Chess game between Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO and Syrian president
Bachar al-Assad, with Gaddafi as a piece
Posted on 06/15/2011 10:42:46 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Now that they are involved in Libya, Europeans have discovered that they do not have the means to achieve their ambitions. And without the backing of military means, EU diplomacy will not be credible in a strategic region for Europe. This is the logic behind the need for common defence programmes.
Chess game between Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO and Syrian president
Bachar al-Assad, with Gaddafi as a piece
Bernard Guetta
It was an American who spilled the beans. The reason why a majority of European countries are not participating in air support operations for the Libyan uprising is not because they disagree in principle with this strategy, but as US Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently pointed out, because their military budgets are too limited.
What the boss of the Pentagon said was true, but it was not the whole truth. Not only do many EU countries lack any real military capacity — they have relied on America since the beginning of the Cold War, and the disappearance of the Soviet threat has only led them to further reduce their military spending — but even the major European powers, even Paris and London, have only a very limited capacity to project military force.
France and Great Britain have the firepower to take charge of the Libyan operation, but as they are already committed elsewhere, and in particular in Afghanistan, they are hampered by dwindling stocks of munitions and a lack of men and equipment at a time when these problems will certainly be made worse by budgetary difficulties.
No doubt this news is likely to solicit a chorus of approval from those Europeans who believe that their countries have no business being involved in Kabul, Misrata or Abidjan. But if we look beyond the debate on the legitimacy of these military campaigns, it is clear that any power that deprives itself of military means is condemned to accept that it will have no political existence.
The United States is no longer willing to fund European defence
To be heard and carry weight in the international arena, it must have the necessary capacity to take action or react to events, and there are two reasons why this is particularly true for the European Union at the start of the 21st century.
The first of these is that even those Europeans who believed that military dependence on the United States was the best means of guaranteeing cohesion among the western powers were obliged to revise their position when the Americans did not lift a finger to provide support for Georgia in its conflict with Russia. In August 2008, the most Atlanticist Europeans suddenly discovered that America was prepared to prioritise the stabilisation of its relations with Moscow over one of its most faithful European allies and assert its own interest to the detriment of a solidarity that Europe had believed to be unshakable.
As a result, even Poland embraced the idea of a common European foreign and defence policy and this development was all the more timely inasmuch as it was immediately followed by the crash on Wall Street. Having already decided that it was not going to allow a minor European conflict to undermine its international interests, America was obliged to inject so much public money into measures to rescue its economy that even the Pentagon had to participate in the drive to shore up federal finances.
The United States is no longer willing to fund European defence, and there is hardly any reason to expect that this will change anytime soon. That was the perfectly explicit sense of Robert Gates’ message, which is already evident in the Americans’ deliberate strategy of leaving Europeans in the front line in Libya. Now that they have been forced to shoulder most of the burden of this operation, European states must be aware that they will have to increase military spending, especially in the context of the Arab Spring and a prolonged period of instability in a region that extends from Rabat to Sana’a.
Austerity likely to create significant political tension virtually everywhere
No one knows what the outcome of the Syrian regime’s bloody excesses will be, but the certainty is that it will have a chain of consequences for the rest of the region, and the same can be said for the fall of Gaddafi, which will herald radical change in the North African political landscape as soon as it happens. All of this is taking place within a stone’s throw of Europe which can not remain indifferent or expect not to be affected.
This is the second reason why European states can no longer ignore the need for spending on defence. However, at a time when budgets have been cut to the bone in most EU countries, and austerity measures, which have become unbearable in Greece, are likely to create significant political tension virtually everywhere, any plan that involves diverting funds from education, health care or municipal spending to the armed forces is simply out of the question. The only way for European states to increase their military capacity is to share resources and develop common programmes.
Great Britain and France have already begun to do this. In spite of its Atlanticism, even Great Britain has understood the need for such a step — and it is one that will also be necessary in fields other than defence. The countries of the EU will have to share resources and push for greater harmonisation of policies in every field. This is the lesson that we should learn from the remarks made by Robert Gates.
Translated from the French by Mark McGovern
Bump
Good. The EU has some very expansionist ambitions, and the more they’re checked, the better for the world.
Guess they forgot that ‘soft power’ only works when you actually have ‘hard power’ on call. Now they have neither.
Guess they’re going to have to start paying for their own defense now. Good - guess they’re going to have to start stripping their gold-plated social welfare programs.
Also discussed in about how without the US, NATO is toothless.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2735399/posts
Socialism is a little more difficult when you have to pay for your own defense.
Yup. They’ve been complaining about the US being the World Police and saying they want us to stop. Well, now we have to stop and they’re not ready for it at all. Whoops.
Plus we need to sacrifice the Euro-weenies to the Moozies while we re-load stateside..
That, unfortunately, may be the case.
Well, they had their chance to pull their own weight and help. And, like France in WW2, they basically folded and told us to take care of the problem instead.
Besides, I think they need a dose of theocratic oppression again to make them appreciate the consequences of their conduct.
The EU spends a big money on defense (about $400bn). The problem is they don’t get value for it. God knows how many different types of equipment they’ve got and some of the big hitters still have large conscript armies that a next to useless for power projection.
Well, that is because they were (and probably still are) happy to settle for the most expensive thing in the world - a second-rate military. After all, despite their complaints, they ‘knew’ the US would defend them.
A counterexample to that is Japan, who is constitutionally required to have a limited military and to rely on the US (they’re required to do so by the constitution we made them take at gunpoint after WW2). They could have gone Euro and had a really weak and ineffectual military. Instead they have been determined to pull their own weight in the deal and insist on having the most capable force they can legally have.
Then again it is possible that, if Germany/EU can rid itself of its saracen cancer then we might have to rely one day on that entity for our own defense. Then we become part of the EU system as a subordinate player.
Our performance in the South China Sea will likely have a huge impact on Japan’s decision whether to continue to maintain its military subordination to the Americans and thus on a decision to go for full bore Defense. If we cede the South China Sea to China then our guarantee of freedom of the Seas will be and be seen to be hollow and in rapid decline and Japan will have to give up any limitations on its military, especially on its navy and on nuclear capability..
Herein is the dilemma of the Oama administration.
They are fundamentally antiwar and to go to war is against their strident base. America has asked the Brits and Nato to go to Afghanistan to full fill treaty commitments because one , us, was attacked. They went, begrudgingly, but they went.
Now, they have asked us to scratch their back and go to Libya. I would guess that the whole government except the State Department is against going. State says we are honor bound to go to uphold old markers and assure the Nato types are available when really needed next time.
By the way, Peace is merely the interval between wars. War is the natural condition, peace is the anomaly.
That, unfortunately , may be the case
After having trashed our own economy that may not be possible. The government is so large and powerful that we probably cannot any longer pare it back and its very size guarantees a permanent anemic economy. Such an economy does not have the "reload" capacity without impoverishing totally and quickly the middle class. And if that happens then it will be a short term reload that can't be maintained or repeated. AND politicians and the political class are so corrupt now that their immediate enrichment and empowerment will continue to come ahead of defense and survival.
You know as well as I do that incessant warfare is the *normal* state of affairs for Europe. They’ll be busy with each other for decades.
I think that heretofore normal state of European war was suppressed and its effects were attained by non violent means under the American hegemony and encouragement of unity and discouragement of the penchant for military conquest and of its means. Europe is rapidly becoming Germany and it is happening without warfare or even opposition. Germany is doing it by bailing out everyone else, making the profligate rest of the Continent voluntarily dependent on Germany. It works better than jackboots and armor.
Japan doesn’t have the population to stand up. Japan will not be Japanese in 20 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.