No matter that these nations contribute ‘some” troops. They neither spend an appropriate fraction of their GDP’s on their military forces, nor even after years of NATO membership (for many of them) are they able to interoperate effectively. Germany spends 1.5% of GDP on its armed forces. Italy 1.8%. The UK 2.4%. France 2.6%. The US percentage is 4%. Time for Europe to spend the same fraction and then demonstrate that their troops are combat effective before the US does any more. Iran is closer to Urope than it is to the US and Urope’s muslim problem isn’t going away. Get it done and tell us about it when it’s over.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Military
I guess if I had come back with reports of 1,000,000 Europeans sweeping away Iran you would still find room to complain. Maybe abouts the accents of the French and Germans, maybe the teeth of the Brits and the sweaty pits of the Spanish.
None of us are obligated to spend as much as the US does in terms of military spending. Each sovereign nation of Europe secures its own borders first and foremost. Dont forget that the US in is an enviable position of not really being attackable, in a conventional sense at least. Our historic continent shares borders or close maritime boundaries with a number of fairly dodgy states. So internal security first.
I have been to your country and I can see where the extra 1-2% of the GDP goes, and it certainly isn’t on your infrastructure. It rivals some parts of Africa (having lived there also I should know) in its antiquity. Sure, you have the mightiest military on the planet, but then yours is a militaristic society. Most of Europe have been through militarism and come out the other side, having learned from tough mistakes.
As for combat effectiveness, I can only point to the work being done in Helmand by the UK, the Danes and the Estonians as being first rate. That you have the gall to claim our troops aren’t effective in combat is an insult to the 250+ UK soldiers, airmen and seamen that have died, the thousands wounded, taking some of the burden away from our ‘ally’ across the pond. Speaking on behalf of the UK, we operate the finest, most professional, toughest bunch of personnel in the Western World. Quality, not quantity.
Besides, both the UK and France has nuclear warheads, an although I really dont want them used, the option is there if needs be. Regarding your point of interoperability between NATO states, the problem is that the US thinks itself head of NATO, while its charter espouses a balanced and fair partnership for all members. Its head is always US, and so is sometimes seen as an extension of US policy, which, occasionally, it certainly is.
Far better to check out the work that EUFOR has been undertaking in Kosovo to use as an example of interoperability between European nations. Fact remains that Europe has far more specialised troops per capita than the US, which looks at massed ranks, ideologically trained, combat soldiers. In Europe we have the Nordic and Scandanavian countries with unsurpassed arctic warfare knowledge, with some solid maritime nations, the best fighter interceptor on the planet and an increasingly battle-hardened core soldier force. Lets take the example in Afghanistan in the wake of Operation Anaconda the Pentagon requested that the UK send her Royal Marines Mountain Warfare Cadre, who specialise in mountain terrain. This was because the US, even her fabled Marines, dont train to the intensity and specialisation that UK maintain.
You can retreat in disgrace as you propose in the face of a tyrant, and let the mighty US be brought low by cowardice in the face of Ahmadinejad and Irans theocracy. I cant stop you, but our history books will look at you in a different light if, once again, you fail to live up to your responsibilities.
Thanks for reading.