----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 6:55 PM Subject: RE: Defense Policy (was Bush's Aggressive Accounting)
> > Behalf Of Marvin Long, Jr. > > > > I don't believe Gautam slighted anyone else's soldiers; as I read it, what > > he argued is that in terms of overall coordination, control, and support, > > most nations' militaries can't fight much beyond their own borders without > > the US's help. If that's the case, then US military leaders have a > > cost-benefit analysis to do: "If we fight jointly with nation X in the > > Middle East, will the destructive power they bring to bear be worth the > > extra cost the US will pay in support services for their troops and > > equipment. Plus, will it be possible for them to coordinate with our > > high-tech systems efficiently, or will they slow down our own operations > > as we try to accommodate them?" > > No, Gautam hasn't slighted anyone else's soldiers. And what he said was > roughly the case. > > Believe it or not, this is part of what I think is wrong about the US mega > budget. > > What is happening now is that one nation is outspending the combined defense > budget of at least the next 15 powers. That defense force is being built up > for global operations in a way in which little or no coordination is > possible with any other force. > > Yes, the US is a superpower. And thank god you're a democracy and believe in > freedoms. But maybe, just maybe, not everything America decides to do is in > the best interests of anyone else? > > You wonder, perhaps, why "everyone else" is anti-American? Maybe it's cos > everybody else is very, very soon going to have to take America completely > on trust. > > As Gautam says: > > And in a couple of years we will have _thirteen_ Carrier Task > Forces. _Each one_ will be more powerful than the second largest Navy in > the world - arguably, since no one else has any meaningful carrier forces, > each one will be more powerful than the _combined_ Navies of the world. > This is one capacity (among many) that other countries just don't have. If > you want to talk about strategic affairs in the world today, you have to > start with the basic understanding that the US is vastly different from > every other country in the world - more different than any other country in > history. > > End quote > > Don't you see something worrying here? Not just one or two carrier groups, > each more powerful than any other navy - THIRTEEN. That is just straight out > and out overkill. > One of these days, most of us fear, that big helpful kid in the playground > might just turn into the biggest bully we've ever heard about. And there'll > be absolutely NOTHING any of us, alone or in concert, can do about it. > > And not only that, any time we want to help him, even just play with him, it > has to be done exactly on his terms. > > So we get a little scared of him. And one day, he doesn't have any friends > apart from one or two who crawl to him like nothing you've ever seen. > > > > > > If Gautam's facts are right, then the conclusions which follow may very > > well be that a) it's too *expensive* for the US to use other nations' > > troops as cannon fodder -- the costs outweigh the benefits -- and b) > > outfitting US troops with other nations' gear will increase their > > likelihood of becoming cannon fodder themselves. > > Yes, agreed. Jeroen was entirely wrong in using the term "cannon fodder" > because, what cannon fodder is those troops you want to expend before you > use your own. Remember our discussion a while back about Russian Penal > Battalions in WW2? They were cannon fodder. Only one in three actually had a > gun in hand when sent into attack. When one was killed, it was expected that > someone else would use his gun. > > > > It simply means, as Gautam already > > pointed out, that the US spends so much money on its military already that > > other nations simply can't keep up. > > There used to be a thing called the Balance of Power. That concept is well > and truly dead now, because there is virtually no combination of forces that > can balance the power of the US. > > Gautam again: > > Thanks Marvin. In fact, I'm implying the exact opposite of that. I'm > arguing (and this is exactly what happened in the Kosovo operation) that the > highest risk operations will have to be done by American soldiers - that > allied forces essentially have to be kept out of the most intense combat > both for their own and our protection. > > end quote > > Militarily it is most effective that forces be under one command and > integrated. It has always been Australia's bane, until East Timor, that > Australian forces always had to fit into someone else's force structure. But > you know what? We sometimes benefited too, by: > > 1. Learning new ways of doing things > 2. Having some, if minor, influence on the use of the forces > > You know what else? Sometimes the Great Power we were aligned with learnt > something from us. > > If the US finds itself in the position where it decides to do it all itself > (and effectively that is what HAS happened since 1991) then what chance is > there of anyone else providing useful insight or some additional control to > suit local situations? Exactly what we now see - None. > Actually, from a purely military vantage point, its pretty well been the position since 1945. In 1945, there were two great powers left: the United States and the Soviet Union. In the late 40s, when it became clear that a cold war was to be fought, the United State and its allies decided on a course of action. To first order, the United States was to shoulder the burden of maintaining the military counter to the Soviet Union. Europe was to develop social democracies, spending its money on a social welfare system. It would show that the poor working people of Europe (and Europe was fairly well devastated and poor in the late 40s) would do better with the West than with the East. Fairly early on, it was clear that it would be extraordinarily expensive to maintain a conventional deterrent against the Soviet Union that would guarantee that Europe could not be overrun. While there were differences of opinion as to whether it should be tried, it was agreed early on that the only sure defense would include the use of nuclear force. Thus, we have NATO's provision that an attack on one was an attack on all. If the Soviet Union were to overrun Germany and France, for example, the US would treat it as though California were overrun. Thus, the nuclear deterrent would be called into play. In essence, it was saying, if Paris or Amsterdam or West Berlin is overwhelmed, then Moscow and New Your will go too. I'm not writing this because I don't think that you understand this. I'm writing it to differ with one key point of yours: that having the go it virtually alone is a recent (since 1990) phenomenon. I'm arguing the fact that the US practically having sole responsibility for defending the West against Communism for 45 or so years (until 1990) has now carried over to the present post Cold War era. Instead of a bipolar world, we have been left was a monopole world that other nations have decided to live with instead of doing things to change it. (BTW, I don't think it is accidental that Australia was one of the exceptions to Gautam's comments on no help from allies. I think Australia and Great Britain are the two sorta exceptions to the rule I'm giving. I think both countries have a history of working to pull their weight of the defense load of the West.) The critical event that defined this worldview for me was the war in the Balkans. Yugoslavia is not a major military power. It is in the back yard of Western Europe. The NATO allies of the US politely asked the US to back off and let them handle it. At the time I read it as "look, we honestly appreciate you defending us from the Soviet Union all these years, we couldn't have done it by ourselves. But, this we _can_ handle ourselves, so we think it is best if we get in the habit of doing it. No hard feelings and all." At the time, that sounded like a reasonable attitude to me. It sounded like a very adult way to handle the view that its not good policy for Europe, Australia, etc. to have absolutely no recourse but to count on the good will of the US for all their security needs. Unfortunately, it was a spectacular failure. The Europeans watched, tried to intervene, but did not stop genocide as it was occurring. Their only recourse was to call on the US to step in, after specifically telling the US to bug out. It is not surprising that it took a bit of effort to convince US public opinion and the Congress that the US absolutely had to intervene because, to put it bluntly, Europe was unable to handle the problem. In particular, it was felt by some that the US was rudely dismissed when there were asked to keep their hands off. I don't think that was true, but it is easy to hurt feelings when you tell someone they aren't wanted, even if it is for all the best reasons. The US intervened, and the genocide stopped. Further, the US is told it absolutely _has_ to stay there. If you recall the US campaign, Bush wanted to handle the Balkans back over to Europe. They were aghast, and after he was president, he agreed that the US still needed to stay. To me, that says a lot. Europe is convinced that they _still_ can't handle the situation. >From an American perspective, this is a very clear indication that, when the stability of the world is threatened by something like the war in the Balkans, the invasion of Kuwait,or the attack of 9-11, the US will be expected to handle it. In some cases, like the Balkans, there will be some practical help. In others, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or the attack on 9-11, the military value of the assistance will be minimal. That doesn't mean there is no value, the willingness of the British and Australians to supply special forces to Afghanistan is much appreciated by many Americans. The willingness to share even a part of the burden is a strong statement. But, the other democratic industrialized countries, on the whole, have made a decision that they would rather have the US shoulder virtually all of the burden of a military defense against the problems that can be caused by nations run by dictators and by large terrorist groups. (The non-military assistance against terrorism has been far more extensive). They spend, IIRC, less than half of the percentage of their GDP on their military. This is viewed by me as a conscious choice. > Added to the current belief exhibited by the Bush Whitehouse that treaties > that hinder US strategies or operations in any way can be ignored, what are > the rest of us to think? Basically, whatever the US wants to do is all that > is going to happen. What treaties are ignored? I skimmed back over the Geneva convention, and I didn't see the provision that an international tribunal was needed to determine who was a POW and who was an unlawful combatant. If I missed it, I'd appreciate being shown where it was. > It also means that the American people are going to have to get used to > stepping in to other people's troubles. Or will they just go isolationist > again, as has been the case for almost the entirety of US history? We've been stepping into other people's troubles since WWII. We've put New York and Chicago on the line to defend Paris and Rome. What's new? > So, what then is the USE of all that hardware you've developed at such great > expense? What happens when people start to wonder why so much money is spent > on things that will never be used. What else could that spending be made on? Well, lets look at the history of US spending in terms of GDP: 1940 1.7% 1945 37.5% 1950 5.0% 1955 10.8% 1960 9.3% 1965 7.4% 1970 8.1% 1975 5.6% 1980 4.9% 1985 6.2% 1990 5.3% 1995 3.8% 2000 3.0% We see, after the end of the Cold War, nearly a 50% reduction in spending as a fraction of the GDP. This seems to be consistent with the reduction of the threat from the Soviet Union, but the de facto appointment of the US as the world sheriff. Then 9-11 happened, forcing the US to reconsider. Driving military spending up to 4% of GDP in the light of the reevaluated risk to the United States doesn't seem overwhelmingly unreasonable to me. Do I think that the spending on Son of Star Wars is a waste of money and effort? Yes. I don't think much of the present spending on engineering makes senses: a boost phase system will require a lot of R&D before one can think of engineering questions. Do I think that some pork barrel stuff has been snuck in, probably. But, given the fact that it appears that the world on the whole expects the US to fix things that have gone horribly wrong, such as the Balkans, indicates that US view that if it doesn't do it, it probably won't get done is not invalid. > > Now, more than ever, where the US has proven its determination to the rest > of the world and where it has shown its capabilities, now is the time for it > to say "we're gonna streamline our forces, cut back on some of this > expenditure, maybe look at some of these ideas we have a bit more to fully > understand their implications before we go ahead on them" Oh, and maybe it > is time for the US to start saying that they want to be a good neighbor, > not a bossy one. Well, there is an attitude that exists in the US that may not exist elsewhere. If you expect someone to do the job, you let him do it his way. If you think you know a better way, then find a way to at least do some of it yourself. Elsewhere, you have stated that Australia is looking into doing that. That's worthwhile. Unfortunately, Australia is a relatively small country (compared to France, Germany, Japan, etc.) and the fact that it is willing to shoulder its share of the load is not enough. > Look, you won. The world is your oyster. We know it and you know it. But it > doesn't necessarily mean that we all want to become Americans. It certainly > doesn't mean that whatever America wants is the best for everybody else. > > But nowadays, that doesn't matter. There is nothing apart from US public > opinion to constrain any person who gets into the Whitehouse. Well sorry, I > don't think that is a good situation for the world to be in. I think it's > about time the US decided to live with us all as an equal again. Are you suggesting that the US stand down? That we should have told the Europeans...handle the Balkans yourself? During the 90s, the US cut its defense spending. So did the rest of the industrialized democracies. IMHO, if countries wanted the US to stop being the world's sheriff, they would have taken some of the responsibility from the US. Europe wanted to do it in the Balkans, I think. From my perspective, they didn't want to bring their military spending, as a % of GDP up to that of the US so they could. I understand why other countries are nervous in a monopole world. But, I would suggest that the way to handle this is to not tell the US to stand down immediately. Its for the rest of the industrialized democracies to bring their % spending in line with the US, and then offload responsibilities. That would be a real multinational world. IMHO, its unreasonable for the US to do all the heavy lifting and be expected to follow the advise of others on how to do the lifting. Dan M.
