The usefulness of Americas allies was severely questioned during Donald Trumps election campaign. Allies were presented as costing America a considerable amount and giving little in return. The title of an article in Foreign Affairs summed up this perception: Ripped Off: What Donald Trump gets Right about U.S. Alliances. <\/p>\n
This election platform is now being translated into action. Secretary of Defense James Mattis declared that the political reality in the United States ... the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms is that American allies must increase defense spending by years end towards a 2 percent GDP target. If they dont, the United States will moderate its commitment to them. Mattis elaborated, No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of western values. Americans cannot care more for your childrens security than you do. <\/p>\n
Mattiss comments were directed to NATO but also address concerns about all of Americas allies. It must be noted, however, that NATO members agreed in 2014 to work towards a 2 percent GDP objective over the next decade. Such pronouncements have been made beforeat least about NATO. What is different this time is the public perception of America being ripped off by all its allies, in addition to the election of a president determined to place America First. Americas allies are now believed to have made the country weaker and less secure. As President Trump declared at his inauguration, America has subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. <\/p>\n
The 2 percent benchmark has the virtue of simplicity. While it is easy to judge countries against a simple quantitative measure, it also significantly misleading. American security may not necessarily be improved even if allies do as Mattis requests. The crucial issue relates to grand strategy, since America and its allies have different visions. <\/p>\n
America desires to be a great power with substantial global influence. The country has sought global primacy for many years. America's relative economic superiority has waned over time and others have developed economically, what has been termed the rise of the rest. This does not necessarily mean America will lose its global primacy, but that retaining primacy will rely more on other instruments of national powerand America has many. A central part of this shift has been ensuring that America has the worlds most effective military force. <\/p>\n
Allied grand strategies are much less ambitious. They principally want to ensure national defense and occasionally, limited regional influence. Fundamentally, allies want help from others in times of conflict and the wording of the various alliance treaties reflects this. <\/p>\n
In the postCold War era, and especially since 9\/11, America has sought to make its alliances global. Allies are expected to help out worldwide and not in a strictly national or local sense. In some ways, this is a logical development in combatting certain types of terrorism, particularly those that emanate from distant locations. <\/p>\n
Even so, none of Americas allies would be deployed to the Middle East or Afghanistan unless the United States was there. For example, Denmark would not have intervened in Iraq and Syria or Afghanistan by itself. Instead, the American military ecosystem makes Danish (and other allied) deployments both possible and useful. Without this American involvement and push, most allies would address the present terrorist threat through internal national security involving police and CVE campaigns, with no offshore interventions. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the original post:<\/p>\n
The 2 Percent NATO Benchmark Is a Red Herring - The National Interest Online (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The usefulness of Americas allies was severely questioned during Donald Trumps election campaign. Allies were presented as costing America a considerable amount and giving little in return. The title of an article in Foreign Affairs summed up this perception: Ripped Off: What Donald Trump gets Right about U.S. Continue reading