September 22, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:A German in my comments
A German in my comments section informs me that Germany has sufficient military power to defend itself.
Now, I'm no expert in affaires militaires, but I don't think this can be right. It sounds to me like one of those oft-repeated tropes that few of the natives ever question, like the immutable wonderfulness of George Washington. Why do I say this? Several reasons. First of all, there is no such thing as a defensive force which cannot project across borders; if you can't interdict supply lines, cut off reinforcements, and prevent your enemy from regrouping, you can't stage a worthwhile defense, particularly if the enemy is not similarly limited. (Some nations do have hostile terrain which hostile natives can make Not Worth Conquering. Germany, however, is not among them.)
Second of all, unless the Germans have developed massively parallel defense plans, something which, to my knowlege, they lack both the technology and the technological capability to do, a crucial pieces of any defense are undoubtedly supplied by American forces, such as intelligence, air support, and supply.
And third of all, Germany currently exists in a military equilibrium. Which is to say, it's neighbors have toy armies. It has a toy army. (I mean no disrespect to the European military. But I am aware of no force in Europe which could repel a determined attack by a serious enemy. They are too small, lack key capabilities, and a large portion of their force is composed of 19 year old boys whiling away their national service.) The US presence makes it pointless to build a bigger army, since no nation in Europe is either large enough, or rich enough, to build a force that would not be simply dwarfed by the force that the US would project in the event of an attack.
Europeans, in my experience, tend to think that the extremely low level of their military spending is evidence of their moral superiority; they've evolved beyond defense. I submit that every other nation in the world, even if poor, spends a higher percentage of their GDP, and their budget, on the military. Argentina could use the spare money far more than Belgium -- why doesn't it just cut that pesky military spending? Because those Brazilian madmen are bent on World Domination? Because the government wants to maintain a steady supply of soldiers to stage coups? Because they're just not as civilized as the sophisticated elites of Portugal?
No, because they are the defense equivalent of a bubble boy. And they've been protected so long, they don't even realize how defenseless they really are.
Right now, there is no payoff to military buildup in Europe. With the US gone -- and I can certainly imagine that Schroeder's election could set off a chain reaction that results in our deciding, some years down the road, that intra-European disputes are Not Our Problem -- there is a possible payoff. And more than that; even if you are not inclined to start a war, you have to take into account the fact that your neighbors might. Remember, almost right up to WWI, everyone thought that a large-scale conflict between continental powers was impossible because of their cultural and economic ties.
You have to start spending, and not just to be prepared against your neighbor. And second, military spending has memory. Which is to say, it is hard to build a first-class military from scratch, when you need it. You need to keep pace with both technological and tactical innovations. And you need to breed leaders, from the ground up, who can fight effectively. All of this takes time, and a break can be catastrophic.
Once the first nation in Europe gets worried and ups their military spending, the others will have to follow. Of course, that would send the EU into precipitous decline.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the EU has already reached an integration tipping point, and they will not arm against each other. Which only makes it a juicier target, dictating that they must arm against Russia and other near threats. Either way, the new equilibrium would be reached at a much higher level of spending. And since they are lacking in key capabilities, and have plowed their research dollars into duplicating showy US capabilities like our satellites, instead of boring conventional ones, there's going to be a lot of makeup spending to do in the near term. Spending that Europe cannot afford.
Or perhaps I just don't understand military affairs. Maybe Europe is so threat isolated, or so clever, that they can repel all threats to their sovereignty while spending less than 1/3rd what we do on defense. But I'm an economic type; I kind of believe in TANSTAAFL. So that's not the way I'm going to bet.
Posted by Jane Galt at September 22, 2002 5:53 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links