A vigorous conversation is underway at The Economist ‘s American politics blog over whether or not much of Europe and East Asia “free ride” on the back of American military power.
Touching off the debate was this post by right-leaning AEI’s Michael Auslin, warning that the decline of America’s global presence and strategic influence, brought about by burgeoning national debt, will lead to “decades, if not centuries, of global instability, increased conflict, and depressed economic growth and innovation.”
That claim led to a counter-argument that Russia and China, the potentially destabilizing powers, have as much interest as anybody else in maintaining the free flow of goods and capital. Expanding further along this line of debate, The Economist said the free rider argument is a spurious one, citing relatively high levels of defense spending in South Korea and Taiwan and asking: “What is the threat to Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, or (apart from tussles with China over undersea mineral rights in the Yellow Sea) Japan?”
As for Europe, the most frequently cited free riding offender, The Economist says: “1. The major European powers spend a healthy 2%-plus of GDP on defense, and 2. No major European country faces any serious military threat.”
I’d be curious to hear what readers think on two issues raised here: Is the prevailing global power balance so fragile that marginal changes in certain nation’s weapons portfolios can upend the entire order? Is the global “just-in-time” trade flow conveyor belt self policing?
– Greg
{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }
Meh, this one is kinda a gimme isn't it? Go ask the Romans how their allies fared when they no longer had the military might to protect them…
I think there are surely some stereotypes in the U.S. psyche that play into reports of this kind. For example, it shocks (SHOCKS!) most Americans that the nations that spend the most in dollars (rather then as % of gdp) on their military in the world includes France, who spends more then Britain (65.7 billion vs 65.3 billion).
This is not meant to "prove" that Europe does not free ride off of American def. spending but rather to point out that we have bias to believe that they do for whatever reason.
Furthermore I agree that it is in the interest of the Chinese and Russians (esp. the Chinese) the keep the current system of free flow of goods going. Remember that their economy, while changing, is still based on exports that require this uninhibited flow of goods. Also, it is within this system that they have been able to grow into the world power that they are becoming.
France has upped defense spending under Sarkozy, but the majority of French defense spending likely goes to defense of the French borders. This is in contribution to the French contributions to the Afghanistan.
Here's the US 2010 DOD budget:
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion. When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion.
So we have Britain and France together spending about 20% of the US budget and that is supposed to impress me?
It is not quite so unbalanced as that 20% number implies as our GDP is 3x that of Britain and France together.
You don't miss what you don't have till you need it! And by then it's too late!
I'd say it is the double standards that kill us. We, the Europeans, talk about a solution to the middle east. We, the UNSC, created Israel, and we have never been willing collectively to settle the matter. We all talk peace, and yet we are unwilling to put the issue to rest. The rest of the world allows the US to maintain the logistical and operational capacity to keep the Persian Gulf open and the oil flowing. It isn't like were the Iranians to really lose their minds with Israel, and try and close the Gulf, the rest of the world has the ability to alter that scenario without the US. So I would say yes, they are getting a free ride.
Our American friends tend to view Europe as a country or a Federation at least. It is not. It's a continent with 50 different countries of whom 27 are in the European Union speaking at least 20 different languages ruled by political parties from every corner of the democratic spectrum. For 40 years Europe was divided by an Iron Curtain and lived in a constant fear of the opposing side of this possible front line. Most of them suffered greatly for having fought out 2 World Wars on their soils.
Nowadays a lot of these countries are struggling again due to the current economical crisis caused by reasons beyond them.
Conclusion: expecting a common pan-European foreign- or defence policy on the short term is an non-existing because of the different (political) culture each sovereign country has. Second: there is no common enemy or willingness to project economical power by military force because of the violent past. Third: a lot of EU members are on the brink of bankruptcy so their priorities are elsewhere. Fourth: have you seen our newly appointed President of the European Council?
Our American friends tend to view Europe as a country or a Federation at least. It is not. It's a continent with 50 different countries of whom 27 are in the European Union speaking at least 20 different languages ruled by political parties from every corner of the democratic spectrum. For 40 years Europe was divided by an Iron Curtain and lived in a constant fear of the opposing side of this possible front line. Most of them suffered greatly for having fought out 2 World Wars on their soils.
Nowadays a lot of these countries are struggling again due to the current economical crisis caused by reasons beyond them.
Our American friends tend to view Europe as a country or a Federation at least. It is not. It's a continent with 50 different countries of whom 27 are in the European Union speaking at least 20 different languages ruled by political parties from every corner of the democratic spectrum. For 40 years Europe was divided by an Iron Curtain and lived in a constant fear of the opposing side of this possible front line. Most of them suffered greatly for having fought out 2 World Wars on their soils.
Conclusion: expecting a common pan-European foreign- or defence policy on the short term is an non-existing because of the different (political) culture each sovereign country has. Second: there is no common enemy or willingness to project economical power by military force because of the violent past. Third: a lot of EU members are on the brink of bankruptcy so their priorities are elsewhere. Fourth: have you seen our newly appointed President of the European Council?
The EU has ion its own enough military power to overpower almost all of its neighbours (this includes allied Turkey) at once and both the Arab conventional threat and the Russian/Belarus conventional threat cause no headaches except in the Baltic region. Free riding on U.S. military expenditures is therefore not possible in the case of Europe.
Taiwan has an air force that cannot hold its own against the PRC's and its army is badly outdated. One could say that they should spend more, but their economy is too intertwined with the mainland's and they seem to follow a rather economic-diplomatic strategy instead of a military deterrence and conflict-readiness strategy. It's their choice. Any way, they couldn't stand their own against the PRC in the air and on the sea simply because of the population & economy difference. A bit more military spending wouldn't change that.
South Korea has a very defensible terrain and its military is vastly superior to the North's one. They have no chance of holding their own against the PRC, though. A bit more military spending wouldn't change that.
Japan has a strong navy and an aging air force that lacks a truly good fighter. Its army is neglected and rather small (the arms procurement is extremely inefficient). They could do better, and probably should have since much of their 90's stimulus programs went into inefficient infrastructure projects anyway – they could have built up military power instead (not instead of the full stimulus, but replacing a part of it).
Oh and about the Romans and their allies: they didn't have any really. They either conquered them or betrayed them.
I would think that the EU and Asian powers don;t contribute as much as they could -but- what is their incentive to do so when they know the U S will fill in the missing pieces.
China's military spending increases by 10-11 % per year, while Europe's declines. In 1998 The UK said defence spending would be 2.5 % of GDP, its now barely 2%.
China, India, Iran, Brazil, Venezeula, and several other nations are all increasing their military forces.Why? meanwhile the UK pulls its navy out of the Caribbean for the first time in over two centuries, and its destroyers often go on patrol without air defence missiles. The RAF now has no ASW patrol aircraft. But according to Europeans, an overseas vacation is now a right. All this nonsense is possible only because of the despised US
France, Spain, UK, and Germany have upgraded their navies notably. Taiwan is hampered by restrictions on the arms it can buy, but has added LaFayette-class frigates. Japan has a large modern navy, incl. Aegis Destroyers w/ SM-3s; it's air force flies F-15J and F-16 variants. Australia is in the midst of a modernization; NZ recently completed another phased upgrade of its navy (OPVs). Singapore has a modern military. Like South Korea, it has a manufacturing base that exports very capable ships, AFVs, etc. So. Korea would be a formidable opponent for any military in the world.
The U.S. has learned that, in any conflict, even the American military benefits greatly from the logistics, support and fighting abilities of its allies. When at it's best, it's a symbiotic relationship. I'd argue that there is very little coat-tailing [i]by our allies[/i], going on in Europe, Asia, the Americas or Mid-East.
This is a fair assessment, but I would submit that technology level does not lower the minimum floor on volume. There's also the experience element – say what you will about U.S. foreign policy, but I don't think there is any argument about which Western power has the most hands-on combat experience in this century.
The UKs RN is the smallest it has ever been. Two big carriers one of which will carry no fighters, the other only 30, with inadequate escorts, with in-service date keep being pushed back. . The destroyer & frigate force is down to 22, from 32 ten years ago. The SSN force is down from 12 to 8 boats. The RAF is in no better shape.
Germany has reduced its SSK force from 24 to 6, and reduced its destroyer &frigate force.
Meanwhile Burma (Mynmar) is said to be seeking nukes from North Korea, and Iran will have ICBM able to hit the US in 5 years(it will be sooner).
Of course they do, it goes without saying. And not just in the big picture, in small little details that make things work.
In ways most don't imagine; every NATO soldier in an American CSH, every wounded NATO soldier flown out of Afghanistan (or previously in Bosnia or Kosovo) on an American plane is letting their own country off the hook for not providing for them. It doesn't produce much backlog or delays because other country's shortcomings are factored in when American medical capacity is deployed, but if you don't think other country's deficiencies aren't noticed and compensated for, you're woefully uninformed and naive.
Every foreign soldier riding in an American helicopter because their country didn't think or plan ahead to provide enough of their own so they don't have to drive on the IED strewn roads knows the answer to that question is yes.
Every foreign soldier calling in some air support or for MEDEVAC and getting a USAF aircraft because their own country's aircraft aren't permitted to fly at night, or aren't deployed with the necessary equipment (or pilots in Germany's case), or are sitting back in the hangar in France or Germany or Italy collecting dust knows the answer to that question.
That answer is a big friggin yes.
To see boneheaded comments like:
"Free riding on U.S. military expenditures is therefore not possible in the case of Europe." makes me gag.
It happens every day.
'Europe', and the western side specifically, probably have sufficient well-trained and modern-equipped military forces for their own defence versus any conventional threat. They also have 3 of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council as part of Nato, with true intercontinental nuclear missiles to deter any state nuclear (or wmd perhaps) threat. What they lack is the ability to efficiently operate outside of europe, eg: the number of US carrier battle groups and marine expeditionary forces, and it is this that has been sacrificed for social programs / domestic priorities. The UK, France, Netherlands and Spain account for the vast majority of (overwhelmingly) sea-based expeditionary capability, with Italy also having a carrier, but the majority of these are small (~25,000 tonne) harrier / helicopter carriers and assault ships, with only sufficient escorts when navies pool together. And going on the current general election here in the UK, defence is just not a priority here to voters … i think the manifestos contain something like 8 out of 300 pages concerned with defence and military spending. Groups like the UKNDA (http://www.uknda.org/) campaign for increased spending but it is hard for the message to get across. Talking to people i often get the impression they assume we (the UK) have this mythical military stored away somewhere we can always pull out in an emergency (like the Falklands War) , not realising such things cost money and time (you lose all your shipyards and ships and it'll take 20 years to rebuild …). The level of ignorance is truly depressing. Oh well, I welcome our imminent chinese masters, perhaps the future world of Firefly is not so far off … as for asia, Japan seems to have a very potent navy, i thought it also wanted to buy either F-22s or F-35s? I don't know too much about the region otherwise.
"2. No major European country faces any serious military threat."
Even if that were true, it's only because invading or attacking them would be considered suicidal. Why? Because, da da da, they're protected by friendly global powers.
Ok, can you think of a country that would be likely to invade a European nation in the foreseeable future?
France and the UK have nuclear weapons.
First, every allied soldier in-country is a testament to the commitment our allies have to collective action. Then, after they've been wounded, we demonstrate our commitment by providing assistance and support.
What is uninformed and naive is to believe that it's a simple matter of "failing to plan ahead" or that they "didn't think of it." Not all countries have the wherewithal to simply buy a bunch of CH-47s. And even if they did, production can't keep up with demand. They bring to the fight what they can.
You look at the Pedro and say, "our ally is being 'let off the hook'". I look at the wounded allied soldier and say, "our ally is carrying its weight."
Uhh, no demand (the European "peace dividend") means there will be no production. Why no demand? We can use the Americans, they've got everything we need.
Numbers of allied soldiers in-country don't impress me, it's what they do that matters most, and for some otherwise important countries, what they are accomplishing in Afghanistan is embarrassing. Collective "action" matters, but collective "being there", the military dog and pony show doesn't impress me.
If you think it is only the Americans who are complaining about the free-riders, take a look at what the Europeans are saying about each other, or what the NATO Secretary-General is saying about a lack of serious effort.
Inventory-right-now isn't a valid excuse for not acquiring basic logistical capabilities to fight an expeditionary war. This goes doubly for Europe, considering that any place they could conceivably fight doesn't need to be build around a huge naval element, unlike the U.S. Additionally, it would seem that some of our European allies have deployed "token" forces for the WoT that they sit in garrison, while our friends in Eastern Europe raise hell.
Not being stupid enough to spend much attention and funds on nearly useless expeditionary wars instead of caring about domestic challenges is a good reason for moderate military budgets.
In most of Europe "defence" budgets are about defence.
Germany has paid their way into the sad position of not being able to provide for their defense or even your assistance to international organizations like the UN, much less your supposedly key role in NATO.
Best shown by the Hansa Stavanger "rescue". Congratulations on a job well done there. Maybe next time you can send the Boy Scouts instead of your military. They can fly there on the Volga-Dnepr Airlines transport planes (if they are available), since you can't manage to provide air transport on your own.
What are you writing about? Commando actions get cancelled all the time, just not published after abortion.
Germany can provide for it own defence. It's far away from the next threat's mainland (Russia) and has more intact and operationally valuable brigades than this threat can muster with its broken army.
There's no other threat.
No threat = no need for more military power. Especially as it's the purpose of an alliance like the Lisbon treaty that not every nation needs to arm itself to repel every threat by itself.
And good luck using the An-124 chartering to bash Germany; the biggest customer of those Russian and Ukrainian carriers is the USAF.
Btw, Germany has many thousands of troops on UN missions and in ISAF. You're just ignorant about Germany's military.
History may prove you right on the possible futility of the present American wars. The same can be said of any war embarked on before the long term results are know. However, simply protecting your (peaceful) borders and staying out of world affairs is precisely the luxury much of Europe enjoys due to a relatively stable world order secured by the US military. We tried the same foreign policy up until about December 7th 1941. Since then, the conventional wisdom has been that it is better to nip that kind of crap in the bud, preferably on their territory first. Just because a conflict is not on your borders does not mean it cannot affect you in horrible and unforeseen ways.
I actually envy the ability of much of Europe to have an inward-looking view on their priorities. I'd really rather not have to fund a world police force, for lack of a better term. But for all its imperfections, the present shape of things is a lot better than many of the potential alternatives if we abdicate our current role.
The Swiss model is the best one for self defense. Give every person a rifle, and nobody can make a profit of trying to conquer your place.
Why would anyone try and take Switzerland? It is where all the elite are hiding their money so they do not have to pay the stupid high taxes Europe has….
If the US government were to, say hypothetically, cut defense spending in half; how much do you think the rest of our allies would increase their spending by?
There'd be at least two zeroes at the end of that number, I guarantee you that.
…and nothing in front of them.
Seriously, what should European countries spend more money on? Offensive capability? They don't lack defensive capability for sure.
Or do you dream that the rotten Russian army or the ridiculous Arab armies could seriously threaten Europe?
There's simply no need for more defence spending in Euope – even if the U.S. was beamed into space today.
Te whole world free rides off of U.S. military power.The Europeans prefer to funnel most of their money into their social programs-apart from the British.
The Iranian nuke crisis is a good example. Europe sat on its hands for most of the Bush Administration, but now expects us to do something about it. If military action is forthcoming I'm betting that the only ones we could possibly count on are the Brits. The rest of Nato has trouble stomaching our current mission in Afghanistan as it is.
The Russians on the other hand view U.S. power as destabilizing and tend to work to undermine us as well as siding wit the Chinese.
The Chinese on the other hand are doing what the U.S. did when the British empire was crashing and burning in a myriad of disastrous excursions, and the British were becoming increasingly reliant on U.S. credit.
The funny part is once the U.S. is faced with the same economic realities that the British were- and pull back(far down the line from now), Europe is going to have to rely on the Chinese.
Most host countries ( like Japan , Germany etc.. ) pay substantial sums ( Billions annually ) for US Forces in their countries … The whole concept that this all on our tab is a myth.
Can you verify this? As far as I am aware, its actually the U.S. who pays the host country in most cases…
If you Google a little bit…. I did a quick look up for Japan but I know for sure Korea also pays.
http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20060123-71.htm…
The Japanese government paid 217 billion Yen (US$ 2.0 billion) in 2007[3] as annual host-nation support called Omoiyari Yosan (思いやり予算?, sympathy budget or compassion budget).[4]
It's actually the other way around. The US dollar being the de-facto global currency means that the US can print money without worrying about runaway inflation. No other country can do this and it is used to finance the massive US military expenditure (more than the rest of the entire world combined) If the US dollar was like other currencies, the US military would be a tiny fraction of its present size. The rest of the world is not only paying for its share, it is actually financing the US military.
The only good thing from your wars is we may see Iran having to superbuild its societys infrastructure to be able to built enough combat forge to ensure Europe cannot return its refugees. This would mean countries will be put up against each other and future will proof no European policy has ever differed from muslim policy. We are just technological leaders. Then well see capitalism having to change its structure to no leadership system or we will se US nuked by Iran and that is a good thing.. :) :)
Huh? Do you spakie de engrish?
Clearly, Iran has strong institutions for both foreign languages and geostrategy.
What a train wreck of grammar and I'm guessing logic, though I can't quite tell what the idea being proffered is. Which is too bad, since I really am interested in how those in opposition think.
What is the Number one Over welming military capability that the United States has over every other country in the world?
Firepower? Well yes, Like convential weapons or Nuclear capabilities?
Well, yes, but the one thing nobody on this site has even mentioned that is the U.S. Ace in the hole….
Logistics! Massive, overwelming Logistics! The capability to actually circumvent the Globe and put into play a Standing ready to fight Army/ Navy/ Air Force/ Marine Corps with everything under the sun needed plus a McDonalds and Pizza Hut too! No other country can pull that off.
When another country can actually do that…then the US needs to worry.
And that my friend is the American Strength!
Hear, Hear!
Ooh-raw
1. Most European nations cannot afford a first class military, and their social programs at the same time.
2. No threat!!! I would call expansionist Islam a threat to not only Europe, but Africa, and the Far East.
How would the military counter this 'expansionist Islamist threat'? Are there going to be waves of landing crafts full of crazy Mullahs hitting the beaches of Europe, Africa and the far east? Will freedom lovin cities fall under the unstoppable sandals of these Islamists?
Getting back on track, hasn't it been the case that the US brings the big toys and the Europeans put boots on the ground, most notable being Kosovo?
as the Islamic "threat" to Europe is demographic in nature, I can only assume that by suggesting a military solution, you are suggesting the application of military force to counter Islamic birthrate/immigration. Its interesting to see that genocide is becoming fashionable again.
The Economist gave the game away with the "Europe spends a HEALTHY 2% of GDP" TWO PERCENT so spending levels that are the lowest as a percentage of those economies in the last 100 years is healthy?
Yes, because that yields a sum that easily outspends ALL its non-allied, non-neutral neighbours.
Defence spending against no threat is offence spending.
Europe isn't that much interested in invading other countries.
I was going to say something, but my thoughts have been previously summed up in these words:
"Every foreign soldier calling in some air support or for MEDEVAC and getting a USAF aircraft because their own country's aircraft aren't permitted to fly at night, or aren't deployed with the necessary equipment (or pilots in Germany's case), or are sitting back in the hangar in France or Germany or Italy collecting dust knows the answer to that question.
That answer is a big friggin yes.
To see boneheaded comments like:
"Free riding on U.S. military expenditures is therefore not possible in the case of Europe." makes me gag.
It happens every day."
"I'd say it is the double standards that kill us. We, the Europeans, talk about a solution to the middle east. We, the UNSC, created Israel, and we have never been willing collectively to settle the matter. We all talk peace, and yet we are unwilling to put the issue to rest. The rest of the world allows the US to maintain the logistical and operational capacity to keep the Persian Gulf open and the oil flowing. It isn't like were the Iranians to really lose their minds with Israel, and try and close the Gulf, the rest of the world has the ability to alter that scenario without the US. So I would say yes, they are getting a free ride."
I have seen the idea put forth before that the lesson that Europe learned from the consecutive world wars that devastated their infrastructure, economies, and population, was that it is best to simply not fight. I mean, if their nations are invaded, sure, they'll fight. Which is made even better by the lack of any serious threat they face. But there is a certain moral and ideological nihilism in their foreign policy outlook. Maybe it takes a more idealistic, or perhaps naive people like the United States to try to mold the world in their image. Then again, maybe it's hubris. We have not seen our homes and neighbors laid to waste since the Civil War.
Maybe it is time to pull back from Europe and Asia.
All the reasons we established bases in those places have disappeared.
Soviet Union is gone. Why are we in Europe? I could see keeping one large base for logistics.
North Korea is a joke. If push came to shove we could support South Korea from the air. I could see keeping one large base for logistical purposes.
Taiwan? If China invaded it would take years to get them out and both our economies would be badly hurt. I really do not see it happening.
Japan? Please. They can take care of themselves if we give them the opportunity. They really are riding on our defense.
In short, I think we could greatly reduce our force size and increase equipment quality and deployment speed.
I totally agree, keep a few bases for logistics, but pull are troops out of Europe, South Korea and Japan. Let them foot their own bill. We can then afford to modernize all our equipment, buy more C-17's, C-5's,C-130J's to get where we need to go quickly. Add a few big Carriers and greatly expand our marine expeditionary forces. So if we need to go and do something some where we can. It would be a lot cheaper for us in the long run considering what it cost us now and how loved we are by our current guest countries. Just a thought
Completely agree. If we brought most of our troops back to US soil we could save a tremendous amount of ongoing operational expenses. Maybe keep a few big bases with standard crews: Ramstein, Rota, Incirlik and Diego Garcia.
We would use Guam, as we do already, as the main hub in the Pacific. Then run a bunch of training exercises, mostly Air Force, with other countries: Japan, England, Poland, Italy, South Korea, etc…
Imagine a host of allies, all with capabilities similar to the US military. Big CBGs, nuke subs, broad airlift, and mobile brigades to put on the ground. Then the next thread in these archives would be titled "Doesn't the US deserve to have capabilities greater than our smaller allies? What's wrong with US military planning?"
The US demands, wants and has greater capabilities than its allies. Of course we bring those assets to bear when engaged in collective action. That's not the same as a "free ride." They're bleeding along with us.
Okay, now that we’ve heard all the emotion-laden opinions, let’s look at some figures:
Casualties during Operation Enduring Freedom (according to http://www.icasualties.org/oef/):
US: 1045
UK: 281
Canada: 142
Germany: 42
France: 41
Denmark: 31
Population estimate pr. 2010 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org):
US: 309 101 000
UK: 62 041 708
Canada: 34 075 000
Germany: 81 757 600
France: 65 447 374
Denmark: 5 534 738
Casualties during Operation Enduring Freedom as a percentage of the population:
US: 0.000338%
UK: 0.000453%
Canada: 0.000417%
Germany: 0.000051%
France: 0.000063%
Denmark: 0.000560%
So what was that about a “free ride” again??
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg (formerly Denmark)
Yes of course, brilliant analysis.
I believe you have hit upon the perfect defense spending strategy any number of countries can use for the future.
Let's not spend a lot of money to properly equip our troops, helicopters are a luxury, we will use trucks to transport our troops from place to place. They're old trucks, with wooden sides, but they will be adequate if another country clears the roads for us.
And we have some armored vehicles, the weapon mounted on top can only fire straight ahead so if our troops get attacked from the side they are SOL, but they will adapt. And we will send enough of them so they can cannibalize the vehicles to get spare parts.
Body armor? We have these old plate carriers, you can't fire your rifle accurately when you're wearing it, which might be a minor nuisance to the troops as they are being attacked, but that's a small problem.
And consequently, when our troops suffer a casualty rate higher than another country that more properly prepares and more adequately equips their troops, we can claim that we are shouldering more of the burden than they are, and sacrificing more. Per capita. And use that as an excuse to withdraw early.
So if I understand your rant correctly, the reason the UK, Canada, Denmark, et al have suffered more fatalities (not casualties, as have been pointed out below – my bad), is that our equipment is substandard compared to the Mighty US War Machine? Now who’s doing the “briliant analysis”?
But let’s take a look at some other figures, then:
Number of troops deployed to Afghanistan as pr. 05 March 2010 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#cite_note-23):
US: 50 590
UK: 9 500
Canada: 2 830
Germany: 4 335
France: 3 750
Denmark: 750
Troops deployed as percentage of population (population figures from above post):
US: 0.0164%
UK: 0.0153%
Canada: 0.0083%
Germany: 0.0053%
France: 0.0057%
Denmark: 0,0136%
The US “wins” this one, but hardly with a landslide.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Your statistics are meaningless to me, and it isn't my rant, or my brilliant analysis:
1. German Troops Bemoan 'Critical' Deficits in Training and Equipment http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,…
2. German Soldiers Complain of Insufficient Training http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,…
"Soldiers’ Complaints of Shoddy Gear Spur Inquiry by House Democrats" (http://warriorprotection.net/wprc-news/soldiers%E2%80%99-complaints-of-shoddy-gear-spur-inquiry-by-house-democrats).
"In war, US troops 'complain' about weapons failure" (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=108420§ionid=3510203).
It's not just European troops griping.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
continued…
Soldiers like to gripe, and do it a lot. The fact remains, soldiers are dying because their country isn't preparing them for the mission. Or equipping them adequately.
How else can you explain this:
"The reports also conclude that, at times, more than half of the roughly 700 armored vehicles Germany has shipped to Afghanistan are not in suitable condition to be deployed. Owing to "missing replacement parts and insufficient repair resources," the military is forced to leave many of its "Dingo" and "Wolf" armored vehicles sitting around unused "sometimes for several weeks." Likewise, the vehicle fleet has been judged to be "inadequate" on the whole, and the vehicles often have drivers without the proper training for handling them off-road."
50% of your vehicles deadlined? That isn't the quality I would expect from a major European country.
And it isn't just Germany:
"Shortage of helicopters undermining 'protection' of troops in Afghanistan" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politi…
And please learn the difference between casualties and fatalities, those are not interchangeable words.
I am aware of the difference, and I stand corrected. The figures above refer to fatalities, not casualties.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Its not exactly a free ride Japan for example …
"In 2002 Japan's contributions represented more than 60% of all allied financial contributions to the US, and covered 75% of US Forces in Japan operating costs"
"The Japanese government paid 217 billion Yen (US$ 2.0 billion) in 2007 as annual host-nation support"
Germany and Korea also pay substantial sums …
The US provides most of the Military might because we have it. We are also as big as Europe. However, think on this one. The EU complains when the US wants to start spending more military money buying defense good, (weapons, Air Tankers, ets) here at home instead of with companies that recieve subsidies from EU governments.
There are only four European countries that spend 2 percent of GDP on defense (U.K., France, Greece, Turkey). Two of those four (Greece and Turkey) reach that level of investment out of preparation for war with the other. France barely meets the 2 percent criterion and will soon face a sharp defense spending reckoning, while the problems in the U.K. are perhaps more severe as the British government confronts a defense equipment spending gap of between GBP6-GBP36 billion (about $10-50 billion).
Most European nations have professional armies, which are not cheap. Then there is the the cost of deployment overseas to theaters such as Afghanistan, which often falls on the defense budgets of some of these nations. Thus, two percent of GDP is not exactly sufficient investment when new ISTAR equipment, UAVs, MRAPs and tactical and strategic airlift are also needed to undertake today's missions.
Thomas Nielsen is correct in that the U.S. does have a couple of very stalwart (if unappreciated by most Americans) allies in Europe, such as Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands and the U.K. But that said, many, many others have proven underwhelming contributors in Afghanistan.
One other thing: prior to the first World War many people were saying the same thing then that they are now relating to economic and trade interests overruling any rush to war amongst the "powers" of the world. So much for that theory.
I doubt anyone here is arguing against the sacrifice in blood our allies have made. Once the bullets start flying, debate over defense spending is moot and we are all in it together. Our Anglo Allies in particular have carried their weight militarily, even if their host governments aren't always committed politically. I also want to say personally that I have the deepest respect for the soldiers from other nations that have fought and died along with our own.
The debate seems to be a more general one in asking: does the free world benefit, either in direct safety from military threat, or indirectly though greater economic security, from American military might? To me the answer is obviously yes. Though it's also a little bit of a misleading question. We would be spending the money regardless, because it protects our interests too.
The fact is, most of Europe does not feel that it is necessary to spend as much as the US does on defense in order to maintain the world status quo. Many there think we are fighting shadows and throwing good money after bad. I personally think that is an artifact of them living in a vacation from history, where they have lived securely in the knowledge that they are safe and free to pursue their domestic ends at the expense of defense. No, China is not likely to start WWIII or 4, or whatever we are on. Nor is Russia. But the destabilizing effects of regimes like North Korea, Iran, Syria, and to a growing extent Venezuela, can have a way of snowballing out of anyone's control when left unchecked. If Iran decides to cut off the Persian Gulf again, and the U.S. Navy does nothing about it, who will step into the power vacuum? When such a signal is broadcast, how long will it take the rest of the world's unsavory actors to start moving against our interests? Such instability hurts all of our allies, not just us. And while we obviously aren't the only one's with the capability and will to project force to prevent such instances, we are the most credible and well funded one.
If Iran closes of the Persian Gulf, the Chinese will kick their a$$.
They are the largest car market now :)
Oh what a tangled economic web we weave…..
That's a definite possibility.
At some point in WWII, in a very real sense, Great Britain passed off responsibility for their empire to the United States. The transition was almost seamless, and unprecedented in nature. A previous post suggested that we should pull back from our allies, and maintain a few key posts like Diego Garcia. But it is precisely the British that secured that post to further joint UK/US strategic aims.
A decline in US power will see another power or powers move to fill the vacuum. China is a good bet. However, they are no US to our Great Britain, and I am not in a big hurry to see a world shaped by Chinese military dominance. Such a scenario seems remote right now, but it did not take very long for the decline of the British Empire to come to a similar point.
Not going to re-type that whole thing. What's with the posts being auto-deleted "by the administrator"? Maybe I'm making too many posts.
Although there is some point to the "Free ride" argument, it must be viewed in the light of the post WW2 role yet my question is; Where is NATO now that the US needs them? and how ungrateful the Europeans are today.
If you want to talk about force projection, the first step is to be able to get there. The US is the only country in the world that can transport and support its forces far beyond its own border. Most country's navy's are glorified coast guards. Outside of the US Navy, there are about 11 aircraft carriers, most are small (20,000 tons) and can only support jump jets (which are relatively slow, with limited range and bomb carrying capacity). Only one of those are nuclear powered. The US has 11 carriers, all nuclear powered, all equipped with heavy, long range, high speed attack aircraft, with the best trained pilots in the world.
And don't even get me started on the US edge on airborne refueling tankers, long range bombers, precision guided munitions, etc.
Forgive me if I choose not to trust Europe's take on global security. They don't exactly have the best track record of predicting war.
There is some degree of free-riding. There are a lot of high level organizational systems that the US provides, from GPS to coordinating submarine travel. Other countries don't spend money on this.
The US is the ultimate maintainer of the status quo. Countries would have to increase their spending without the presence of the US. Of course there are no current threats to Europe that Europe cannot handle. They have gauged their defense spending on handling these sorts of threats, but they have done so under the status quo that the US ensures.
Next war, try i on your own, USA!
No ports for you, no ships, no airfields nor airways, no political support, no foreign tankers bringing you your drug #1, oil, just dead silence.
No more Asian parts for your computers, no more Asian cars, no clothing or sports equipment from China – and surrender your sidearm too, it's a foreign design.
No more money, not for your F-16s and crazy F-35, no money to give to your failed banks and corrupt CEOs. Then, pay back what you owe the rest of the world – immediately.
How far do you think you'll get? I'll venture you'll be back in the stone age in one generation. Which would solve global warming and a host of other serious threats to the world as well.
Face up to it! You are totally dependent on the outside world. You live of the fat of the land – but it is other peoples' land, always!
So please pipe down and be ever so happy that your leaders know this reality and act accordingly. If it were up to most commenters here, your country would be doomed.
Good trolling, except it makes a totally different argument. The whole point of overwhelming American military power is to ensure the goods and services you mentioned can flow unimpeded, for our economic prosperity as well as everyone else's. The ports are made open to US Naval forces because their presence benefits the host nations in some way. The oil is sold and transported to the US because we pay market rates for the goods and services. The electronics, clothing, sports equipment, etc. that you mention are made elsewhere because doing so creates a cheaper and more profitable product than if it were made with more expensive American labor, not because we can't make it ourselves. And in exporting those jobs, the economic opportunity it creates helps boost millions of people in developing countries out of poverty. Ask the newly minted Chinese Middle Class what they think of our trade dollars. And I'm pretty sure that the military could find a domestic replacement for the Beretta, and a lot of people already think they should.
National Debt is another issue that does have serious strategic implications if not put under control very soon. That is probably your one good point, though it's still irrelevant to the "free ride, militarily" debate.
I like this Nadnerbus dude. Every comment on this post is well put
without being mean.
Heh, thanks. I've seen enough discussions degenerate to ad hominem and and jingoism to wish to avoid it. It doesn't serve the ends of finding truth or consensus.
In Europes case i've realised this since I was about 9 years old.
I guess it just goes to show how out of touch with reality journalists can be.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/military-spending-free-riding.html
Thanks for the link, Last Dingo. Defense And Freedom covers the subject quite well and objectively — better than I did before, but my oh my, the prevalent jingoism on these pages is really galling. So I let loose.
Truth is, of course, that the U.S.A. needs its allies and vice versa; but this sort of chauvinistic talk only fosters resentment against the States. With the U.S. economy so deep in debt, affecting foreign countries so negatively already, it is simply not smart to foster resentment abroad.
Well, that's the thing. There's resentment here towards Europe. The US doesn't get warm and fuzzy feelings towards Europeans when they sneer at us for not having universal health care or high speed rail transit in Alaska, meanwhile we are patrolling the oceans, keeping Iran in check, fighting two wars, bickering with North Korea, warning China away from Taiwan, and generally trying to keep the world from imploding.
We see European nations with no real force projection capabilities and no real navies. It's like we're Batman, stopping the Joker from blowing up the city, and Europe is the Gotham City Police Department, zealously guarding the donut shop. Sometimes, you just feel unappreciated.
So why is Singapore, for instance, planning on buying such an expensive, refitted south korean plane such as the T50?
Sure they do, but they don't get cancelled by other countries that are providing the logistics because you can't (or choose not to) provide them for yourself. The best Germany has available were not mission capable, end of story.
You don't have the capability, so you don't have the responsibility, and it seems you prefer it that way.
It's true the US uses the chartered transports, if it is the cheapest alternative, that's called common sense. They also use FEDEX to ship equipment. It isn't our only method of transport, we have options. You can't say that about your country and a lot of NATO countries.
I'm ignorant about Germany's military? You could write a blog about what you don't know about. Ooops, I forgot, you already do. Stick to the toy soldiers.
Duh. Thank you for making my point.
A gas action rifle gets hot after 12 magazines have been fired through it, wonder why that is?
I wonder why the Americans use it. And the British SOF (and the SA80 users that wish they had one, and the same mechanism in the Canadian Colt C7 and C8, used by the Dutch, Norwegians, and countless others around the world.
I can guarantee they are a lot more mission capable than anything anyone else has.