This argument, and the accompanying graph, are fucking horsehit. How about this graph? I will remind you that the argument is for "a suitably large, trained and equipped force". My counter argument is why the fuck do you guys spend so much fucking money in comparison to the next 10 put together, and only have "a suitably large, trained and equipped force". Your military's Budget is 54% of your government 's budget - And that's at it's current low of 3% of your GDP. And don't cry "world's police" to me. For one, most of the world never sees your policing, and most of what was termed "policing" was just poxy war with the USSR and then Russia. I say "was" like it still isn't - See Syria right now. Is NATO obsolete? I don't know, does the US still have proxy wars with Russia, and do the former Soviet states still fear being subsumed back into Russia? Russia didn't have to go to war. they just took created some political instability within the Ukrainian parliament, then walked in and took what they wanted from Ukraine - their warm water port, which Russia had been using for decades anyways - and no one had the political testicular fortitude to call their shit. This article is just silly to me. It's like it's using the US's bloated defense spending as a way to say that no one else in NATO is pulling their weight. THEN it has the audacity to say that NATO didn't pull its weight after 9/11 because we all knew that the WMD's were bullshit and that the US was just going in after oil and to get rid of a leader that had worn out his usefulness.Third, given the fact that the EU has almost as large a GDP and almost 200 million more people than the U.S., why isn’t Europe’s collective contribution to NATO’s military capability larger than the U.S.’? By contribution, I don’t simply mean money, but a suitably large, trained and equipped force able to support the wars that are being fought now.
The U.S. is not going to war in Ukraine, and Russia is not going to war there, either.
I don't disagree with a word you say. I will point out, however, that you're taking an awful lot at face value. I would argue that 'horseshit" is something that is patently untrue. Both of those graphs are accurate. What they portray (accurately) is the disproportionate spending of the United States on the military. But graphs don't tell the whole story. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the British established a navy that, by design, could defeat any three other countries at once. The idea was simple: there was a keen unlikelihood that anyone could form a 4-country alliance and, as a sea-faring nation, the British could protect the homeland and their interests by ensuring that they could clobber the shit out of any group likely to come together. What you're seeing is an illustration that the United States wants a military strong enough to defeat literally everyone else. "Policeman"/"strongman" whatever. Whenever anyone talks about the United States and war, there is never any thought given to the idea that the United States might lose. I mean, sure - we "lost" Vietnam but that's because it was a police action with the goal of propping up a Catholic despot in the face of Communist insurrection. Had the goal been conquering Vietnam we would have had it under the jackboot in a month. This is the budget history of a country that wants to control any corner of the world immediately and unopposed. I don't know if you missed it, but the argument of the article is not that Europe owes the US support, but that the US doesn't owe Europe. Assume that the US becomes a Wilson-grade isolationist nation. Do we need enough military to conquer all other nations on earth simultaneously? Or just enough to take on Mexico and Canada? And the argument is that those proxy wars are irrelevant to Europe, and that the problems of the Near Abroad do not belong to the US. The argument put forth by Mr. Friedman is that no, we probably shouldn't be spending 3% of GDP in order to support a military that is grossly oversized for any future conflict. This is the core argument of antiglobalism, of which Trump is a key proponent. You're clearly angry. You're clearly justified in your anger. But you don't actually disagree with the article. WWI started because the British Empire and the Belgian Empire had a mutual defense pact. That the Germans were only interested in Belgium as a flanking action to bypass the lions' share of French defenses didn't matter; a "scrap of paper" is a "scrap of paper." Things went worse than expected. Thus the argument: treaties are things you have to abide by even when they're stupid. There is nothing in the NATO charter that says "mutual assistance if we feel like it." Which calls the whole treaty into question. Much as you're doing.This argument, and the accompanying graph, are fucking horsehit. How about this graph?
Is NATO obsolete? I don't know, does the US still have proxy wars with Russia, and do the former Soviet states still fear being subsumed back into Russia?
THEN it has the audacity to say that NATO didn't pull its weight after 9/11 because we all knew that the WMD's were bullshit and that the US was just going in after oil and to get rid of a leader that had worn out his usefulness.
My tone comes off angry, but I'm not actually. Apologies. Perhaps... frustrated? At the end of the day I think if NATO were to come to an end Canada would remain generally unaffected because of other treaties that involve just the US/Can and US/Can/Mex. We'd probably get dragged into a few wars in Europe, but that happens now anyways - it's the price of having the Queen on our cash and a legislative monarchy. I'm on the reply page so I'm sort of moving backwards through your comment with responses. I think there's a distinct difference here between the example you're citing and the entrance of the US into Iraq, and not just where the theatre of war was. In your example, Britain and Russia get dragged into a defensive war because Germany wanted parts of France it decided are part of "Old Prussia", areas like Burgundy, Alsace, etc. Italy and Austria-Hungary are dragged in because Germany knew that it would be unable to win. I wouldn't say that Italy and A-H were "obliged" to come in on their treaty, but I would say that it was in their best interests to do it - If Germany loses there's no point in having a treaty with them because they're weak, and if Germany wins then there's no guarantee they'll honour it for you because you reneg'd, so there's no point in having a treaty. In Iraq, I see NATO as the Italy and Austria-Hungary to the US's Germany. Iraq, in this case, is France without any friends except maybe Saudi Arabia. The US doesn't need anyone to go in with them, and is just bringing their buddies along because they want to make sure they look legit while they do this shady thing. Are treaty holders obliged to follow in with aggressive action when the original purpose of the treaty was defensive? Good question. I imagine it's covered in NATO documents somewhere, or else in UN documents - Somebody's got a rule about it, I'm sure. Regardless, NATO wasn't at the same impasse the Triple Alliance was in - The worst that the US would get was a blood nose - which it did - by having to admit there were no WMD's. Well I would argue that the current proxy war in Syria is rather relevant to the EU, considering it's one of the largest destabilizing elements of the EuroZone at the moment, and policy regarding refugees from that same war is one of the primary reasons European leaders are getting elected and booted out at the moment. Russian aggression in Ukraine was given an excuse because there were talks of Ukraine joining NATO. It is still directly affecting Europe right now not just through the continued tension in Ukraine, but also because a large portion of Europe still gets its natural gas from Russia - occasionally Russia plays a power game and either raises prices or turns off the tap altogether. Are these situations what NATO was for? Idunno, probably not. But it's what we have. I understand the theory behind having an army of that size, But I see that encouraging someone else to have more military spending is a way to guarantee more spending of your own, which is already functionally unsustainable for the US. In your strategy you have to match everyone else in money spent, dollar for dollar. If the EU suddenly doubled its military budget, you would have to add another percentage of GDP going towards your military - You'd bankrupt yourself trying to keep up. It's nuts. Also, what's the threat? Large scale ground war the likes of WW2 is unlikely to happen again - technology has changed the battlefield too much. Sure, having the latest and greatest tech is going to be a big advantage, but you currently have a gigantic infantry which will end up doing not very much on the field of battle if the US ended up going to war with China, say. It's way easier to target other countries at their vulnerable tech centers, their markets, their classified information. As much as the US has an advanced military, the way its primary function is still set up is going to leave you guys like the proverbial giant with feet of clay - overspending like crazy to get nowhere near the result. Then again, I'm talking as if I'm some military expert - I'm obviously not.Thus the argument: treaties are things you have to abide by even when they're stupid. There is nothing in the NATO charter that says "mutual assistance if we feel like it." Which calls the whole treaty into question.
And the argument is that those proxy wars are irrelevant to Europe, and that the problems of the Near Abroad do not belong to the US.
What you're seeing is an illustration that the United States wants a military strong enough to defeat literally everyone else.
"If you're not outraged at the massive proliferation of the military-industrial complex and the end of a 70-year-old bilateral mutual defense pact, you're not paying attention." - me Let's be clear: the Iraq War was a human rights catastrophe and a geopolitical clusterfuck. And let's be even clearer: arguing that NATO needed to get its hands bloody over some whackadoo "self-defense" clause is batshit. BUT. The argument is not being judged, the argument is being made. Personally, I don't feel that the dissolution of NATO pencils out from a costs-benefits analysis. My crude take on the whole policeman/strongman thing is that the United States pays a couple different ways for the privilege of pretty much always getting what it wants, which has benefitted me (and others in our global allies) rather nicely. We're the house and the house always wins but that means you need to buy a casino (said the zinfandel). That's a globalist's argument through and through, though. And we're assed out at the moment. Thus, the argument against runaway defense spending; the most cogent argument I've seen about how Reagan won the Cold War (which he did) was by coercing the Soviet Union into a downward spiral of defense spending that they couldn't possibly keep up with. It's not the most convincing argument I've seen, but it's the most convincing economic argument I've seen. It makes a cautious, pragmatic geopolitician hew towards isolationism. It's not the size of our army, but the way. It's our sophistication. We launch Hellfires like they're hand grenades. When you can freely and cheerfully cook off a couple $100k missiles to take out portable solar panels in Pakistan somewhere? Some see wastage. Others see power. That 3% of GDP gives you a lot of leeway as to how you deal with problems: think there's a sniper on a roof? Bring by a $130m Global Hawk to take a peek then launch a sortie of $35m AH-64s to take a peek then fire a couple $100k Hellfires at it... because. You're dealing with a guy who might have an Enfield, might have a Dragunov or some shit and you're literally rolling a Hollywood blockbuster on his ass because you have it at your disposal. From back in my archives I can tell you that the cost to put an AH-64 in the air is $45k an hour... before you start shooting at stuff. Belgium ain't doing that shit. And no. There will never again be a large-scale ground war. Tanks are thoroughly obsolete. Massed troops are thoroughly obsolete. I mean, really, if you want to win a war these days, do it Putin-style and stick to Facebook. Which pretty much makes NATO the Shriners or the Elks or the Eagles or whatever. A great club to be a member of but when you've got an isolationist demagogue running things, these are the discussions we have. Friedman didn't title his article "NATO is obsolete." However, that's definitely the question he wanted you to examine. I'd much rather roll the world back to yesterday but it ain't up to me. And these are the arguments we'll be hearing, 140 characters at a time.My tone comes off angry, but I'm not actually. Apologies.