The New Eastern Front?

From IBD:

Posted 2/17/2006

Defense: The world is filled with security threats, any one of which could jump up and bite America — or its allies — at any time. Europe, however, doesn't have to worry. The U.S. will foot the bill.

When the Cold War ended, many predicted the start of a golden age, one in which the U.S. could slash defense spending and refocus on its own economy. That lasted all of, oh, six years. As usual, reality intervened.

First came Somalia. Then the crisis in the Balkans. Then 9-11 and the war on terror. Today, the U.S. far out-spends any of its allies or foes on defense. In fact, we spend more on defense than the next 14 nations combined — and now account for nearly half of all world military outlays.

What does this mean? We are, as the French like to say, the world's first "hyperpower." Yet as we take broadsides from Europeans for our warlike ways, we are in fact extending a form of welfare to all of our allies, especially those in NATO.

Anyone attacks you, we say, and we'll send U.S. troops and equipment to your defense — as we did, under rather different conditions, in World Wars I and II. Don't you worry.

It might be time, however, to rethink this policy — especially as the European Union continues its debate in meetings this week on what to do about its own defense.

This is an important question. One faction, led by France, wants to pull away from NATO — and, mais oui, the U.S. — and form a self-standing EU defense force. The other faction, led by Britain, wants to maintain the current NATO arrangement and close U.S. ties.

Actually, there are things to be said for both sides in this debate. But one thing's clear — Europe has to do more for its own defense, something it's not ready to do.

With an economy hobbled by massive welfare-state expenditures, declining fertility rates and a fast-aging work force, defense is the last thing Europeans want to worry about. But history shows that those who can't muster the will to defend themselves usually end up in thrall to someone else. For Europe, the U.S. is a very large crutch. To call Europe's current defense capabilities pathetic is almost too polite. True, it has about 2 million people in uniform. But current estimates say that only 3% to 4% are deployable for conflict — a miserable readiness that underscores the Continent's dependence on U.S. spending.

Remember the Balkans conflict in the late 1990s? Europeans were ashamed that, with chaos on their very doorstep, they were unable to do anything about it. They had to call in the U.S.

That's why some in Europe — again, mainly the French — are keen on having a Euro force separate from NATO. Yet, as we learned last week, the newly created EU defense agency is having trouble scaring up even $60 million to start its own weapons research. Clearly, Europeans are ambivalent about going it alone.

Of the EU's 25 members, 19 also belong to NATO. NATO, led and mostly funded by the U.S., guarantees its members' security under the doctrine of "an attack on one is an attack on all."

Unfortunately, since 9-11, as The Washington Times recently pointed out, virtually every significant U.S. ally in NATO has shrunk its active-duty forces and defense budget. The U.S. budget, meanwhile, has soared.

For now, NATO is the best bet for the defense of Europe and the U.S. But that doesn't mean nothing can be done about redressing the imbalance.

NATO's military is undergoing a transformation similar to that of America's. It has created a 25,000-member rapid deployment force, along the lines of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's proposed reforms for the U.S. This force would go a long way toward letting Europe share a burden the U.S. now carries almost alone.

The U.S. in 2003 had 126,000 troops deployed to NATO — more than half its functional force of about 200,000. We'd like to see that shrink considerably. Time for Europe to pick up its slack.

Even now, with World War II barely a memory and the Cold War over for nearly 16 years, 13% of all U.S. troops are still deployed in Europe — mostly in Germany. We should be sending them elsewhere. Eastern Europe — Hungary, Romania, Poland — might be better, and more welcome, homes for U.S. troops.

Europe today spends 2% of its GDP on defense — less than half the U.S. commitment. If NATO is to remain vital, Europe clearly will have to do more.

Our European allies complain — often and loudly — that the U.S. fails to heed them on matters of self-defense. That might be true. We'd be more inclined to listen if Europeans relied less on our largess and more on themselves.