Time for a New Security Order for Europe

Why, 70 years after the conclusion of World War II, 26 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and 22 years after creation of the European Union, are the Europeans still dependent on America?

Source: Should the U.S. Leave NATO? | The National Interest Blog

I tend to use caution with trial balloons from CATO scholars because I see the organization as a front for corporate interests. Nonetheless, Doug Bandow raises a valid question: why are the Europeans still dependent on the U.S. for their security.

The answer that you are unlikely to find in a CATO publication is this: Europe is dependent upon us because we wanted the Europeans dependent upon us – especially our large military contractors – and the Europeans were happy to have their defense subsidized by the US taxpayers in exchange for the occasional purchase of a few dozen fighter planes.

But that is not really what Bandow is asking. The real question is why are we still permitting the Europeans to depend upon us? Is it not time that we at last put the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to rest, to send Europe an unequivocal message that the subsidy is over? After 70 years in Europe, America is finally coming home. The Cold War, the raison d’etre of NATO’s existence, has now ended, and it is time to close the books on that august, well-intended, but outdated institution.

And it is time for us to reassess, in the view of a very different geopolitical environment and domestic political economy than those we faced when the NATO alliance was at its height, our needs for collective security and the limits of our ability to contribute to the defense of any region beyond our shores.

The process must be conducted with wisdom. We cannot simply abruptly disavow our obligations and go home. Rather, we need to view this as a process, beginning with informing the leaders of Europe that we are on this course, and that Europe must be prepared to step in and take up the burden of its own defense.

We also need to recognize that the process of re-framing our defense relationship with Europe must be conducted in a way that addresses both our legal and moral obligations under the treaty structure that gave rise to NATO. If our friends are to remain our friends, we must leave (or retire) NATO in a way that observes the diplomatic forms, and that gives the nations of Europe a reasonable amount of time to build the forces and doctrine to step into whatever breach we decide to leave.

Because that process is long, it must begin as soon as possible. The process is unlikely to be driven by an administration with a scant year left in office, but it should be at the top of the foreign policy to-do list for the next occupant of the White House. We can make that happen by starting the public discussion ourselves, right now.


No More Quixotic Crusades

Any government action should be constrained by moral principles. But the Pentagon exists to protect the American people, and the liberal republic which governs them, not conduct grand “liberal” crusades around the world, no matter how attractive in theory. Thus, support for limited government and individual liberty at home necessitates a commitment to a foreign policy of restraint, even humility, to quote George W. Bush before he gave in to the Dark Side.

Doug Bandow
The American Conservative

If we have drawn no other liberal internationalist lesson from the Second World War, it is that America should never feel constrained from joining the fight against existential threats even before they reach our shores.

Unfortunately, the history of American foreign policy since World War II offers ample evidence that we have too often not constrained ourselves enough. While we have leapt into overseas adventures that have proven beneficial both to America and those we sought to help, the preponderance of evidence suggests that we should intervene in far fewer situations than our force projection capabilities make possible.

We have made ourselves the adjudicator of domestic squabbles and regional fights that arguably did not need our intervention. We have appointed ourselves the world’s foremost exporter of the one commodity that cannot be exported: democracy. We have embroiled ourselves in conflict without end. And in doing all of the above we have created a military footprint that exceeds our ability to maintain in peace or sustain in war.

The time has come for our foreign policy maturity, a time to recognize that we are incapable of forming the world to our desires using force or its threat, but that at the same time the world has grown too interconnected to allow us to retreat behind two oceans and walled borders.

We need, above all, a foreign policy that is driven by a practical vision of our role in the world that is within our means to sustain indefinitely, and that provides for an active defense against existential threats.

We must, at last, bid farewell to the Wilsonian urge to grand crusades and set ourselves to the task of finding a new grand strategy, to build from that a broader doctrine that will guide American policymaking regardless of whose posterior is warming the big chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Precisely what that grand strategy should be is what must animate our debates going forward.

To Arms?

What we’ve seen in Paris this weekend is not an attack, or an incident, or a tragedy. It’s war, and war, like it or not, is fought with guns. Because terrorism works precisely by striking at random, it’s silly to expect the police to be able to protect everyone at all times. When there are men out there teaming up to kill you, the rational and prudent thing to do is to at least make sure you have a chance to fight back.

Source: What Happened in Paris is War, and the Only Way to Fight a War is With Firearms. If You Live in Europe, Get a Gun. – Tablet Magazine

Food for thought.

Let me say up front that I don’t think you end terrorism simply by arming your populace. Terrorist use a range of weapons and tactics, and a pistol – even a .45 – won’t stop them all.

But it is pitifully easy for a terrorist to acquire a gun, even in countries where private ownership of firearms is strictly circumscribed. All a terrorist need do to inflict dozens of casualties is to find someplace with no cops, release the safety, and open fire.

Let us, for the moment, ignore the author’s overt point and delve into his meta-message: in a war against an enemy able to bypass formal national and civil defenses to inflict casualties against the populace, government monopoly on the ownership of firearms is inadequate and perhaps indefensible.

At the very least, this opens the door for auxiliary and private security forces, with trained and licensed personnel, to carry firearms. Would the Copenhagen attacks have succeeded if Dan Uzan had been armed while standing watch outside the synagogue? What if the guards at the Bataclan had been packing, and had known what to do when trouble showed up toting AK-47s?

France, much less Europe, is not ready for an armed populace. They probably won’t be until we in America can find a better way to retain our firearms as a bulwark against tyranny while eliminating accidental deaths and curtailing gun homicides. Accidental gun deaths in the US last year claimed five times more lives than the terrorists did in Paris last weekend, and that alone inveighs against just selling a gun to every man-Jacques in the street.

But the asymmetrical threat of terror demands asymmetrical responses that, if nothing else, raises the difficulty and cost of terrorist acts. Armed protection in public gathering places is a good start.

But the real issue is that it is time for the leaders of Europe to stop relying upon time-honored tools forged to meet different threats. It is time to get creative and a little ruthless, to come up with ways to make terror too costly for ISIS to imagine. And the answer is not airstrikes. How many more innocents must die before Europe truly understands that armies, police, constraints on speech, and appeasement of Islamists do not constitute a defense against the most serious threat Europe faces today?


South China Sea Showdown: The Law and the Lawless

China and the US just had a confrontation over the South China Sea – Business Insider.

Whatever other disparaging thoughts you may hold about the US, and its actions in other theaters, it is difficult to ignore that, in brazen defiance of international law and convention, China has laid claim to vast swaths of the South China Sea that are, in fact, international waters and airspace. Recent incidents are simply the US is simply the right of any other nation to navigate those waters and that airspace.

I am uncomfortable with our seeming addiction to intervention far from our shores. In this case, however, we are trapped between two unpleasant alternatives. Either we send ships and planes and young Americans into harm’s way, or we allow China to believe that we have accepted their ahistorical and illegal claims in the South China Sea.

You may side with China’s claims, but prepare to be challenged to   support those claims with something more than passion and rhetoric.

And you may object to the US playing the “world’s policeman.” I sympathize. Unfortunately, when one country engages in practices that challenge international law and norms, the world faces a stark choice. Either we can find someone to draw a line around law and practice, or telegraph to the miscreant that international law is ought more than a doormat.

Chinese rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, these incidents in the South China Sea are the US putting its blood and treasure forward in the defense of international law. Until some other country has the fortitude and resources to do same, I guess we’re stuck with the job.

How Bill Broke a Promise to Russia

The first Bush administration promised Gorbachev that Nato would not move ‘one inch to the east’, in the words of the then secretary of state, James Baker. But Bill Clinton ignored the Russians’ wish to keep a cordon sanitaire and his predecessor’s promise by pushing Nato expansion to the east – betraying a trust, in Russia’s view. The eastward march of Nato continues. One can only imagine the American response if the roles were reversed.

via Jackson Lears reviews ‘Hard Choices’ by Hillary Clinton and ‘HRC’ by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes · LRB 5 February 2015.

Kissinger on Putin


“For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding US values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point among US policymakers.’”

Henry Kissinger 
“Jackson Lears reviews ‘Hard Choices’ by Hillary Clinton and ‘HRC’ by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes”
London Review of Books
5 February 2015