Westside Republicans - ALEX Z: WHY EUROPE. NOW?

Westside Republicans - Grassroots Republicans on Los Angeles' Westside.

Why Europe, Now?

by Alexander Zaczkiewicz

University of Vienna

Alexander Zaczkiewicz is a member of Westside Republicans and an advisor to the Pete Kesterson campaign for Congress - CA36th. He is currently studying in Vienna.

In his speech announcing the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama did not tire of stressing that we´re in this war with a coalition of many other countries that are considered to be our allies. Many of those allies are our NATO partners, which means we have mutual defense relationships with these countries and will help each other out, when necessary. I can not remember any point in time in the last 60 years, where the U.S was in a war after being attacked on it´s homeland, except now in Afghanistan, where we´re fighting “a war of necessity”. If there has ever been a need for the U.S to have so many allies, it is in this war. Yet, all we can see from our closest allies in Europe is dithering, to use Dick Cheney´s words.

I want to make one thing clear, when I am talking about Europe and the EU, I mean continental Europe and I specifically want to exclude the U.K from that group. The U.K has always been and still is until this day, a staunch ally of the U.S and has always backed up the U.S in military and political ways, so my criticism and recommendations do not affect the special relationship we have with the United Kingdom.

While the U.S is sending 30000 more troops to Afghanistan to fight Al Quaeda, the European NATO-allies are working hard to get 5000-7000 troops to the war theater.After all extra troops will have arrived in Afghanistan, there will be about 100 000 American, 30 000 European and 10 000 British troops on the ground. If those numbers sound impressive, one has to keep in mind that 30 000 European troops are not nearly as efficient in a war theater, because they have far stricter rules of engagement than their American and British counterparts, which severely limit their effectiveness to fight the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Our NATO partners are not as effective and useful as they could be and for sure they are not nearly doing as much as they could do, given their economic resources.

The U.S, by far, bears the main burden of this war, as much in treasure as in blood. If even in this “war of necessity” the use of our allies is, to say the least, very limited, one might ask, ifnow is the time for a long over-due reassessment of our various mutualdefense relationships. I am not talking about retreating from Europe, NATO or abandoning our allies in Asia, but we should rethink the nature of the relationships we have with these countries.For all those partners the U.S is the main security guarantor and the U.S has always met it´s obligations in the past, without much benefit to it´s own security. After all, the word mutual in these defense relationships gets a whole new meaning.

To properly reassess our current alliances, we have to answer one question, that might seem silly to ask: What do we have allies for? The answer can only consist of two parts, either to strengthen the security of the U.S homeland and the American people, or to advance vital U.S interests throughout the world. We can clearly dismiss the first answer. The U.S alone spends a little less on it´s armed forces than the rest of the world combined. The U.S Air Force and Navy have the largest nuclear deterrent in the world and in addition to this, the U.S has a very favorable geographic location, which makes direct invasions on it´s territory very unlikely. All together the chances of a military attack on the U.S homeland are very slim. There is no possible way how our allies could seriously help us out in case of an attack, because we could simply do it ourselves and there is no indication how this would ever change, even in the long-run.

If our European allies are completely irrelevant for the defense of the American people, which one might think is the most important and most useful feature of an ally, the only remaining purpose is, that Europeans could help us advance our national interest around the world. There are two ways in which the Europeans could help the U.S out on the world stage. On a military and on a non-military level. As

we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, and the first Iraq war, the Europeans have never been able to substantially contribute to any of these conflicts in a military way. On the contrary, in Kosovo the Europeans did not possess enough military aircraft to transport their own troops and equipment into the war theater. Not only were they not able to help the U.S., but they were a burden becauseU.S transportation aircraft had to fly European troops to the Balkans. In any other conflict Europeans were either unwilling or unable to contribute and relieve the American military in a serious way of its tasks and facilitate the overall mission. Not to mention that they might have payed a crucial role in the success of any of these missions.

Obviously our allies on the other side of the Atlantic are neither capable nor willing of seriously being of any benefit to the U.S on a military level. Why even bother having these kind of allies in the first place?

Europeans have been very useful and honest allies on the non-military level.Europe and North America share the same values, political systems and are as closely inter-connected on the economic, political and cultural level as no other region on the planet. That is why we have the same goals in International affairs, in the U.N and other international bodies and why we are prosecuting criminals and terrorists and our intelligence services work so closely together, just as our law enforcement agencies do. On all these levels, the Europeans are an extraordinary beneficial ally to the U.S and the other way around.

This is exactly why I am calling for an honest reassessment of the transatlantic relationship. We have to shift the nature of our relationship with our European partners away from military cooperation and strengthen our political, economic and cultural ties. In the two decades following World War II it was very important for the U.S national interest to defend an impoverished Europe from Soviet aggression. This was the reason behind NATO and it´s sole purpose.

In the 21st century however, Europe is a wealthy continent with a combined economy roughly on par with the U.S economy, additionally the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Naturally we have to redefine our national interest in Europe and how to best achieve it. Alliances are simply constructed as means to an end, they never should be an end themselves. This is especially true for Europe, which brings with it an enormous cost for the American people.

There are currently about 60 000 troops in Germany and 10 000 each in the U.K and Italy. Additionally, we maintain a nuclear arsenal way larger than necessary to deter an attack on our homeland, just because we have an extended deterrent for our European allies, even though France and the U.K have their own arsenals.. As mentioned before, in return we have literally no military benefit out of these commitments.

Our only interest in Europe is to have stable, western and democratic governments, which do not harm American businesses. There is simply not more we can achieve over there. If we take a look at the situation on the ground, this is exactly what we have in Europe and there is no threat to the status quo that could be solved by a costly and unnecessary military commitment to the continent. We need to start redeploying our troops away from Europe and use those precious resources where they are gravely needed and have a bigger impact on our national interest. This is even more true at a time where our country is involved in two wars and strongly escalating one of them, with no serious end in sight. This should be the result of a simple cost-benefit analysis, which we owe ourselves. It is almost masochistic and reckless to be spending billions for the defense of a wealthy continent facing no existential external threat,while at home we´re dealing with a recession and trillion dollar deficits for years to come.

We should take Europe seriously when it says, that it wants a bigger role on the world stage, as a matter of fact we should encourage the EU. In order to play a bigger role in the world, the Europeans will have to start taking care of their own continent´s defense first. The U.S could help accelerating that process by simply withdrawing our security guarantee and troops from Europe and make the EU take care of their own defense. There is simply no justification for us paying for the EU´s defense. As mentioned above, our two economies have a similar size and Europe has about 500 million people living within it´s borders.

Yet, the U.S alone spends double the amount for it´s military than the rest of NATO combined. In the fiscal year of 2010 we will spend about $660 billion on defense, compare this number with Germany´s $40 billion for example and one gets an impression of the extreme military imbalance in the transatlantic relationship. I am not advocating cutting the U.S budget for the Pentagon, which is vital for our security but I am making the case on pressing the Europeans harder to increase their budgets and finally take care of their own defense. It is the EU´s choice, if a hard one though, because of the massive welfare states that use up most of the EU´s countries budgets. They will have to explain to their people that drastic cuts will be necessary in order to pay for a larger military, because simply put, freedom is not free and no other people know that as well as the American people. Whether the EU actually follows suit and takes care of it´s own defense or not, should however, not have any impact on an American decision to withdraw the troops.

At the end of the day, what matters, is that a U.S military presence in Europe simply does not advance our own interests, instead it is just a gigantic financial burden and the American people are practically subsidizing the welfare state (which they strongly oppose in their own country) of wealthy European countries with their hard-earned dollars.Besides not harming our national interests, withdrawing our troops from Europe would not endanger our partners either, it would simply force the Europeans to make a long over-due step, to pick up their own security tab and not rely on the U.S anymore to do the heavy lifting.

Some might be accusing my position of being isolationist, which is not the case at all. I believe the Europeans are the best and most reliable partners (besides Israel and the U.K) the U.S has in the world. The partnership is built on a thick and stable foundation of common values, interests and history.We should maintain and strengthen this friendship with our European partners and closely cooperate with themon the many issues where we have common interests. But the nature of this relationship has thankfully changed and we can easily take out the military component. If we force the Europeans to take care of their own defense, it might actually advance the U.S interest. As a result the EU would have a bigger role on the world stage and could take over responsibilities which are currently ours. It could confront Russia with resolve, take over full control of NATO missions in the Balkans and give common Transatlantic interests in the world a bigger weight..

President Obama has been throwing around with money almost anywhere possible, he has also damaged relations with many allies, that are quite helpful in achieving or preserving our interests. He has changed many successful polices on the world stage, but the one thing where change would do no harm and only good for the American people, the President is doing nothing. Instead he continues the flawed and expensive U.S policies in Europe, spending billions for the defense of our wealthy allies. In many areas in Germany, our Armed forces are the only thing that keep remote and poor parts of the country running, by being the engine of the local economy. The Pentagon spends money in Germany on infrastructure projects, as if it was monopoly money, while at home we´re struggling to keep schools open, cops on the streets, and not to mention trying at least to pretend that we care about fiscal responsibility.

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall it is time to redefine our interests in Europe and how to best achieve them. The current policy was created for a conflict that no longer exists. Now we need to focus our attention and resources on the many problems confronting us throughout the world and at home, and not waste our capacities on fighting yesterdays wars.