1
1
0
America has a larger defense budget allocation than its allies because Washington has far greater ambitions. Now, however, America has upped the alliance ante. The United States now seeks global burden sharing to support the maintenance of America's global primacy, not the local burden sharing originally agreed upon. The real question is whether the proclaimed 2 percent defense budget benchmark will lead to better burden sharing. The answer depends on what the money is spent on.
Where allies fit into American grand strategy cannot be determined using an arbitrary GDP budget figure. The 2 percent figure is a red herring and avoids the key issues. The allies could spend more on their defense as Mattis requests and the president demands but not necessarily enhance U.S. national security. This debate needs a much greater level of sophistication.
Where allies fit into American grand strategy cannot be determined using an arbitrary GDP budget figure. The 2 percent figure is a red herring and avoids the key issues. The allies could spend more on their defense as Mattis requests and the president demands but not necessarily enhance U.S. national security. This debate needs a much greater level of sophistication.
The 2 Percent NATO Benchmark Is a Red Herring
Posted from nationalinterest.org
Defense
James Mattis
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
Regarding "America has a larger defense budget allocation than its allies because Washington has far greater ambitions". We have this real quirky thing where we don't want to play a home game...all away games. Break other people's stuff, fighting in their living room, not ours.
There has to be a start to the conversation, 2 percent should be that start. The whole NATO concept of collective security was to thwart communism and a self defeating arms race. It isn't hard to base the contribution on vague capabilities...and at what capacity?
What is not being discussed is the series of economic bullets that have been dodged since about 2009 in Europe. As an example The U.K. Has all but withdrawn troops from overseas, leaving a caretaker skeleton at places like Sennelager. Greece, Ireland, and like four other countries almost melted down.
Our allies do not have the strategic depth we do. Nothing close. Estonia has a BCT sized Army, but they also kick in a BN sized element to help in Afghanistan. I saw Norwegian basic training for all four branches. It was about a BN worth of people, all four branches. The U.K. And the Germans are the only two partners who come close to our capability in quality and quantity. In 2003, the U.K. Had 50% of its standing Army deployed shoulder to shoulder with ours. And then they rotated....meaning at some point they almost certainly had not active forces in homestations.
Is Europe doing generally well? Yes. Should we renegotiate terms periodically. Yes.
There has to be a start to the conversation, 2 percent should be that start. The whole NATO concept of collective security was to thwart communism and a self defeating arms race. It isn't hard to base the contribution on vague capabilities...and at what capacity?
What is not being discussed is the series of economic bullets that have been dodged since about 2009 in Europe. As an example The U.K. Has all but withdrawn troops from overseas, leaving a caretaker skeleton at places like Sennelager. Greece, Ireland, and like four other countries almost melted down.
Our allies do not have the strategic depth we do. Nothing close. Estonia has a BCT sized Army, but they also kick in a BN sized element to help in Afghanistan. I saw Norwegian basic training for all four branches. It was about a BN worth of people, all four branches. The U.K. And the Germans are the only two partners who come close to our capability in quality and quantity. In 2003, the U.K. Had 50% of its standing Army deployed shoulder to shoulder with ours. And then they rotated....meaning at some point they almost certainly had not active forces in homestations.
Is Europe doing generally well? Yes. Should we renegotiate terms periodically. Yes.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
SSG (Join to see) Bravo Zulu, Spot On as Always! Republicans will always throw Money at the "Military Industrial Complex" Like a "Drunken Sailor" It is Their Thing.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
After Afghanistan: The Canadian Army Reserve and the Challenges Ahead
The 2016 Auditor General's Report identifies under-manning and preparedness as alarming obstacles for the Canadian Army Reserves. Matthew Sherlock-Hubbard discusses why it is essential that Reservists, at a minimum, need to be enabled with the capacity and cooperation to fulfill the mandate assigned to them.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google