Of course, this is no accident. You get what you pay for and if you want a military like no one else, you have to spend like no one else. And the US does just that. You know the statistics. In fiscal year 2010, The US Defense Department will spend 685 billion dollars[i]. Just counting the DoD budget (which doesn’t include things like intelligence or nuclear spending), the US spends more than the next 15 countries combined[ii].
US supremacy however holds a unique place in history. As a unipolar power, since the end of the Cold War, the US has enjoyed unchallenged hegemony. That is to say, countries like those in Western Europe or Japan, have not tried to challenge US supremacy (as usually happened throughout history when there was only one superpower)[iii]. They have instead allied themselves with the US, either formally or informally. The reasons for this are numerous and up for debate but what isn’t up for debate is that the US has hardly treated these allies as equal. And why should it? Can we expect the United Nations Security Council to balance out interests when the gap between one member and all others is beyond anything ever seen in history?
These two factors, the cost of the US’s military supremacy and the US’s neglect of its allies came to a sort of a confluence this past week. Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would be cutting Great Britain’s military spending by 8% in real terms over the next four years[iv]. To be clear, these are not superficial cuts. 17,000 personnel will be eliminated from the Army, Air Force, and Navy, the sole aircraft carrier will be retired, and troops stationed in Germany will be brought home[v]. It is no secret that Britain’s deficit woes are very similar to those in America. While the US has yet to begin any significant cuts on any government program including defense, Britain’s bold decision has raised questions in the minds of many Americans. Can the US continue to spend close to 5% of its GDP on defense[vi], when there is no other threatening power on the horizon?
Equally significant, Cameron announced along with the cuts that France will now be the major military partner for Great Britain. This also is not superficial. For example, when new British carriers are built in 2015, they will be designed to allow French aircraft to take and that Britain will assist France re-enter the NATO military structure[vii].
At face value, this seems perfectly reasonable. If Britain and France are both broke, and are the only two military superpowers in Europe, why not collaborate? But the real questioned that needs to be asked is, “why is Britain running to France, and not the US”. Remember, Britain and France fought the Hundred Year War. And Britain up until recently still resented (to put it nicely) France’s exit from NATO under Charles de Gaulle. They have never been friends. They certainly don’t have the “special relationship” we claim to have with Britain. It’s time for the US to consider that its treatment of allies has finally come to fruition. As mentioned above, the US has enjoyed a distinct lack of other great powers balancing against it. With Britain and France engaging in such an intimate military relationship it is reasonable to ask if that grace period is over. No one of course in the US should not expect hostility from an Anglo-Franco relationship however the US should probably not expect blind allegiance and obedience in the future from these two countries either.
The events in Britain and France of the last week raise serious questions about the future about America’s military might. If Britain needs to make the very serious cuts that it did, can it be very long before the US needs the same? And for how long will the US continue to enjoy a world where its military hegemony goes unchallenged by other powers?
[i] Karon, Tony. “Britain's Defense Cuts: Grim Portent for U.S. Military?”. Time Magazine. October 21st, 2010. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026961
,00.html?xid=thepage_newsletter
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Random House. 1987
[iv] Fidler, Stephen. “UK, France Boost Military Ties”. The Wall Street Journal. October 20th, 2010.
[v] Burnett, Alistair. “Goodbye to Britain’s Defense Budget”. National Public Radio. October 21st, 2010. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130718117
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] See Fidler, Stephen
No comments:
Post a Comment