I'm going to reply to this message first because it sets up my second message:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:03 AM Subject: US and Europe (L3) > I've already said that the Europeans stuffed up in the Balkans. I know it, > you know it and they know it. I doubt that, should the same circumstances > arise that the same mistake would be made. After all, it was the first time > the Europeans had tried to do something in a united way. You could look at > it as the first lost battle in a new style of war. > > So they needed the experts to come in and fix it up. Well, it appears that they feel that they still need the experts there. When Bush suggested during the campaign that the US has done its job in the Balkans, there was a collective gasp on the other side of the Atlantic. Why? If Europe feels that it now has worked through the kinks, why can't it handle the present situation by itself? Its a far simpler situation than what existed in the early '90s. Instead, the US is told it must stay engaged in the Balkans, even while it is fighting the war in Afghanistan. The very thought of the US withdrawing its troops from Europe is met with even more opposition. I couldn't find the numbers on the net, but IIRC, the US troop strength in Europe is over 100,000. Why do we need to be there? I'm guessing that folks are a little nervous about stability without the US there. If the US withdraws its troops, it will be seen as dangerous neo-isolationalism. So, it appears that the US is being asked to spend a lot of money and manpower on European security, even though the GDP of Europe is close to that of the US. I find it interesting that governments that are nervous about the US becoming the overwhelming military power in the world are not doing things that would facilitate reducing the disparity between their military strength and that of the US. > > Now, particularly because of the humiliation suffered, I'd say they are more > likely to be effective next time round. And don't forget how quickly Germany > etc offered on the ground forces for Afghanistan. As you've pointed out, > enacting Article 5 (or whatever, too late to check) was a BIG step. And so > they got knocked back. I'd be pissed off, too. > The US has forces on the ground in Korea, at S Korean request, and is thus > providing a very strong deterrence to N Korean invasion. But the US is NOT > alone in committing itself to defending S Korea. It is that eventually, > among others, that has driven Australian-US military exercises over the last > few decades. Same with Taiwan. Although no Australian government has come > out to say we would intervene if China-Taiwan relations heat up too much, in > the past RAN ships have made a point of calling in nearby during tense > occasions in the past and I doubt that anyone in Australia does NOT expect > to be involved if the shooting starts. > Well, I don't expect Australia to be very involved for a couple of reasons. First, although I'm not an expert in military tactics, I'm guessing that the first month will see most of any real action. The only hope N. Korea would have would be to launch a surprise attack, advance on cities like Seoul quickly and then sue for a favorable peace. As far as I can read a map, Seoul is less than 50 km as the crow flies from the DMZ. Second, if you look at the Korean war, the US was about 90% of the United Nations force (I'm not counting S. Korea's forces as UN. We have: Australia 2282 Belgium 900 Canada 6146 Colombia 1068 Ethiopia 1271 France 1119 Greece 1263 Holland 819 Luxembourg 44 New Zealand 1385 Philippines 1496 South Africa 826 South Korea 590911 Thailand 1204 Turkey 5453 United Kingdom 14198 United States 302483 Clearly the population of Australia was lower than that of the US, so one would expect a lower commitment. But, normalizing for population, one finds that the per capita commitment for Australia and Great Britain was about 14% of the US's commitment (yes, I used 1950 numbers). The only country with a higher level than that, outside of the US and S. Korea, was Canada, who's commitment was 22% of the US's. (Why am I not surprised that France's commitment was about 1% per capita of the US's commitment.) IMHO, this is about all the US can expect for commitment from its allies when such a defense is required. Its more than token, but still significantly lower levels of commitment in lives manpower and money. > As with 1950, when Australian fighter aircraft were the second national > group (after the US) to intervene within days of the invasion, if N Korea > invades we WILL be there. Both nations are major trading partners and they > are both basically in our back yard. But, how likely would a request for Australia to replace the US in Korea be agreed to by the voters in Australia? Australia, with Britain, is the most likely to help, but the US needs to assume that the assistance from all of its allies will be less than 20% of any effort that will be needed for mutual defense. > > > And again, it doesn't have to be done ALONE. It was US decisions, not > European ones, that prevented the use of European troops in Afghanistan. As > Gautam has pointed out, the US decided that British and Australian special > forces added to US capability, so were used. Of course it is easier for > command and control if everyone on the ground is trained in exactly the same > way and using exactly the same equipment, but I cannot see that the same job > could not have been done with a broader range of national forces. For a > small decrease in overall efficiency a demonstrably more united and > multinational force would have been in operation, thus providing a much > stronger political and moral position. Out of curiosity, on what basis do you argue that the lowering of efficiency would be slight? What would have happened if there were significant European casualties due to miscommunications and foul ups? If you look at the numbers, there are now actually more non-US troops on the ground in Afghanistan than US troops. IIRC, from the DOD this morning, it was about 7k vs. 5.5k. Yet, the effectiveness of the forces greatly favored the US. Who else has an air force that would have been able to bomb as the US did, minimizing civilian casualties? >From my perspective, the US is working hard to make things look like more of a cooperative effort than they really are. I've seen two press conferences in two days on CNN that focus on this (I have often CCN on when I work as background noise.) Dan M.
