Before taking office Trump seemed to understand that European
free-riding was counterproductive. What about now?
For
years American officials have variously demanded, urged, and begged European
governments to increase military outlays. For years the Europeans have instead
reduced their spending, manpower, and procurement. There has been a slight
uptick in their defense efforts under President Donald Trump, but most NATO
members, including large and important nations such as Germany, Italy, and
Spain, aren’t coming close to meeting the official standard of spending 2
percent of their GDPs on defense.
Now
Poland, which fell just short of that level last year, is requesting that
Washington establish a permanent base and garrison. Warsaw says it will kick in
a couple billion dollars, while Washington can pick up the change on its way to
confronting nuclear-armed Russia in a crisis.
But
instead of sticking America with yet another tab, it would make more sense for
Poland to send its bill to Berlin. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called
for European leadership on defense. But her coalition partners won’t let the
continent’s dominant nation and biggest economy meet its military obligations.
The Germans should garrison their neighbor in return for the cash.
The
transatlantic alliance made sense when it was established in 1949. Western
Europe was still recovering from World War II and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union
was a cautious predator. The continent required time to reestablish something
approaching a reasonable balance of power.
Still,
Dwight Eisenhower, who served as NATO’s first Supreme Allied Commander, warned
against a permanent American presence that would “discourage the development of
the necessary military strength Western European countries should provide
themselves.”
Allied
outlays remained anemic even after the continent’s recovery. The end of the
Cold War triggered a rush to demobilize while NATO expanded toward the new
Russian Federation’s shrunken borders—despite contrary Western assurances given
to Soviet and later Russian officials. Few considered how to defend new
members, essentially treating the alliance as a gentleman’s club to which every
respectable nation should belong.
The
Russo-Georgian war of 2008 and especially the 2014 conflict between Ukraine and
Russia have since reminded Europeans that NATO is, in fact, a military
alliance. Yet only “new” Europe, as Donald Rumsfeld called it, seemed much
worried about Moscow’s intentions, demanding guarantees that the alliance would
hold off Vladimir Putin and his hordes.
“Old”
Europe offered its formal assent but not much more. Instead, Washington created
a special budget line to augment its forces in Europe. First came the European
Reassurance Initiative, which then morphed into the European Deterrence
Initiative. At $6.5 billion this year, the EDI spends more than Belgium,
Denmark, Romania, and Greece devote to their entire militaries. Meanwhile, the
pending National Defense Authorization sets as policy an “increased United
States presence in Europe through additional permanently stationed forces,
including logistics enablers and a combat aviation brigade,” along with
“increased United States pre-positioned military equipment, including
munitions, logistics enablers, and a division headquarters” and “sufficient and
necessary infrastructure additions and improvements throughout Europe.”
Vladimir
Putin is an unpleasant character, but he is not suicidal. Russia today looks a
lot like the pre-1914 Russian Empire, intent on having its interests respected
and its borders protected. Taking back Crimea, which hosts the Black Sea base
at Sevastopol, and preventing Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO were
obvious and important interests. But Putin would stand to gain little from
triggering full-scale war by invading one or more of the Baltic States or
Poland, the most nervous alliance members.
Most
of Europe agrees with this assessment. The specter of Russian aggression simply
does not frighten. Europeans recognize that Russian troops are not going to
march through their neighborhoods, so why spend more on defense? Especially
since Uncle Sam can be trusted to play his default role.
The
recent increase in allied outlays isn’t great and isn’t likely to be sustained.
Only four European countries last year hit 2 percent of GDP on defense. Most of
the others are unlikely to ever reach that level, irrespective of their
promises.
All
this has left “New” Europe dissatisfied. So Warsaw wants the U.S. to offer
extra protection directly, even though we already maintain two combat brigades
in Germany and Italy has an equivalent force that rotates through Eastern
Europe. Warsaw, however, wants its very own American garrison.
Declared
the Polish defense ministry: “Poland is a steadfast ally of the United States
and is committed to advancing our shared interests and values, which
increasingly are being threatened by Russian interference. A permanent U.S.
presence in Poland will ensure that both nations can continue to advance,
strengthen, and protect these values and interests.”
At
least the Poles offered to contribute $1.5 billion to $2 billion to the effort,
saying, “The Government of Poland understands that such a burden must be
shared,” and “such expenses cannot and should not be financed by one country
alone.” Which, admittedly, is contrary to what most European governments
believe.
Still,
this is an awful idea. First, Moscow doesn’t threaten America. And nothing
suggests Russia plans to attack Poland. Merely being in NATO does not entitle
member states to a U.S. military unit stationed within their borders.
Second,
Polish analysts worry that the proposed contribution will be deducted from
outlays to improve their own country’s military. Lukasz Kister of the
Jagiellonian Institute warns that “The proposal to pay the U.S. for ensuring
our security raises doubts we will be able to finance the modernization of our
own armed forces.”
Third,
the proposal ignores the fact that the major cost of commitments such as NATO
isn’t in overseas basing, but in creating extra units. The more and greater
Washington’s military guarantees, the larger the force that is required.
Fourth,
American soldiers are not mercenaries to be rented out to the highest bidder.
If the Poles really believe themselves to be at risk, they should spend not 2
percent of GDP on their military, but 5 or 10 percent, perhaps even more. They
should ask themselves how much their freedom is worth.
There
is, however, an obvious solution. Some 240 years ago Great Britain hired
“Hessians,” who came from several German principalities, to fight against
American revolutionaries. Poles could hire modern “Hessians” to guard Poland.
After
all, Chancellor Merkel responded to President Trump’s criticism of Europe’s
defense dependence by calling on Europeans to “take our fate into our own
hands.” Alas, Berlin’s behavior has yet to reflect her rhetoric—but Germany is
contributing 450 soldiers to a NATO mission in Lithuania. That’s a start.
The
biggest problem today is that Berlin’s actions don’t match its words. In 2014,
Merkel’s last government promised to hit 2 percent of GDP by 2024. She recently
said reaching that level is “not completely beyond the imagination.” But in
2015, total German defense spending dropped to 1.1 percent. During last year’s
election campaign, the opposition Social Democrats hardened their position
against expenditures that, from Berlin’s standpoint, make no sense, since the
likelihood of a Russian attack on Germany is only a bit greater than that of a
Martian invasion.
German
Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen recently expressed a desire “to reach
defense expenditures of 1.5 percent of GDP in 2025.” However, the coalition
budget caps military outlays at 1.3 percent.
This
helps explain the judgment of the Atlantic Council’s Jorge Benitez: “The
readiness of the German military is abysmal.” During a recent assessment, the
German army had 244 tanks, but only 95 were battle-ready. None of the country’s
six (count ‘em, six!) submarines were in service. Not one Eurojet fighter was
combat-ready. Just 8 percent of German soldiers said they trusted their
weapons.
Alas,
admitted Hans-Peter Bartels, parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces:
“the Bundeswehr as a whole cannot currently be used in the collective defense.”
With dramatic understatement, he noted: “Additional efforts are necessary.”
Obviously
the Bundeswehr could use Poland’s $2 billion.
What
does Europe need for its defense? Inadequate resources is not a problem. The
continent enjoys about 12 times the economic strength of Russia. Italy’s GDP
alone is larger than that of Russia. Moreover, the Europeans have more than
three times Russia’s population.
Yet
none of the nations worried in principle about Russian aggression act worried
about it in practice. Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Romania
respectively devote 1.53, 1.73, 1.75, 1.80, 1.99, and 2.08 percent of their
GDPs to their militaries. That compares to America’s 3.57 percent.
They
have no reason to do better so long as the U.S. will do it for them. President
Trump said that European laggards would be “dealt with,” but they have no
reason to change as long as Washington continues to subsidize them. For
instance, despite its irresponsible defense policy, Germany continues to host
some 35,000 American troops.
Before
taking office, the president seemed to understand that America’s defense of
Europe was counterproductive. But he surrounded himself with officials
determined to increase U.S. military entanglements. And the Polish government
is lobbying hard. Opined Polish defense minister Mariusz Blaszczak: “The
decisions on this matter are moving in a good direction,” by which he meant bad
for the American people.
The
president should tell Warsaw no. If Poland doesn’t want to raise more of its
own soldiers, then it should hire a few Hessians from its German neighbor.
Doug
Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant
to President Ronald Reagan. He is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/poland-wants-an-american-garrison-let-germany-do-it/