[CommanderSock]

Quote:

Libya, Europe and the future of NATO
Always waiting for the US cavalry
Jun 10th 2011, 15:58 by The Economist | BRUSSELS

It LOOKED, for a moment, like a return to the days of European interventionism. For the first time since Suez, Britain and France led an intervention in the Middle East. And unlike the disaster in Egypt in 1956, the action in Libya of 2011 was supported by America and by part of the Arab world too.

America was visibly reluctant to get involved, let alone lead the action. And, having helped to knock out Libya’s air defences and conduct some of the initial air-to-ground strikes, it pulled back from the front-line operations. But America's role remains essential, not least in providing air-to-air refuelling, as well as intelligence and reconnaissance for the European allies.

The war in Libya, far from heralding a new era of European activism, has once again highlighted the limits of Europe’s military power, as Robert Gates pointed out today in his valedictory speech in Brussels. He is not the first American defence secretary to complain about low, often declining, defence spending in Europe (The Economist recently ran an interesting chart). Nor is it the first time Mr Gates himself has bemoaned the weakness of European allies. Last year he said the "pacification" of Europe, at first a great achievement, had gone too far and posed a threat to Western security. But his comments today were delivered with the sharpness of a man who knows he is at the end of his career and no longer needs to beg for favours. The speech is worth reading in full. But here is one passage that should make Europeans cringe.


To be sure, at the outset, the NATO Libya mission did meet its initial military objectives – grounding Qaddafi’s air force and degrading his ability to wage offensive war against his own citizens. And while the operation has exposed some shortcomings caused by underfunding, it has also shown the potential of NATO, with an operation where Europeans are taking the lead with American support. However, while every alliance member voted for Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t. The military capabilities simply aren’t there.

In particular, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets are lacking that would allow more allies to be involved and make an impact. The most advanced fighter aircraft are little use if allies do not have the means to identify, process, and strike targets as part of an integrated campaign. To run the air campaign, the NATO air operations centre in Italy required a major augmentation of targeting specialists, mainly from the US, to do the job – a “just in time” infusion of personnel that may not always be available in future contingencies. We have the spectacle of an air operations centre designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150. Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.


As well as a paucity of European military resources, NATO faces two other dangers, Mr Gates said. One is the passing of his generation of American leaders, like himself, for whom the security of Europe was the over-riding pre-occupation of their careers. The second is that America, itself under pressure to cut defence spending to curb high deficits and debt, might soon give up on Europe: if the European taxpayers do not want to pay to preserve their own security, why should Americans shoulder the burden? Only five of the 28 NATO allies meet NATO’s recommendation that countries should spend at least 2% of GDP on defence: America, Britain, France, Greece and Albania. Today America’s key security interests are in the Middle East and in Asia. Europe will be the obvious place for America to cut expensive overseas commitments.

Europe has more soldiers than America, but can deploy far fewer of them on overseas operations. This is partly the result of history: in the cold war European armies were built to hold the line in Europe, while awaiting reinforcement by American forces which, by definition, had to be designed for expeditionary warfare. Another is that “Europe” is not a sovereign state, but a collection of small- and medium-sized countries. Its considerable defence spending is hoplessly fragmented among a multitude of armies, air forces and navies.

Specialisation, pooling and sharing equipment is the obvious way forward. Defence experts across Europe have known this for a long time and, here and there, countries have embarked on some important experiments. A recent paper by the Centre for European Reform, and think-tank in London, makes some sensible recommendations ( PDF). But what is rational in terms of defence accounting too often falls foul of political and operational reality. Many smaller countries have little interest in international commitments. And the bigger states that still retain some kind of global vision, like Britain and France, do not want to be dependent on smaller states for their military capability.

Poland, which takes over the presidency of the European Union next month, plans to make a renewed attempt to boost European defence co-operation. It is also pushing for a bigger EU autonomous military headquarters, though the need for this is unclear, given that even the NATO air operations centre had to be reinforced by American experts, as Mr Gates noted acidly. Moreover, Poland is among those countries singled out by Mr Gates for failing to do enough in Libya.

That said, Mr Gates did pick out some allies for praise in carrying out a disproportionate share of the bombing campaign in Libya: Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada. Why have they stepped forward when so many have not? Perhaps, suggests one American officials, it is because the action in Libya is seen by them not as an act of big-power bullying, or as part of an endless and ill-defined "war on terrorism", but as a humanitarian action: the first test of the UN's new doctrine of “responsibility to protect”. It is not just the fate of Libyans that is in the balance in the war against Muammar Qaddafi, but the commitment of Europeans to maintain - and, when necessary, deploy - serious military forces. Responsibility to protect requires, first and foremost, the means to protect.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlema ... uture-nato

I'm starting to understand why Mugabe is still alive. Not because Britain won't, but maybe because it can't get rid of him by force. Food for thought.

[BartSimpson]

The US is starting to head back towards isolationism and is entering a phase of decline under Mr. Obama.

This leaves US allies having to consider a future absent the protection of a US military umbrella.

[DanSC]

Everyone waits for the US cavalry because this guy is preoccupied.

[Wada]

Are you suggesting that there may be a day when we will not hear from the White House?

[DanSC]

Wada wrote:

Are you suggesting that there may be a day when we will not hear from the White House?

It could happen, but you'll always have the Commonwealth.

[Thanos]

All the GOP candidates the other night rejected neo-conservatism interference in other states, expressed desire for a pull-out from Afghanistan apres the death of Bin Laden, and have been quite vocal in blasting President Obama for having America participate in Libya, even though the US effort in Libya is a pale shadow of the commitments engaged in by the US under Republican martyr-wargod George W. Bush.

Don't blame President Obama for this so-called new wave of American isolationism. That's just you projecting your own personal political beliefs onto a complex and long-existing American psychological trend that has many varying nuances and sub-trends within it. Isolationism, as shown by the history of your country, has almost always been a major feature of the conservative right, not of the so-called liberal left, and your GOP candidates once again proved it the other night. Ron Paul was the odd man out in the 2008 debates with this stance where all the other candidates were rabidly in favour continuing with the nonsensical Bush Doctrine of war literally everywhere if the US deems it necessary. Now Paul's merely another one of the pack preaching the same quasi-isolationist thing because all the others have now jumped onto that particular bandwagon. Typical modern Republicanism I suppose, in that they hold on tightly to a deeply established "conservative" value until it becomes poltically convenient enough for them to completely abandon it if it means they can have something new to endlessly cheap-shot President Obama over.

As for Europe, well, maybe they've merely come to hold the belief that entangling themselves in dangerous American adventures overseas is not worth them expending any time, resources, or lives over. So be it and they have the right to view the situation that way if they choose to. The only strange thing about it is that it essentially means that the Europeans have adopted what used to be long-standing American policy up until the 1960's.

[andyt]

I don't believe that Nato doesn't have the resources to take out Ghaddafi without help from the US. (Stand to be corrected by the military types tho). They just don't have the will. And in this case who can blame those that don't want to fight?

[BartSimpson]

Thanos wrote:

Don't blame President Obama for this so-called new wave of American isolationism.

Excuse me, but Obama's the author of it.

He has implemented the policy of dialing the US Navy down to four carrier groups which means we're withdrawing carrier groups from the Arabian Gulf, the Mediterranean, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia and our Navy will be a dedicated home fleet by around 2030.

He's trying to close our bases in Okinawa (Japan and Taiwan are VERY unhappy about that).

He's isolating us from our allies with actions ranging from uncouth sleights (like saying the Canadian border is more dangerous than the Mexican border) to outright treachery as in the case of giving the Russians access to British nuclear secrets without British permission.

Even when he was campaigning he made clear that his opinion was that American power was in decline and his policies reflect that opinion and can be argued to be hastening that opinion into becoming reality.

Obama is the veritable Calvin Coolidge of our time.

[Thanos]

If any of that is true then all President Obama's doing is reflecting the dominant attitude of your country right now, especially from the penny-pinching TeaBirchers and other cut-costs-til-it-kills rightwingers. Your country probably came to a long-overdue realization that it can't be GloboCop, or have any more wasteful and thoroughly unnecessary wars like the one in Iraq, and still be able to provide a decent way of living for your own citizens. And having a national defence policy of "we dominate, from top to bottom, everywhere and forever" is simply not long-term sustainable on any logical level.

[BartSimpson]

However you wish to parse it, the fact of the matter is that if this guy gets re-elected and the Dems manage to take control of the House then NATO is going to have to consider a future in which the US is no longer the majority stockholder.

[Thanos]

Considering that the US, Britain, and France are all each going to have a nuclear arsenal in perpetuity to ward off any conceivable conventional military threats, and that Russia is objectively no longer anywhere near the threat it was during the Cold War, then maybe the inevitable demise of NATO won't be such a tragedy. Because that's what NATO was specifically designed for, to block the Russians from threatening Western Europe and the Atlantic shores. It never was supposed to be about extending 'missile defense' to ridiculous backwaters like Georgia, or to galavant on useless expeditions throughout the Middle East, or to be a bulwark against the Chinese (who haven't won a war since, well, ever).

"We need to protect you!!!"

"From what?"

"I don't know, but I need to protect you anyway!!!"

Doesn't seem to make much sense anymore, at least not to me.

[BartSimpson]

Well, then since that doesn't make sense to you (and where the US can't afford to be a global policeman anymore) then Canada needs to prepare for a post-American, post-Commonwealth world in which Canada may end up going it alone in some conflicts.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

Well, then since that doesn't make sense to you (and where the US can't afford to be a global policeman anymore) then Canada needs to prepare for a post-American, post-Commonwealth world in which Canada may end up going it alone in some conflicts.

Or Canada could just stay out of useless conflicts that have no point and no chance of success anyway. We don't need to be globocop either, nor can we. Just beef up our coastline defenses and we're good. Maybe build a few nukes and delivery systems, just for backup - non-proliferation ain't viable anyway.

[Thanos]

The entirety of the Third World isn't worth the life of a single Canadian (or American, or Australian, or European) soldier.

- me (after Bismarck)

And the idea that all of North America, or even all of the Americas period, as well as all the surrounding bodies or water, won't remain under the perpetual protection of the Uniteds States for at least the next hundred years is absolutely ludicrous, even in the face of advancing isolationist sentiment.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson wrote:

Well, then since that doesn't make sense to you (and where the US can't afford to be a global policeman anymore) then Canada needs to prepare for a post-American, post-Commonwealth world in which Canada may end up going it alone in some conflicts.

Well from your perspective perhaps that would be the kick in the ass Canada needs to beef up its military.