Obama's Europe Delusion
Over at Foreign Policy I take a knobby stick to the president's astoundingly misbegotten and willfully obtuse strategic view of Europe, a view now dangerously embedded deep within our official global military strategy.
There are a few second-order points to make. My complaint is different from the one being leveled by interventionist hawks in keeping with their traditional position. The solution to the most glaring problem -- namely, Europe's inability to defend itself from internal and external threats -- is not to spend more money on American military installations in Europe, or even to subsidize European defense spending some more. There may unfortunately not be an adequate solution. If there is, it involves making up for much lost time in a strategic sense -- recognizing that only France can possibly emerge as the leader and keystone of political and military order on the Continent.
But the real problems go deeper. Obama's declaration through the defense review that Europe is a net producer of security in a safely post-historical zone reveals a massive strategic blind spot. Yes, the Mideast remains important and the Chinese neighborhood increasingly so. But shifting resources accordingly is a terrible error if it reflects a fundamental misapprehension of the European situation. Some ugly shocks are all but guaranteed.
This is of concern regardless of which foreign policy subgroup you happen to embrace.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
James, just a couple of points in response here:
1) There are several capable militaries on the continent, not just France's (the German army and the Dutch navy come immediatel to mind). But France seems to be the only power on the continent willing to project power beyond its borders (especially in Africa over the last 12 months).
2) The UK is one of the world's premier military organizations. Its announcement earlier this year that it would share an aircraft carrier with France was dismaying.
3) While France may have assumed "the lead role before history" in the political context, it is a mistake to think that this immediately translates to the military environment. It does not. In the military context, the United States--and systems developed here and procedures perfected here--were integral to any success France achieved in Libya.
4) You count the Germans out too quickly in your piece. No doubt, there is little appetite in Germany for military action abroad--but the EU cannot function without it. Europe cannot turn to France without confronting Germany.
5) You are correct that an ascendant Russia poses security threats to us in its own near-abroad.
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
I'm not sure I understand you, James. Europe is not going to pay for its defense unless we credibly threaten to withdraw. It's simply too good of a deal for them. And frankly, it [angers me] that our tax dollars are spent on people who hate America--and especially American soldiers--while enjoying lavish welfare states they could not afford if they had to defend themselves.
Edited on Jan 20 at 10:55pmMar '11
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
Europe is being attacked from within - military defense is so 20th Century.
May '10
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
The USSR is no more. Who is going to invade Europe? What are our bases protecting them from?
I can see the need to stay in the Pacific, but Europe?
James, what am I missing?
Sep '11
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
France is utterly dysfunctional and Sarkozy's days as President may well be numbered. The UK is going through a very bad patch but if we could produce another leader in the mould of Blair you might be reminded that we are your staunchest ally - we and the Poles, Czechs and other nations of Eastern Europe. Willingness to engage in foreign intervention? British troops are still dying in Afghanistan, but not many French I don't think.
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
France mulls Afghan exit after unarmed troops murdered.
May '10
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
Bryan G. Stephens: The USSR is no more. Who is going to invade Europe? What are our bases protecting them from?
I can see the need to stay in the Pacific, but Europe?
James, what am I missing? · 10 hours ago
You'd be surprised by the neoconservative rejoinders. "Well, if we draw down, China will become dominant."
May '10
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
France mulls Afghan exit after unarmed troops murdered.
I suppose this was intended as a blunt counterfactual to Miss Charing's last proposition. It does not however, in my mind, disprove the claim that few French military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan, that is, relative to the number of British and American personnel killed or to the task at hand.
Apr '11
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
James, the lynchpin of your argument is this claim:
Is this really true? For example, France increased its defense budget by a minuscule 0.75% in 2012, but it's an increase. Poland, Sweden and Greece increased defense spending in real terms. Turkey's official defense budget for 2011 is $10 billion, but there's an additional allocation of $6 billion for national intelligence and security forces, an effective increase.
Many European nations, such as the UK and France, pay for foreign interventions from reserve budgets not their defense budget. For the UK, the final cost of the Libyan operation was GBP 1.5 billion ($2.34 billion), much higher than GBP 300 million that the MoD shows on its books. Both the UK and France projected a lot of power in Libya. Most of the funding came from reserve budgets.
Are you counting those reserve expenditures for European defense and perhaps projecting them in 2012? Are you sure that your main claim is true? Do we really have a "precipitous decline" in European defense budgets?
Sep '11
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
Michael Labeit
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
France mulls Afghan exit after unarmed troops murdered.
I suppose this was intended as a blunt counterfactual to Miss Charing's last proposition. It does not however, in my mind, disprove the claim that few French military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan, that is, relative to the number of British and American personnel killed or to the task at hand. · Jan. 20 at 11:50pm
I believe the French are there under different rules of engagement which mean they have not suffered the losses that the British have.
Sep '11
Re: Obama's Europe Delusion
Today's post by Claire about Napoleonville suggests I may be right about the French.