/

Why are America’s allies so persistently pathetic?

by

The U.S. is allied with every major industrialized power on the planet. America’s friends in Asia and Europe generally are prosperous and populous. Yet decades after the conflicts that led to Washington’s security guarantees for them, the allied gaggle remains a bunch of “losers,” to paraphrase Donald Trump.

North Korea recently staged its fourth nuclear test. Naturally, South Korea and Japan reacted in horror. But it was America which acted.

The U.S. sent a Guam-based B-52 wandering across South Korean skies. “This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland,” opined Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., head of Pacific Command.

Unfortunately, the message might not work as intended. CNN’s Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang that “A lot of North Korean military commanders find U.S. bombers especially threatening, given the destruction here in Pyongyang during the Korean War, when much of the city was flattened.” Which sounds like giving the North another justification for building nuclear weapons.

Worse, though, reported Reuters: “The United States and its ally South Korea are in talks toward sending further strategic U.S. assets to the Korean Peninsula.” Weapons being considered include an aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters and submarines.

A better response would be for Seoul to announce a major military buildup. South Korea should boost its military outlays — which accounted for a paltry 2.4 percent of GDP in 2014, about one-tenth the estimated burden borne by the North. The South also should expand its armed forces, from about 655,000 personnel today to a number much closer to the North’s 1.2 million.

Doing so obviously would be a burden. But how much do South Koreans believe their nation to be worth? If the economic wreck to its north can create such a threatening military, why cannot Seoul, which enjoys a roughly 40-1 economic and 2-1 population advantage, meet the challenge?

South Korea is not alone. Japan has been another long-term defense welfare client of the U.S. During the Cold War, Tokyo capped its military outlays at about 1 percent of GDP, even when Washington was spending four or five times as much in order to defend Japan, among others. Only under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has Japan begun to do more, mostly because his government is no longer convinced that the U.S. will forever subsidize Japan’s defense.

Alas, the Europeans have not yet come to that conclusion. NATO sets a 2 percent of GDP standard for military outlays, yet the 2015 European member average was just 1.5 percent.

Only four European states hit 2 percent. Among the laggards: Latvia and Lithuania (complaining loudly about the “Russian threat”) and Turkey (creating its own “Russian threat” by shooting down a Russian plane in Syria).

Moscow’s aggressive behavior against Georgia and especially Ukraine set off all sorts of angst throughout Western and horror throughout Eastern Europe. Yet the standard presumption is that America should do more. U.S. officials and NATO leaders made their usual calls for members to hike military outlays, but most European states did what they usually do, continued to cut spending.

Under normal circumstances European behavior would be mystifying. The European Union demonstrates the continent’s ability to overcome historic national divisions and collaborate for a common purpose.

Collectively the Europeans enjoy around an 8-1 economic and 3-1 population advantage over Moscow. Even after its recent revival, Russia’s military today is a poor replica of that during the Soviet era.

Yet when Moscow acts against non-NATO members, Europe’s eyes turn to Washington for military relief. So, too, when the British and French wanted to wage a war to overthrow Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Instead of acting in their presumed interests, they pushed for U.S. involvement.

Washington’s allies generally are a dependent lot. Benefiting from sizable and capable populations and enjoying large and advanced economies, they nevertheless can’t be bothered to invest heavily in their own defense.

When troubles arise U.S. friends expect the American cavalry, in the form of a B-52 in Korea this time, to arrive. As a result, the U.S. is expected to defend much of the globe. And the bulk of Washington’s over-sized military outlays are to project power for the benefit of its ne’er-do-well allies.

In the years ahead Washington should take a page from the Trump play-book and choose as allies a few “winners,” nations whose friendship actually makes America more secure. The U.S. should stop treating national security as a form of welfare for other states.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

  • 123b4

    Thank you, some one is finally making sense. Why should the United States Defend all these countries; and accept all the liabilities that go along with defending these Nations. It is insane! Let them pay for there own defense.

  • 151E

    Conversely, US taxpayers might well ask why their government spends so much on weapons of war, and if that money has actually been well spent. Have all the various US interventions around the globe – in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria (to name but a few) – done more good than harm? I don’t think the answer is all that clear.

  • Psycho Jedi

    We’re the leaders of the free world, that’s not empty rhetoric, that’s an actual title with actual responsibilities. We extend the spirit of our constitution to the free world, which means providing for the common defense of the people, something we do objectively better than any other nation in human history. Our military is light-years above almost all others in skill and firepower, the only other nation that comes close is the United Kingdom and we have them beat as well, though given the brotherhood that exists between our two countries, it’s hardly a competition.

    Demanding that other countries should spend more on their militaries is a dubious strategy, because the skill of the troops they can produce and their technological firepower doesn’t come remotely close to what we are able to provide. A better strategy would be for those countries to increase subsidies to the United States military in exchange for more protection, most of our allies already subsidize many of the expenses we have in maintaining our bases in their countries, but they can stand to do more. Furthermore we should allow the citizens of our most trusted allies to enlist in the US military and give them a path to dual-citizenship, they will learn skills they can bring back to their own military should they transfer, and we gain the benefits of having perspectives in our armed forces outside our own. We basically already do this with Canada, Austrailia, and the United Kindom but we should also add Japan, South Korea, France, and Germany to that list and make it an official program.