the tensions. The famous quote (actual quote) from that era: NATO has three objectives, to keep the Americans over here, the Russians over there, and the Germans down there.
- ironyroad
April 26, 2011 at 9:23pm
"The famous quote (actual quote) from that era: NATO has three objectives, to keep the Americans over here, the Russians over there, and the Germans down there." I think that this or something like that was said by Kissinger. ironyroad what you said makes a lot more sense than Nari's views and goes well with my view that NATO was created to protect Europe from itself.
- arnon
April 26, 2011 at 10:35pm
blackton--if France invaded with regular infantry units, they would surely regret it. On the other had, all the current players (UK, France, Italy, maybe others) have well-trained combat Forward Air-traffic Controlers and laser target designators that would make the available airpower vastly more effective both in terms of taking out Q-loyalist strong points and heavy weapons and avoiding civillian casualties. Such assets along with some bodyguards wouldn't constitute an invading force, and certainly not an occupying one as forbidden by the UNSC Resolution, but could bring the military phase to a quick conclusion. Then, on to the real fun: sorting out the various competing factions trying to form a new government.
- Robert Powell
April 27, 2011 at 4:25am
The quote, which states the purpose of NATO as to keep " the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" was uttered by the Organization's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay. Probably at a cocktail party rather than in an official statement--far too honest for that.
- Robert Powell
April 27, 2011 at 4:31am
arnon: "are you writing as a Canadaian or as a European, SMacEachern2?" Or perhaps as an Iranian! Maybe I'm a German or a Soviet! One of those defeatist non-American people, anyway! In any case, why disband NATO, if it's that irrelevant? Maybe America should just pull out, and accept that if it's going to be the World's Only Hyperpower, it will do so with its own troops. The problem in the UK isn't rearmament... in fact, per capita military expenditure in the UK is slightly lower than in France. The problem is the hollowing-out of military capabilities and the distortions in procurement associated with fighting simultaneous wars as an American client state in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- SMacEachern2
April 27, 2011 at 10:29am
C'mon Mac. You're a Klingon and everybody knows it. I agree on NATO. We should just pull out, and devote the savings to reducing our financial problems. Maybe we should also get some bank regulators on loan from Canada...
- Robert Powell
April 27, 2011 at 11:34am
SMacEachern2 "arnon: "are you writing as a Canadaian or as a European, SMacEachern2?" Or perhaps as an Iranian! Maybe I'm a German or a Soviet!" Or a Stalinist who doesn't know how to reason and needs to blame the decadent US for all the world's problems.
- arnon
April 27, 2011 at 1:26pm
That's it! I'm a Stalinist! And you're a Loon!
- SMacEachern2
April 27, 2011 at 2:53pm
SMacEachern2 It would be a kindness to you to call a loon a Stalinist like you.
- arnon
April 27, 2011 at 2:56pm
arnon: I have no idea what you interpreted my post to mean, but the statements about our pushing to re-arm Germany over the objections of our erstwhile allies was used as a comparison to how we treated their former ally, Japan. It was apropos my original post about how the US has been actively involved in shaping the current levels of armament around the world (although obviously not the only nor the decisive factor), and in reply to your assertion that everything "thought the US would protect them" As for "that NATO was created to protect Europe from itself." - I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the more inventive explanations that I've heard. You just don't like the idea that the US wanted to be in Europe (for many reasons, not all of them altruistic) or something? Or are you saying "Europe" when you mean "Western & Central Europe from the USSR"?
- Nari224
April 28, 2011 at 12:35pm
Nari your history of Europe is pretty lame.
- arnon
April 30, 2011 at 12:29am