Defending the 'umbrella strategy'

 Doug Bandow of CATO on US defense

. 

The crux of his argument is that America isn’t getting full value from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and other defense pacts. Countries under defense pacts with the United States plow money into popular welfare programs and ignore their military commitments, letting Uncle Sam cover the tab. The ‘umbrella’ that the United States represents for other democratic countries is hugely expensive and becoming more so with the cutbacks hitting the military. I am optimistic that NATO is the best option for curtailing Russia aggression in Eastern Europe and everywhere. America needs to maintain that link even if the pact looks a lot different in twenty years. Asking members to contribute to their portion of the bill is always difficult and messy, diplomacy requires a delicate touch. The precious little help America gets in financial commitments from NATO is better than the nothing they would get without the pact. Intelligence sharing among member countries constitutes real time help even if it isn’t a direct economic benefit. Nations get serious about their security when they have to. Here is Mr. Bandow:

 

Moscow’s aggressive behavior against Georgia and especially Ukraine set off all sorts of angst throughout Europe. 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. Instead of acting in their presumed interests, they push for U.S. action.

I think Thomas Sowell said that ‘there are no solutions only trade-offs’. It is frustrating how lazy NATO has made much of Western Europe; the trade-off though is non-aligned European countries fighting each other while Russia moves slowly westward. Would a democratic country struggling to keep its economic framework and infrastructure rather be neighbors with Germany or Russia? The answer should be obvious and without a strong NATO Eastern Europe wouldn’t hold up against a belligerent Moscow.  Here is Bandow on Taiwan and Korea:

 

Last week North Korea 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 build-up. The Republic of 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 ROK also should expand its armed forces from about 655,000 personnel today to a number much closer to the DPRK’s 1.2 million.

Doing so obviously would be a burden. But if the economic wreck to its north can create such a threatening military, why cannot the ROK, which enjoys a roughly 40-1 economic and 2-1 population advantage, meet the challenge?

It isn’t fair to compare the amount spent on a defense between North and South Korea. The North’s first priority is nuclear buildup at the expense of everything else, including food for its people. South Korea could, and should, do more to build up its own defense but it operates under budgets and voting the way all democracies do. If the political will isn’t there, the US will have to step back its obligations methodically.  

 America doesn’t protect allies just because it likes to root for an underdog. They protect them because stable democracies are not an aggressive military threat to their neighbors, they would rather engage in commerce. When the American Navy keeps sea lanes open it benefits everyone engaging in trade. Small countries like South Korea and Taiwan (ROC) couldn’t fend off an attack from a powerful Chinese military and the South China Sea could quickly become off-limits for American sailors and certain commercial vessels. Defense of Taiwan is part of a larger plan to keep the seas open and Beijing in check.

Doug Bandow is right in calling for America’s allies to step up financially and handle affairs where they can in their own neighborhoods. The current American ‘umbrella’ won’t last forever and a lot of nations could be left to fend for themselves. Money is tight everywhere and people rarely vote to build up the military in peace time. America’s role is crucial to world stability and it is the only option right now.