“Who ya gonna call?” is less a fake ad from Ghostbusters than the rallying cry from any nation of earth or any relevant faction within that is either pro-American or at least neutral about us when they need specialized military deployment. Because we are at the cutting edge of military technology – with pinpoint targeting from smart bombs/missiles dropped from stealth aircraft, drones or launched from submarines – and since we actually do spend 44% of the world’s military budget, we are seemingly the first defense (offense) when these folks need a powerful punch to be administered on their behalf.
We seem to be the only guys who have the “real stuff,” and when the going gets tough, the tough start asking… for U.S. military assets. NATO is about America and ________. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates (appointed to that post by both George Bush and Barak Obama) addressed NATO leaders on June 10th in Brussels, Belgium. What he said wasn’t pretty and may presage the demise of that cross-oceanic alliance itself. Here are what I believe are the key portions of his talk: “In the past, I’ve worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered alliance: Between members who specialize in “soft’ humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the “hard” combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership - be they security guarantees or headquarters billets - but don’t want to share the risks and the costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable.
”Part of this predicament stems from a lack of will, much of it from a lack of resources in an era of austerity. For all but a handful of allies, defense budgets - in absolute terms, as a share of economic output - have been chronically starved for adequate funding for a long time, with the shortfalls compounding on themselves each year. Despite the demands of mission in Afghanistan - the first ‘hot’ ground war fought in NATO history - total European defense spending declined, by one estimate, by nearly 15 percent in the decade following 9/11…
“I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. Today, just five of 28 allies - the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania - exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense [the U.S. is between 4% and 5%]…
“Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments - from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees… But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent - at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.
“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
“Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders- those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me - may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.” If we didn’t have all of those weapons, if we had enough assets to defend ourselves and our major policy interests overseas and no more… we would be cutting our deficit and avoiding prolonged military expeditions that would threaten our future fiscal survival. It’s time of a change. For those who are saying our military budget is not on the table, it’s time to face reality: that position is no longer defensible.
I’m Peter Dekom, and we just do not have the financial capability to continue spending on our military as we have in the past.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment