'Pacification' of Europe is threat to security, US tells Nato

[Peikko 1,575]

The Obama administration accused Europe's leaders of endangering peace today because of their growing ­pacifism and reluctance to foot the bill for adequate defence.

In a withering attack on what Washington sees as European complacency in the face of new security threats, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, demanded root-and-branch reform of the transatlantic alliance, voiced exasperation with Nato bureaucracy and said it was becoming increasingly difficult for the US and Europe "to operate and fight together".

Gates told a Washington meeting of Nato officials and security experts "the pacification of Europe" had gone too far.

"The demilitarisation of Europe, where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st," he said. "Not only can real or perceived weakness be a temptation to miscalculation and aggression, but … the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to operate and fight together to confront shared threats."

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, joined in what was a concerted warning to the Europeans, calling for an "honest discussion" of European defence spending and complaining that the alliance was at risk of turning into a talking shop.

Gates's criticism came days after the Dutch government collapsed over a dispute about Afghanistan and announced it would start withdrawing some 2,000 troops from August. The pull-out has spurred worries that other Europeans could follow suit.

Away from the immediate priorities of the Afghan war, Gates indicated that the Nato and European predicaments were "part of a larger cultural and political trend affecting the alliance … [which] faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems".

While the Obama administration has just asked Congress for a defence budget of more than $700bn (£454bn) – almost 5% of GDP – for next year, Gates complained that only four of the 26 Nato allies in Europe spent more than 2% of GDP on defence. A recent meeting of Nato ministers in Istanbul heard that the alliance had a €640m (£561m) hole in its budget for this year.

Gates voiced impatience with years of unredeemed European pledges to procure more cargo aircraft and helicopters. "Their absence is directly impacting operations in Afghanistan ... Nato needs serious, far-reaching, and immediate reforms to address a crisis that has been years in the making," he said.

The 28 Nato countries are embroiled in an attempt to come up with a new mission statement, and there are divisions both transatlantic and within Europe over the wording. The warnings from Washington appeared to be an attempt to dictate the key components of the new doctrine.

Link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Europeans will soon cease to be useful allies in anything that goes beyond the symbolic. That is the reality the US must face.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe, but Gates is not calling for the US to recognize this truth, but rather calling for Europeans to change their stance.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If Europe doesn't see the need to defend itself, then why does that concern us? It's not likely the Soviet Union is going to reconstitute any time soon.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If Europe doesn't see the need to defend itself, then why does that concern us? It's not likely the Soviet Union is going to reconstitute any time soon.

True, and the other enemy is already well inside the gates so it's too late to turn that back.

[Peikko 1,575]

There are other threats to security besides the pesky ex communists Mr Ranger.

True, and the other enemy is already well inside the gates so it's too late to turn that back.

The enemy within.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The enemy within.

indeed. the savages are already inside the gates.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

True, and the other enemy is already well inside the gates so it's too late to turn that back.

Yep. I can see owning the Burqa concession at European airports could be rather lucrative.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yep. I can see owning the Burqa concession at European airports could be rather lucrative.

not quite the savages i had in mind, but thank you for making your biases clear.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

not quite the savages i had in mind, but thank you for making your biases clear.

When did observation become bias?

[mawilson 2,133]

I call it the "wussification" of Europe.

not quite the savages i had in mind, but thank you for making your biases clear.

What other savages are there?

[Ali G. 37]

I call it the "wussification" of Europe.

:lol:

I thought the clown who tried to blow up the Delta plane caught a connecting flight in Europe. Yet various European nations are still against profiling a passenger's country of origin.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[The_Dude 1,142]

I call it the "wussification" of Europe.

What other savages are there?

Those nasty chav Chelsea supporters......

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

When did observation become bias?

Disagreeing with a black man is even worse per the Political Correctness Doctrine.

[Peikko 1,575]

Bob Gates' criticism of european defence shortcomings yesterday was couched in unusually harsh terms. Then again, NATO faces an uncertain future and there's a growing sense in the United States, I think, that europe is failing to lift its weight when it comes to defence matters. As Gates pointed out just 5 of NATO's 28 members spend more than 2% of GDP on defence. Consequently:

The demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.

And:

Right now, the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems. The NATO budgetary crisis is a case in point and a symptom of deeper problems with the way NATO perceives threats, formulates requirements, and prioritizes and allocates resources. It is hardly two months into the new year, but we already face shortfalls of hundreds of millions of euros – a natural consequence of having underinvested in collective defense for over a decade.

All of this should be a wake-up call that NATO needs serious, far-reaching, and immediate reforms to address a crisis that has been years in the making.

Much of this is fair enough and it's certainly true that european capabilities have not kept pace with NATO's transformation from, as Gates put it, "a static, defensive force to an expeditionary force – from a defensive alliance to a security alliance." Nevertheless, this seems more complicated a matter than simply a question of irresponsible europeans Venusians failing to meet their obligations. That is, while european countries certainly deserve some share of the blame for the metal-fatigue afflicting the alliance, so too do the Americans Martians.

If europe has failed to build a stronger defence, that's partly because the Americans have both been happy to subsidise european defence in return for military primacy but also because the United States has, generally speaking, not looked too kindly upon efforts at creating, or even designing, an independent european defence mechanism.

For instance, after the Anglo-French agreeement at St Malo in 1998, Madeleine Albright, then Secretary of State, argued that any European Defence and Security Policy (EDSP) was fine so long as: a) it didn't duplicate anything done by NATO, b) there be no decoupling from the US and NATO and c) no discrimination against non-EU NATO members such as Turkey.

In other words, european defence would still be guaranteed by the United States and Washington would resist the development of any credible independent capability. You can certainly argue that this made sense and was, even, the correct policy. But it hardly created any incentive for european countries to increase their defence spending. Indeed, quite the reverse, it may have exacerbated the "free-rider" problem, albeit for perfectly understandable, even laudable reasons.

For that matter, it may also be the case that Britain has to take some of the responsibility for this too and not only because our own defence capability has been eroded. It seems at least possible that absent a credible lead from Britain (and France) there simply won't be any beefed-up european defence capability.

Again, our preference for the American rather than the european end of the alliance may well be sensible but it comes with a price and part of that, I suspect, is a weaker european contribution. Once more, this isn't a question of malice or incompetence necessarily, rather a reflection of choices made and the consequences of those reasonable, even rational, choices.

UPDATE: This is Brother Korski's territory of course, so I also recommend this post.

Link