Why Is It Our Duty To Defend the World?
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Using the example of NATO offers an easily quantifiable way to tell how the US is getting the short end of the stick by taking on the "world policeman" role (the "free rider" problem in action).
According to the NATO charter, member states are supposed to be spending at least 2% of GDP on defense. Ever since the Soviet threat has begun to diminish, the defense spending of the European members has been falling. As of today, only 3 of the 27 non-US member countries are above the 2% threshold (Estonia 2%, UK 2.4%, Greece 2.3%). US defense spending - 4.4%.
One could argue about the various fringe benefits of defense spending, the idea that there are all sorts of intangible advantages to being the "world policeman" etc etc, but I believe the figures speak louder than words, in this case.
According to the NATO charter, member states are supposed to be spending at least 2% of GDP on defense. Ever since the Soviet threat has begun to diminish, the defense spending of the European members has been falling. As of today, only 3 of the 27 non-US member countries are above the 2% threshold (Estonia 2%, UK 2.4%, Greece 2.3%). US defense spending - 4.4%.
One could argue about the various fringe benefits of defense spending, the idea that there are all sorts of intangible advantages to being the "world policeman" etc etc, but I believe the figures speak louder than words, in this case.
The "invasion" of Crimea, IMHO, is as much the result of misguided American foreign policy as it is of any other factor.
America is quickly going bankrupt. That's reason#1.
Americans need to get over paranoid fantasies they jealously harbor that paint enemies looming over every horizon. The real enemies are in Washington, eviscerating their liberty. Nobody can touch America, militarily. Command and control economies don't work. The resurgence of Communism or some neo Iron Curtain is delusional. China is a threat because America gave away one quarter of it's economy to China.
Our one true strength is our economy. Everything flows from economic power. Shore that up here in and in Europe, and there's nobody that can touch Western hegemony. NONE. High tariffs against third world producers and slash taxes and regulation here at home, and it's game over. For the other guys. This won't happen because the socialist fascists took control in America and Europe, because the idiots bought their bullshit for decades. An enemy at every gate!!!!
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, these guys represent the last hope for our dying Republic. Old guard Rhinos and Obama and the Clintons are just more huge Government fucks, that will continue to hurt and destroy this once great Country. Possibly beyond repair. The debt limit is quickly approaching. CBO projections are bleak. The path we are on is totally unsustainable, as in there will be a dollar collapse sooner then later. A dollar collapse is disastrous. Unthinkable, but that's exactly where we are headed.
Americans need to get over paranoid fantasies they jealously harbor that paint enemies looming over every horizon. The real enemies are in Washington, eviscerating their liberty. Nobody can touch America, militarily. Command and control economies don't work. The resurgence of Communism or some neo Iron Curtain is delusional. China is a threat because America gave away one quarter of it's economy to China.
Our one true strength is our economy. Everything flows from economic power. Shore that up here in and in Europe, and there's nobody that can touch Western hegemony. NONE. High tariffs against third world producers and slash taxes and regulation here at home, and it's game over. For the other guys. This won't happen because the socialist fascists took control in America and Europe, because the idiots bought their bullshit for decades. An enemy at every gate!!!!
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, these guys represent the last hope for our dying Republic. Old guard Rhinos and Obama and the Clintons are just more huge Government fucks, that will continue to hurt and destroy this once great Country. Possibly beyond repair. The debt limit is quickly approaching. CBO projections are bleak. The path we are on is totally unsustainable, as in there will be a dollar collapse sooner then later. A dollar collapse is disastrous. Unthinkable, but that's exactly where we are headed.
You make some great points. I think the US is as much to blame as the Euros however. We have complained for years that the euros were not holding up their end, but we never did anything tangible. Many US policymakers are probably quite happy with the status quo in fact. They like having europe dependent on us.
We also exacerbated the problem by pushing NATO expansion into former Soviet satellite states. It was reckless and needlessly provocative. Are we really prepared to go to war with Russia over Estonia?
Our whole international policy is bizzarely upside down. We tolerate all kinds of economic aggression, deferring to euro-dominated groups like the WTO. At the same time, we go around searching for regional or single country disputes to meddle in.
Depressingly, the leaders of both parties vie to see who can push this failed neo-con policy the hardest.
Yep, agreed... As you mention, there are problems that inevitably result from ongoing NATO expansion. Apart from antagonising Russia needlessly, the US is obviously making its "free rider" situation even worse (by committing to defend states that will not be able or willing to contribute according to the NATO charter).
The only political figure who seems to have any sanity in this regard is Rand Paul. Like I mentioned before, I applaud and admire him for this, but I fear that he won't be able to keep it up, as it's just too alien to the mainstream American public.
This is not the article that I've long been hunting for, but it is along similar lines. Cost benefit analysis of foreign intervention. The paper I can't find looks at the US in detail.
Does Military Intervention Work?
"OXFORD â Because peacekeeping initiatives in post-conflict countries are expensive and complex, and because the war in Iraq has undermined rich nationsâ belief in their likely success, a dispassionate look at the use of military intervention is timely. A new study for the Copenhagen Consensus project that includes the first ever cost-benefit analysis of United Nations peacekeeping initiatives concludes that military might is an important tool for reducing bloodshed around the world.
"Iraq is a misleading guide to the effectiveness of such initiatives. Unlike the vast majority of conflicts, its civil war was sparked by an international war. The far more typical scenario is political violence within a small, low-income, low-growth nation burdened with strong ethnic divisions.
"Dealing with these structurally dangerous countries is clearly one of our generationâs most pressing security challenges. There is good reason to think that trouble will escalate. Half of all civil wars are post-conflict relapses, and recent negotiated peace settlements have left many countries unstable. The commodity boom and discovery of mineral resources in fragile states have sown seeds of discord, while the spread of democracy in low-income countries â perhaps surprisingly â increases the statistical likelihood of political violence.
"Some believe that countries in conflict should be left to sort themselves out. But compassion and self-interest dictate against this approach. Modern civil wars are horrific. They overwhelmingly affect civilians in the poorest and most desperate environments on Earth. Rich nations donât fall victim to political violence, but do bear some of its costs. After all, broken societies are havens for illegality, whether drug trafficking or training of terrorists.
"Military intervention wonât be the answer in every hot spot; nor should it be the developed worldâs only response. Post-conflict aid designed to prevent violence from recurring is much more politically acceptable than the use of force, although it is very expensive.
"The period following a conflict is one of the most effective times to provide aid, because it enables governments to halt damaging inflationary policies, and, with exports at a very low level, there is little risk of unwanted currency appreciation . With benefits about three times higher than the costs, it is a good â but not spectacular â use of scarce public resources.
"The Copenhagen Consensus study recommends that aid to post-conflict countries be tied to limits on military spending. Placing conditions on aid packages is controversial, but about 11% of all aid is currently diverted into military spending, which significantly increases the likelihood of violence. The lower risk of conflict and better use of that money would mean the benefits from aid climb to 4.5 times higher than the costs.
"Even so, the cost effectiveness of aid alone is outstripped by the use of peacekeeping forces.
"The first cost-benefit analysis of peacekeeping initiatives reveals that the risk of future conflict depends upon the scale of military deployment. Compared with no deployment, spending $100 million on a peacekeeping initiative reduces the ten-year risk of conflict from around 38% to 16.5%. At $200 million per year, the risk falls further, to around 12.8%. At $500 million, it goes down to 9%, and at $850 million drops to 7.3%.
"Because of warâs massive costs, each percentage point of risk reduction is worth around $2.5 billion to the world. The most expensive deployment reduces the risk of conflict by a massive 30 percentage points, with ten-year gains of $75 billion, compared to the overall cost of $8.5 billion. This is a very promising investment.
Article>>
Does Military Intervention Work?
"OXFORD â Because peacekeeping initiatives in post-conflict countries are expensive and complex, and because the war in Iraq has undermined rich nationsâ belief in their likely success, a dispassionate look at the use of military intervention is timely. A new study for the Copenhagen Consensus project that includes the first ever cost-benefit analysis of United Nations peacekeeping initiatives concludes that military might is an important tool for reducing bloodshed around the world.
"Iraq is a misleading guide to the effectiveness of such initiatives. Unlike the vast majority of conflicts, its civil war was sparked by an international war. The far more typical scenario is political violence within a small, low-income, low-growth nation burdened with strong ethnic divisions.
"Dealing with these structurally dangerous countries is clearly one of our generationâs most pressing security challenges. There is good reason to think that trouble will escalate. Half of all civil wars are post-conflict relapses, and recent negotiated peace settlements have left many countries unstable. The commodity boom and discovery of mineral resources in fragile states have sown seeds of discord, while the spread of democracy in low-income countries â perhaps surprisingly â increases the statistical likelihood of political violence.
"Some believe that countries in conflict should be left to sort themselves out. But compassion and self-interest dictate against this approach. Modern civil wars are horrific. They overwhelmingly affect civilians in the poorest and most desperate environments on Earth. Rich nations donât fall victim to political violence, but do bear some of its costs. After all, broken societies are havens for illegality, whether drug trafficking or training of terrorists.
"Military intervention wonât be the answer in every hot spot; nor should it be the developed worldâs only response. Post-conflict aid designed to prevent violence from recurring is much more politically acceptable than the use of force, although it is very expensive.
"The period following a conflict is one of the most effective times to provide aid, because it enables governments to halt damaging inflationary policies, and, with exports at a very low level, there is little risk of unwanted currency appreciation . With benefits about three times higher than the costs, it is a good â but not spectacular â use of scarce public resources.
"The Copenhagen Consensus study recommends that aid to post-conflict countries be tied to limits on military spending. Placing conditions on aid packages is controversial, but about 11% of all aid is currently diverted into military spending, which significantly increases the likelihood of violence. The lower risk of conflict and better use of that money would mean the benefits from aid climb to 4.5 times higher than the costs.
"Even so, the cost effectiveness of aid alone is outstripped by the use of peacekeeping forces.
"The first cost-benefit analysis of peacekeeping initiatives reveals that the risk of future conflict depends upon the scale of military deployment. Compared with no deployment, spending $100 million on a peacekeeping initiative reduces the ten-year risk of conflict from around 38% to 16.5%. At $200 million per year, the risk falls further, to around 12.8%. At $500 million, it goes down to 9%, and at $850 million drops to 7.3%.
"Because of warâs massive costs, each percentage point of risk reduction is worth around $2.5 billion to the world. The most expensive deployment reduces the risk of conflict by a massive 30 percentage points, with ten-year gains of $75 billion, compared to the overall cost of $8.5 billion. This is a very promising investment.
Article>>
Sounds like this paper offers a very legitimate reason for Russia to conduct a military intervention in Ukraine, wouldn't you say?
Their C/B on it may very well be positive. And maybe the West's sanctions will be positive, and make the russkies' negative. The odds are no doubt stacked in your favor when you have hegemony.
My point was not to encourage or discourage military intervention in any particular case but just note that there is a lot more to answering the question of "is it worth it" than our armchair generalizing. Grist for the mill, always more to think about.
It's interesting that you discount the Russian agenda completely and focus on US foreign policy. So many have done this.
Russia has its own agenda here, related to Putin's declining popularity (before the Olympics and Crimea) and the stagnating Russian economy. A "patriotic" war always props up support, the effect is multiplied for Russia if you understand the Russian mentality at all.
Despite most people in the west believing in the all-powerful global US influence, this one actually was started by the political opposition and/or because of Russian internal issues.