3 ms·

Honestly, I don't understand why the U.S. is basically still responsible for the defense of Europe 75 years after the end of World War II. I think we should wit

Honestly, I don't understand why the U.S. is basically still responsible for the defense of Europe 75 years after the end of World War II. I think we should withdraw all our troops and equipment in a controlled drawdown and let the Europeans figure out how to protect themselves from Russia. I have nothing against Europe, but I also think they have the capability to defend themselves. It would have the added benefit of making U.S. intervention in the Mideast more cumbersome, which might mean fewer wars. Also, as an aside, some criticism is warranted imo. It's more than a little ridiculous that the UK spends more on defense than Germany.

save_ferris 8y ago
A global military presence has allowed the US to exert influence throughout the world. It's a pretty interesting (and controversial) topic, but I recommend reading up on American imperialism[0], and the argument that the military base is modern America's version of a colony. We don't maintain a military presence in Europe because they're incapable of defending themselves, we maintain a presence because it grants us influence in Euro politics. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
Andaith 8y ago
I don't think the U.S. wants Europe to figure out how to protect itself, or to create a European Union army/navy/air force. It's another geopolitical block, one that could theoretically challenge U.S. dominance, what with almost equivalent GDP and levels of development and a greater population.
- zaroth 8y ago
  GDP is the same, but I would guess they spend significantly less on defense and significantly more on social programs than the US, and fairly unlikely to want to switch that around. In 2016, the EU's 28 Member States earmarked €200 billion of public expenditure for 'defence'. This is equivalent to 1.3% of GDP. This is much less than the amount spent on social protection (expenditure equivalent to 19.1% of GDP in 2016), health (7.1%) or education (4.7%), but higher than public spending on recreation, culture and religion (1.0%), environmental protection (0.7%) and housing and community amenities (0.6%). [1] By comparison; US defense outlays amounted to 590 billion U.S. dollars in 2017, which was about 3.1 percent of the U.S. GDP. [2] [1] - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180518-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/D... [2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defense-and-forecast-in-the-us-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defen...
binarray2000 8y ago
USA has troops in European countries (and elsewhere) not to protect them, but to have (1) political, military, intelligence and economic influence there, (2) to use those countries as a launchpad to threaten (and eventually easier attack) countries who still haven't submitted to its power and which are in the vicinity of the countries harbouring the US troops, (3) to make it seem like its power is much greater by having "allies" (but, in reality, "vassals", as Zbigniew Brzezinski has called them in his book The Grand Chessboard). Or, as NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, has put it: NATO exists to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm
tzs 8y ago
I don't think it is all about defending the countries that the bases are in. From a military point of view, if you had a choice between having a base somewhere in your own country, or having it in a distant country, I'd expect that you'd prefer the latter option. It gives you much more flexibility if you want to carry out operations away from home.
- soneil 8y ago
  It's not really an either/or choice. And it's not really defence. The vast majority of American personel medically airlifted from the gulf & afghan conflicts, made their first stop "out of theater" in Germany. Not because they weren't wanted in the US, but because it was one third of the distance. It's very much a logistics network as much as anything else. Consider the US "head office", bases in Germany, Japan, etc become regional warehouses, and forward operations become local hubs. The one thing the US military really excels at like no other, is force projection. Everyone gets hung up on the "force" part - it's a lot more dramatic, photogenic, holywood, etc - but the "projection" part really can't be overlooked. Armies live and die by their supply lines, and most of the US's bases on friendly territory form the logistics network that are their supply lines.
jorblumesea 8y ago
The US spending so much on European security allows Europe to have stronger social safety nets and many European style programs without significantly stressing their budgets. As you noted, spending is not in line with other nations on a per GDP basis. The trade is the US foots the bill but gets bases (geopolitical control) out of it. Europe gets protection which they would normally have to pay for. While currently things are strained, historically this has been an amicable relationship where both sides got what they wanted. Perhaps this will change in the future, but that is the context.
MagnumOpus 8y ago
> It's more than a little ridiculous that the UK spends more on defense than Germany Germany doesn't have a nuclear deterrent - mostly because the allies did not want it to have one. That costs multiple billions per year even in the bare-bones "4 subs and 50 missiles" version that the UK proposes. Germany doesn't have a force projection capability, no carriers, assault/landing ship forces or even transport plane capacity. This is because their constitution (shaped by the WW2 allies) prohibits wars outside of national defense and their education curriculum emphasizes "never again" going to war. This is a stark contrast to the UK which still maintains an empire of military outposts only second to the US.[0] Basically Germany doesn't have a strong military because the US, UK and France did not want it to have one, for the last 75 years. To want them to do a 180, just to sell them more F35s, is being ignorant of history. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_the...

save_ferris 8y ago

A global military presence has allowed the US to exert influence throughout the world. It's a pretty interesting (and controversial) topic, but I recommend reading up on American imperialism[0], and the argument that the military base is modern America's version of a colony. We don't maintain a military presence in Europe because they're incapable of defending themselves, we maintain a presence because it grants us influence in Euro politics. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

Andaith 8y ago

I don't think the U.S. wants Europe to figure out how to protect itself, or to create a European Union army/navy/air force. It's another geopolitical block, one that could theoretically challenge U.S. dominance, what with almost equivalent GDP and levels of development and a greater population.

zaroth 8y ago
GDP is the same, but I would guess they spend significantly less on defense and significantly more on social programs than the US, and fairly unlikely to want to switch that around. In 2016, the EU's 28 Member States earmarked €200 billion of public expenditure for 'defence'. This is equivalent to 1.3% of GDP. This is much less than the amount spent on social protection (expenditure equivalent to 19.1% of GDP in 2016), health (7.1%) or education (4.7%), but higher than public spending on recreation, culture and religion (1.0%), environmental protection (0.7%) and housing and community amenities (0.6%). [1] By comparison; US defense outlays amounted to 590 billion U.S. dollars in 2017, which was about 3.1 percent of the U.S. GDP. [2] [1] - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180518-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/D... [2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defense-and-forecast-in-the-us-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defen...

binarray2000 8y ago

USA has troops in European countries (and elsewhere) not to protect them, but to have (1) political, military, intelligence and economic influence there, (2) to use those countries as a launchpad to threaten (and eventually easier attack) countries who still haven't submitted to its power and which are in the vicinity of the countries harbouring the US troops, (3) to make it seem like its power is much greater by having "allies" (but, in reality, "vassals", as Zbigniew Brzezinski has called them in his book The Grand Chessboard). Or, as NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, has put it: NATO exists to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

tzs 8y ago

I don't think it is all about defending the countries that the bases are in. From a military point of view, if you had a choice between having a base somewhere in your own country, or having it in a distant country, I'd expect that you'd prefer the latter option. It gives you much more flexibility if you want to carry out operations away from home.

soneil 8y ago
It's not really an either/or choice. And it's not really defence. The vast majority of American personel medically airlifted from the gulf & afghan conflicts, made their first stop "out of theater" in Germany. Not because they weren't wanted in the US, but because it was one third of the distance. It's very much a logistics network as much as anything else. Consider the US "head office", bases in Germany, Japan, etc become regional warehouses, and forward operations become local hubs. The one thing the US military really excels at like no other, is force projection. Everyone gets hung up on the "force" part - it's a lot more dramatic, photogenic, holywood, etc - but the "projection" part really can't be overlooked. Armies live and die by their supply lines, and most of the US's bases on friendly territory form the logistics network that are their supply lines.

jorblumesea 8y ago

The US spending so much on European security allows Europe to have stronger social safety nets and many European style programs without significantly stressing their budgets. As you noted, spending is not in line with other nations on a per GDP basis. The trade is the US foots the bill but gets bases (geopolitical control) out of it. Europe gets protection which they would normally have to pay for. While currently things are strained, historically this has been an amicable relationship where both sides got what they wanted. Perhaps this will change in the future, but that is the context.

MagnumOpus 8y ago

> It's more than a little ridiculous that the UK spends more on defense than Germany Germany doesn't have a nuclear deterrent - mostly because the allies did not want it to have one. That costs multiple billions per year even in the bare-bones "4 subs and 50 missiles" version that the UK proposes. Germany doesn't have a force projection capability, no carriers, assault/landing ship forces or even transport plane capacity. This is because their constitution (shaped by the WW2 allies) prohibits wars outside of national defense and their education curriculum emphasizes "never again" going to war. This is a stark contrast to the UK which still maintains an empire of military outposts only second to the US.[0] Basically Germany doesn't have a strong military because the US, UK and France did not want it to have one, for the last 75 years. To want them to do a 180, just to sell them more F35s, is being ignorant of history. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_the...