US Going it alone because it has to

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Mar 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Fom the LA Times

    Going it alone because we have to
    Unless allies spend more on defense, the U.S. will continue to act unilaterally out of necessity.
    February 28, 2007


    TONY BLAIR'S decision to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq is understandable. The prime minister had to make a difficult decision about where to allocate Britain's scarce resources, and he decided, reasonably enough, that the top priority was to send reinforcements to Afghanistan, where 5,500 British troops are struggling to hold back a Taliban onslaught.

    The tragedy is that he had to rob Peter to pay Paul because Britain can't maintain 7,000 troops in Iraq and 7,000 in Afghanistan. Those are hardly huge numbers for a country of 60 million with the fifth-largest national economy in the world. Yet even as Britain has continued to play a leading role in world affairs, it has allowed its defenses to molder.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    The total size of its armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000). Storied regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, with histories stretching back centuries, have been eliminated.

    Even worse hit is the Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France.

    Britain is hardly alone in its unilateral disarmament. A similar trend can be discerned among virtually all of the major U.S. allies, aside from Japan. Canada is a particularly poignant case in point. At the end of World War II, Canada had more than a million men under arms and operated the world's third-biggest navy (behind the U.S. and Britain), with more than 400 ships. Today, it has all of 62,000 personnel on active duty, and its navy has just 19 warships and 23 support vessels, making it one-fourth the size of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Of course, numbers aren't the entire story. Both Britain and Canada have top-notch soldiers, allowing them to punch above their weight class in military affairs. But there is only so much that a handful of super-soldiers can accomplish if their numbers are grossly inadequate. Quality can't entirely make up for lack of quantity.

    This shortfall has serious repercussions not only for those countries but for the United States. With about 165,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and more on the way, we are seriously overstretched ourselves. We need as much help as we can get, but there isn't much more that our allies could do, even if they wanted to.

    Look at Afghanistan, where NATO is always having trouble dredging up an extra helicopter or another infantry battalion to throw into the fray. The British and Canadians are doing more than their share; their willingness to fight hard and take casualties sets them apart from most NATO countries, which prefer to send troops to safe parts of Afghanistan rather than to the front lines in the south and east. But 5,500 British and 2,500 Canadian soldiers can cover only so much ground, even with another 1,500 Brits thrown in. As usual, the United States, with more than 27,000 troops in Afghanistan, is left to carry the lion's share of the burden.

    The primary culprit is declining defense spending among U.S. allies. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, defense budgets among NATO members, excluding the U.S., have fallen from 2.49% of gross domestic product in 1993 to 1.8% of GDP in 2005. Britain is actually above the norm, spending 2.3% of GDP, or $52 billion, on defense. Canada, with a defense budget of $13 billion, is below the norm, at 1.1%.

    But all those expenditures fade into insignificance by comparison with the U.S., which spends $495 billion a year, or 4% of the world's largest GDP, on its armed forces. That's more than the rest of NATO combined, even though the other countries have, in aggregate, greater demographic and economic resources.

    Unless the other NATO members are willing to step up their spending — and what are the odds of that? — there is scant chance that their gripes about American unilateralism will ever be rectified. We act alone, or almost alone, not out of choice but out of necessity.
     
  2. Wrong. You had a choice over Iraq.

    Afghanistan had the backing of just about the entire Islamic world , that was a neccessity.
     
  3. PTP, the issue here isn't the rights or wrongs of Iraq, the issue is that, increasingly, US allies bring so little to the fight that it's not worth the US considering their views.
     
  4. PTP,

    I got the feeling from the style that it was written by a rather embittered expat from our shores, maybe even an ex. squaddie! Spelling changes made to please the locals.


    Edited to add:
    Been to the LA Times website, and apparently it's written by a certain Max Boot who claimes to have grown up in LA. So bang goes that theory!

    He also posted this one a week ago - which is probably about 4 years late!: Is Iraq turning into Yugoslavia?
     
  5. You'd better believe it!!!!

    Ditto the Ausies and New Zealanders.
     
  6. Has the US ever taken anybody else's view into consideration over Iraq?
     
  7. Andy, to argue the chicken and the egg; it's the lack of consideration for other country's views that's discouraging them from participating in US led operations.

    PTP, that was then, this is now. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the invasion of Iraq we are in there now and I hope that you agree a premature withdrawl would be damaging to the long term interests of this nation.

    PB
     
  8. If they're that bothered about it shy don't they chuck us a few billion quid?
     
  9. Not so sure about that whitecity and in truth he is telling it how it is. Its what everybody is saying from the defence chiefs to the National Audit Office. The government know it too and if they know it whay arn't they doing anything about it? Some have got thier heads in the sand, some are twiddling thumbs trying to convince everybody that it is all okay or that it doesn't really matter.

    The esence of the article is true enough, the British armed forces are woefully underfunded and undermanned (undermined), they function despite and not because of the MoD and it is set to get worse. Something is going to give and it doesn't matter if this is a yank or an ex-pat, what he is saying (about British military underfunding at least) is absolutely 100% spot on.
     
  10. Dinger why should they? Its our military not theirs. Next they'll be telling us how to run the thing...................oh............hang on.
     
  11. There's a 'coalition of the willing' - therefore the US is not alone, or almost alone. If it seems to be 'almost alone', it's because proportionally, the US wastes more on defence, and their troop numbers in Iraq dwarf that of any other nation.

    The US chose to invade.

    There WAS no necessity, unless the necessity was that of self interest i.e. offence not defence.
     
  12. How? Seriously , how is it damaging to our 'longterm' interests?

    I'm not being sarcastic, I'd genuinely like to know how our longterm interests would be affected by pulling the plug on Iraq tomorrow?

    Has the British Government ever pulled down the flag and left a territory prematurely?

    By premature, I mean the locals started shooting each other shortly after we left?
     
  13. Okay so is somebody here actually going to tell me that we spend 'enough' on defence?
     
  14. Just off the top of my head, and I could probably think of more if I tried:

    1. The perception that the UK can be defeated by terrorism would probably lead to the strengthening of the UK domestic terrorist threat.

    2. It would weaken the FO's hand when dealing with other countries.

    3. The resulting power vaccuum would draw Iran into the region to a greater exent than it is already.

    4. It would put at risk our access to the Iraqi oil supply.

    5. It would harm US-UK relations.

    PB
     
  15. Tazzers, it depends on what you want your 'defence' to do. If all you want it to do is sit in barracks in the UK and defend against foreign invasion, then the answer is probably yes. If, however, you want an expeditionary capability which you are actually going to use on a regular basis, then we're sailing quite close to the wind.

    PB