Valley View vs. Greenville
Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2011 > September > 10
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Editorial: Gates’ blunt NATO critique can be useful
With American air power — its use and non-use — at the center of discussion about the Libyan war, outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued an angry indictment of this country’s European allies in that war.
He was making a point that will generate a lot of interest in some Air Force quarters.
“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country,” he noted in a sort of valedictory speech last week. “Yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.”
“Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform, not counting the U.S. military, NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops,” he said.
From the beginning of the Libyan efforts, President Barack Obama has been at pains to limit the American role. Like the Europeans, he felt that the rebels against Moammar Gadhafi couldn’t be ignored, left to twist in the wind.
But he didn’t want anything that might be seen as an American war. The result has been ongoing negotiation among the allies about what the U.S. will and will not do.
Libya isn’t the only issue in the Gates indictment. He has long been dissatisfied with European participation in Afghanistan and has been public about that.
He has a point. It’s not just a matter of resources (how many wars this country can be expected to sustain) and not just a matter of political support at home. It’s also about how the United States is seen in the Arab and Muslim worlds and beyond.
Washington shouldn’t be isolated as the capital always looking to intervene militarily. If other countries believe in these interventions, let them pay the political price, too.
The secretary said the American-European alliance faces a “dim, if not dismal” future if Europe doesn’t change its ways, because Americans will lose interest.
The implications of his speech are big. For one thing, a lot of American companies will be happy to see pressure on Europe to spend more on air power.
But the secretary is not doing their bidding. As many in the Air Force have known for years, he prides himself on a willingness to articulate harsh truths that others might water down.
He jumps into a difficult issue. A certain dovishness prevails in Europe. Having come through two cataclysmic wars on European soil in the 20th century, people there now revel in the peacefulness among Europeans (notwithstanding fairly recent wars in the Balkans).
They love the fact that Germany and France are no longer bitter enemies, that the various European countries no longer float in and out of alliances against others, that the Soviet threat has disappeared.
Meanwhile, European public opinion tends to fear excessive militarism in Washington. President George W. Bush was not a hero there.
But as Washington recognizes all that, Europe has to recognize that Washington is hitting a wall on military spending. President Obama wants to cut $400 billion from American national security spending. That won’t be easy.
Europe should be glad that the United States isn’t simply reveling in its military superiority and insisting on the right to make all the military decisions for the alliance.
The future calls for more burden sharing.
TweetGo to our facebook page and Like us to comment.
