Tyler Cowen usually doesn’t opine at the Marginal Revolution blog, but he has done so now on the question of Trump’s blustering blather about NATO. And I have to say, I not only agree, but was thinking along similar lines the other day: The Europeans in Rumsfeld’s “Old Europe” aren’t taking the need for more defense spending seriously enough. If Trump’s words light a fire under some of them, it will have been worthwhile, but spare us please his return to the presidency.
Says Dr. Cowen, setting out the problem that has persisted for decades now:
Even spending two percent of gdp would not get many NATO allies close to what they need to do (and yes I do understand the difference between defense spending and payments to NATO, in any case many other countries are falling down on the job). I strongly suspect that many of those nations just don’t have effective fighting forces at all, and in essence they are standing at zero percent of gdp, even if their nominal expenditures say hit 1.7 percent. Remember the report that the German Army trained with broomsticks because they didn’t have enough machine guns? How many of those forces are actually ready to fire and fight in a combat situation?
_____
As Cowen says, our own traditional media intelligentsia are far too stupid on the issue, as they are on so many others. Knee-jerk groupthink works as a powerful set of blinders. Our allies’ spending on social welfare is what they think the main role of government should be—not national defense, since we’re all just friends after all.
We in the U.S. might not look flabby in terms of military, but our adversaries know we can’t possibly defend all our allies if they can’t defend themselves. And it has been obvious for a long time that they don’t have the capability, having long ago reckoned they were never at risk of attack. Years of deterrence from a strong U.S. military led them to conclude there were never any real threats anyway.
Thus, while Trump’s way of speaking may be stupid, like a broken clock, it may be nearing the time of day when he’s right.
"...the U.S. might not look flabby in terms of military", and indeed it's not. Our military is quite robust compared to that of any other nation. What's flabby is our will to use it and to use it *wisely*.
I fear if any conflict arose in which casualty numbers approached those of even the quieter periods of Vietnam (forget any numbers from WW II), even if it were an existential conflict, the soft underbelly of our current spoiled and decadent society (which has actually been protected from any *serious* sacrifice for so long by virtue of the deterrence of our military strength) would soon be crying to roll over and give up.
Maybe not. I could well be wrong, and hope that I am. But I don't see our current society as a paragon of strength when it comes to this point. Too many decades of too easy living. Not that there's anything wrong with easy (peaceful) living. As long as one remains aware that there is a cost to be paid for living in peace *and* freedom.
Tomorrow I'm participating in a workshop conducted by Braver Angels. Not sure how widely known they are, but it's a grassroots organization with a goal of trying to bridge the political divide in the country. I've followed them off and on for a couple of years and have given them a bit of $ but this is my first active participation. I'll report back on how it goes for those interested. https://braverangels.org/media/