Nov 10 2009
The costly alliances of the United States
One of my favorite quotes from George Washington was two little snippets of advice that he had for the young United States of America.
His first word of advice was that we should not form political parties (oops!) and the second had to do with the U.S. making alliances with foreign countries.
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
– George Washington.
Well, for better or for worse, we didn’t listen to George on this one either. Would we have been wise to?
. . .
Today the United States holds alliances all across the world. We’re allied in one form or another with almost all of Europe, several countries in Asia, and with many countries in North, South and Central America. With these alliances come both assets and liabilities, but what real assets are we talking about here?
Let’s take a look at one alliance in particular, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
NATO was formed on April 4, 1949. Originally it was a pact between the United States and 11 other countries, but over the years NATO’s ranks have swelled to 28 countries. The point of NATO was to provide a military support between its members.
From the treaty:
“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
NATO member’s military spending accounts for about 70% of the military spending in the entire world. You can bet that’s not divided up evenly between all 28 members of NATO either. In fact, the United States military spending works out to about half of the military spending in the world.
To make a bad situation worse, we have treaties like the 2002 Berlin Plus Agreement. Signed between the European Union (EU) and NATO, the Berlin Plus Agreement gives the EU rights to the use of NATO assets should NATO decline to intervene in an international crisis. What was that whole bit about entangling our peace and prosperity with the toils of European ambitions again, George?
Six months into President Barack Obama’s administration Obama received a letter from several Central and Eastern European NATO members stating that the “ability to sustain public support at home for our contributions to Alliance missions abroad … depends on us being able to show that our own security concerns are being addressed in NATO and close cooperation with the United States.”
Here’s the thing, almost all of the countries that were demanding more resources from the United States spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense spending. The government puts defense spending at 20% of the United States GDP, but if you account for past military expenses such as veteran’s benefits and interest from debt that number jumps dramatically to about 54%.
“The primary purpose of our alliance from a military standpoint is to provide for the security of Japan.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on a recent visit with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. “It allows Japan to have a defense budget … of roughly 1 percent of GDP.”
These countries are able to spend virtually nothing on defense because the United States is doing it for them. What is it that the U.S. is getting in return though, other than an excuse to spend that much money on the military?
Justin Logan of the CATO Institute worded it best:
“America’s alliances are no longer considered responses to security challenges. Instead, they have become ends in themselves. In an era of record-breaking budget deficits and serious economic problems at home, the billions of dollars Uncle Sam pays each year to baby-sit Europe and East Asia ought to be coming in for scrutiny, not perpetual affirmation.”
Sources:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10954
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/George.Washington.Quote.2D30
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-C4B3E460-5AD5C2A3/natolive/index.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Great article. Maybe now people will understand why we should pull out of NATO. Its draining us.
choice/arrogance/necessity/responsibility/need to be bigger than life in the eyes of the world - who knows what really motivates America. My question is does it serve a purpose for us to be viewed as the “great nation” and if so what real/tangible purpose does it serve.
Is respect given or are we just being used - sometimes I wonder and I wonder what the consequence of “failing” would be. What would be the consequences of standing alone in a hostile world?
I think we have finally found something we disagree on. Now i will be willing to say that there are plenty of military projects underway and or have been on going for the past 20 years that are pointless, but that doesn’t mean that NATO or our alliances in Asia or South America are completely unfounded.
Let’s go back to the reason NATO was founded, WWII. NATO was actually the brain child of President Eisenhower, he established this treaty with fellow European countries for two reasons in my opinion. One, The major players in Europe, United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Spain, were all significantly broken when it came to economic and defense capabilities and were not able to defend themselves on their own. Two, it pushed America into the drivers seat for the first time in history. Since NATO we now have air bases, military posts, and accessible ports in all of those countries which provides America with something money can’t buy, PEACE OF MIND.
And that’s what this is all about, since the Cold War the US Military’s plan has been: Be ready and keep it off US soil. Which it has successfully done since Pearl Harbor. Some might point to 9-11 but that wasn’t a direct military strike from another country, and we have taken counter measures since then to prevent another attack.
Do I think it’s right that we police the world? No, of course not it puts our boys at the front line every time while the rest of world just gets to sit back and hate the cops. But it has been successful and the reality is there is no chance of change coming. Military Power and Superior military technology is as American as Apple Pie and Cheeseburgers.
But I will take a jab at NATO if you don’t mind, do away with the name please and just change it to AKAFE, “Americans Kicking Ass For Europe”
According to a 2004 Department of Defense report titled “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country,” the United States has military troops stationed in 136 countries of the world. I get needing to have airbases and ports but, isn’t that a little bit overboard?
The CBO projects that our budget deficit will be 148% of our GDP in ten years. One of the main reasons for this is defense, which has seen its spending go up to higher-than-ever levels for the U.S. in the last couple years.
As for comfort and security, Before the Iraq war the United States outspent the dangerous nations of Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Cuba on defense by a 22-1 ratio.
“As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined — and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners.” — Robert Gates.
Who is it that we’re scared of, exactly?
Perhaps if we didn’t account for half of the weapons exports in the world it wouldn’t be such a dangerous place either, but that’s fodder for another post :)
BTW - totally support the name change… While we’re at it we should change the UN to the KCT (Khadafi’s Crazy Tent).
The military is that large because it’s only meeting the demands of our country but the need of our allies. I for one would be very concerned if our military spending was even with that of our enemies, when you go to war who wants it to be a fair fight? I’m sure our boys on the line would much rather have the superior equipment and numbers. I also don’t trust any other countries to run military operations when addressing conflicts around the world.
But I can’t deny facts, like you said if things continue defense would account for 148% of the GDP which is unreasonable but what else is unreasonable is our desire to always cut taxes and fix our deficit at the same time.
BTW it’s not just defense that would be 148% of the GDP, it would be our whole budget defecit. Defense spending is a huge portion of that though, a portion that gets even bigger when you factor in the costs of caring for our veterans and paying off the interest from debt attained through the military, neither of which actually gets factored into defense spending.
You’re definitely right on the last point. Can’t have the cake and eat it too. What too many people fail to realize is that they own this debt. It’s the “public” debt that our government officials have accrued, for better or for worse, for us. Last I checked the tally was somewhere over $30,000 per citizen.
Just one thing to point out. I believe it would be tricky and potentially dangerous to immediately cut our military budget, because America has so many potential enemies.
On the other hand, the reason we have so many enemies is largely because between our alliances and our egotistical leaders, we have played the role of the world’s police man.
http://twitter.com/zinvegas
http://thezspot.today.com
http://gamingtips.today.com