136 Responses so far

1. 1. Gray Rinehart on Jan 13th, 2010 at 9:04 am

   Nice work, Toby. Your analysis is very sound. (For the record, I consider myself a moderate, though a right-leaning one.)

   My overseas military experience was limited, but I had some dealings with NATO allies. On the whole, I think our allies are pulling their weight and the alliance is quite strong. (And NATO itself was expanded a few years ago to include some Eastern European countries.)

   One question: when you characterize the last decade as “go it alone,” are you forgetting or ignoring the contributions of the United Kingdom and other (mostly non-European, and mostly smaller) countries? It’s a convenient trope, but not entirely accurate. I think it’s better characterized as the “committed few.”

2. 2. Tobias Buckell on Jan 13th, 2010 at 9:23 am

   Thanks Gray.

   On the question, that’s a totally fair critique actually, and does ignore the other contributions. I like your ‘committed few’ suggestion and will try to remember that, it’s certainly a more accurate charge!

3. 3. Rae Carson on Jan 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am

   Great post, Toby. Thx.

4. 4. Beth Plutchak on Jan 13th, 2010 at 10:57 am

   Troops per capita and spending per capita might be interesting as well, since you are comparing countries with very different population sizes to defend.

5. 5. Tobias Buckell on Jan 13th, 2010 at 11:06 am

   Beth: you can find that at the link I gave to Wikipedia, I believe. Again, it follows a similar pattern (but my article was getting long enough already I stopped). Europe has fewer troops per 1,000 people than the US in general, but not too much drastically less (I think the average was 4/1000 vs the us 5/1000), with North Korea and the like having way more active per 1,000, and India and China, despite their apparent largeness, actually have 1/1,000.

6. 6. Steve Buchheit on Jan 13th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

   I think that if you look at the numbers as percentages of GDP there will be even less of a difference. Our economy (population and hence tax-base) is larger, so we can field a larger force than our European counterparts, but in the percentages we look a lot closer.

   I think the mindset that we Americans are carrying the water for everybody else is a part of the world view that skews the perception of some conservatives and leads them to a “we’re the greatest and everybody else owes us” philosophy.

7. 7. Catherine Shaffer on Jan 13th, 2010 at 12:48 pm

   This is something I’ve always appreciated about the Tobster. None of your political opinions are knee jerk and you are not afraid to examine the “other side” of an issue with an open mind.

8. 8. Joshua Jarboe on Jan 13th, 2010 at 1:05 pm

   Excellent analysis and an enjoyable read. But you jumped into “go it alone strategy” without that kind of rigorous analysis. Like the issue above, there’s some data to support, some to contradict. The US just slashed it’s very expensive F22 Raptor budget in favor of the Joint Strike Fighter, a program that according to wikipedia is “jointly funded by the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Israel.” The JSF is a Stealth Fighter. A stealth fighter. A freakin stealth fighter. And we’re sharing it with the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. I’m sure France had a chance too. So we’re working with Europe.

   That said, as a conservative, I see two powerful facts in play. European nation’s GDP Per Capita (ppp) cannot compare with ours, their populations cannot compare with ours, etc. Some of that is probably an echo from WWII and part of it is probably socialism. But they have advanced technology. The UK and France have nukes, Germany and France have advanced armor, and neither is reeling from World War I. Crumbling? No. What nation would dare invade Europe?

   I just don’t see this as a central tenant of conservatism, sorry.

9. 9. Tobias Buckell on Jan 13th, 2010 at 1:14 pm

   “I just don’t see this as a central tenant of conservatism, sorry.”

   I wouldn’t either, but it’s being repeated a lot, enough that I’ve had to strike it down in several conversations over the last year, and want a blog post I can point people who keep raising it as if its a central tenet of conservatism.

10. 10. Sonja on Jan 13th, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Great post! I don’t have time to do the math at, but if you include the rest of the EU, the figures would probably be even closer.

11. 11. Nick on Jan 13th, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Regarding GDP/capita, I should point out that according to Wolfram|Alpha Western Europa has a GDP/capita of $43,821 compared to the US’s $45,230. So they are in fact on a par.

    I would also be careful pushing a ‘committed few’ viewpoint too much; the figures Tobias shows in the blog post show that Europe is committed to defence, but might instead view national defence in a different way.

12. 12. Chuck Gordon on Jan 13th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Dovetails pretty neatly with my experience with our European neighbors. I work for the US Army (as a civilian), and spent 2002-2008 at Grafenwoehr, the big US/NATO/Allies training base in Germany. We trained forces from a dozen different countries besides the US, including some of the multi-national forces, and we had, in fact, quite a lot of non-US forces represented in our staff and cadre.

    On any given day, we’d have US infantry and armor in the box, being supported by Brit, French or German ground and air forces, with special ops pieces from any one of several nations thrown in for good measure.

    We trained Poles, Czechs, Romanians, Brits, and more (even had Kenyans in a couple of classes, IIRC), at the NCO Academy there, and sent training teams out all over Europe, Africa and into Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Any given day, you could hear a half dozen languages as you walked down the street.

    Sometimes we depended on the German military to support our security programs, and had close partnerships with our Deutsche counterparts.

    Could not have done the job, certainly not the same level of quality and quantity without the allied forces …

13. 13. Chris Gerrib on Jan 13th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Very good post overall. The conservative idea that “Europe is crumbling” comes from two data points, one valid and one sorta-valid.

    The valid data point is that European militaries lack “force projection” capabilities. In other words, on a per-capita basis, less of their military might can be deployed and supported at a distance from their home bases. Our NATO allies are having quite a few issues supporting their Afghanistan deployments. This is largely “by design” in that the militaries weren’t designed to deploy, while the US military was so designed.

    The sorta-valid point is that European defense spending is less efficient than in the US. I mean, most all European countries maintain a separate air force, all the coastal ones have a separate navy, etc.

    This leads to some redundancies and excess overhead that you don’t have in the US or other large militaries. It also means that you don’t see as many “big ticket” weapons systems (large-deck aircraft carriers, for example).

    The end result is that European militaries are less likely to go gallivanting off in non-European areas. They are just not structured to do so.

14. 14. Nick on Jan 14th, 2010 at 2:32 am

    Another interesting statistic would be a comparison to the EU, rather than Western Europe. The EU is coming from slightly lower baseline figures, it’s GDP/capita is only about $37,000, but in a population comparison it has 501,259,000 as compared to the US’s population of 308,354,000.

    It’s a bit of a near-future SF trope to talk about a resurgent EU bloc, but I wonder if that’s simply because it’s not too far-fetched.

15. 15. D. Ch. on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    I remember the Falkland’s war, and how much trouble Great Britain seemed to be having defeating Argentina (!). Also, when I first encountered the conservative complaint about how America was disproportionately responsible for Europe’s defense, it was expressed in terms of military budgets — the thesis was that much of the money that the U.S. spent on defense was money Western Europe didn’t have to, so the Europeans could afford comfortable welfare-state policies the way the U. S. could not. You got to admit your military budget graph suggests there is still something to be said for that point of view.

16. 16. Uncle Jimbo on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Tobias,

    The major problem with your analysis is the consideration of reserves in Western Europe. The vast majority of those you have added in are not reserves in the way that US Army Reserve troops are, but simply citizen soldiers who may have done a training stint or a mandatory service, but who do not train regularly in the way that our reserves do. They would be more comparable to the unorganized militia contemplated in the 2nd Amendment. They have guns, or training to use them, but are not deployable to a war zone.

    In addition most European armies have no expeditionary capability to support operations outside their home countries. They are almost wholly reliant on the US for transport, logistics and operational support anywhere they go.

    The Chinese also hide large chunks of their military spending in their industrial complex, so it is difficult to judge their actual spend.

    I agree the total decline of European forces may be exaggerated, but they really do not stack up for any use other than defense of their own countries.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J

17. 17. Steve on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Great analysis, you have probably shifted this conservative’s view in the direction of moderation. One question, what is this shared menace you refer to at the end?

18. 18. John Lynch on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    The trouble is that it’s an inefficient total. Every European country duplicates effort with the others. Most of them have air forces and navies, and all have armies. They use different weapons and have separate personnel and supply chains. The sum isn’t much more than the parts. They aren’t benefiting from economies of scale. Also, they speak a zillion different languages. They get less for the same amount of spending.

    So, it isn’t really accurate to just lump Western Europe together as one nation when they are not, in some very important ways.

    Also, there’s the question of whether they would fight together. Maybe, maybe not. Would France go to war over Estonia? That is outside the scope of the post, but it is a much bigger problem than money spent per soldier.

    What they should do in Europe is to specialize a lot of military tasks, like have the UK handle the Navy, the Germans most of the army, and so on. Other states could contribute to the defense budget of those countries if necessary. Without something like that, the Europeans will have a very low return on their defense investment compared to the US.

19. 19. Walker Freeman on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    I like your approach to this, Tobias, and I think you’ve brought out some interesting data. I myself was not aware of the level of comparative spending of the EU vs. US.

    What is left out of the analysis, however, is something that cannot be put into graphs, which is the will and commitment of each nation’s people and leadership.

    One would expect, for instance, that in international crises such as in the former Yugoslavia and currently in Afghanistan, EU countries would be pull as much of the load as the U.S. Yet in Afghanistan today the U.S. is doing most of the fighting, spending, and dying, the U.K. has been significantly involved, but other major U.S. allies such as France and Germany have been much less involved. Even in the former Yugoslavia in the ’90s, something that happened right in Europe, in the end it was the U.S. that had to step in, despite strong resistance in the U.S. to get involved at all. Likewise in Rwanda and currently in Somalia.

    Where is Europe’s willingness to step in and lead, to commit, to risk? If the U.S. and EU are near-equal partners, why does everyone look to the U.S. to be the first involved, the one to commit the most, the one expected to stick it out (often under withering criticism) while others drop off one by one?

20. 20. Californio on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Well, the data indicates that the US needs to seriously expand its reserves and invest more in the training of actual soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen. It would preferable to resemble Finland in this manner – but not a likely scenario.

21. 21. Kim du Toit on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    I’m a little more confused by the numbers, actually. Spending per soldier sounds like a decent metric — unless you can parse that number into “military” (i.e. to support battle) vs. “benefits” (welfare and entitlements).

    I have no data to support my theory (and I would have no idea where to start looking for it), but I have a suspicion that, compared to the U.S., Euro per-soldier spending is hugely skewed towards the latter — benefits — instead of “battle”.

    Indeed, I’d like to know how the U.S. spending breaks down in those two categories, because until the WoT (and prior to that, GW I) the military was fast becoming a de facto welfare system instead of a warfare-conduction one.

22. 22. Mark on Jan 15th, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Great analysis. Well thought out and good excel graphs. Thanks.

23. 23. Ed on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    This is a very interesting analysis, but I’d be careful when including reservists. Some of the countries, like Switzerland and South Korea, still have mandatory conscription for most male citizens. Switzerland’s entire male population is in the reserves until middle age. Sheer numbers are useful when mounting classic battles, but relatively useless when trying to fight low-intensity conflicts or even full-scale wars far from your borders. All those MBTs are a nice thing to have and a great way to defend against an invading conventional army, but they can’t drive the tanks to the Middle East or anywhere outside of their immediate vicinity. EU nations can’t muster enough helicopters to support their already deployed troops in Afghanistan, much less delivery heavy weapon systems there without US help. The US defensive umbrella does relieve these nations of any need to have force projection. They are safe from a full-scale invasion, but relatively powerless (relatively being the key word) to influence (militarily) matters beyond their borders for a sustained period.

    The relative spending is also somewhat misleading, because it does not include what that money is spent on. How much is spent on pensions versus procurement? What of that procurement is the best available versus a subsidy to domestic manufacturers (something the US is guilty of in certain cases)? How much goes to training? Etc.

    That said, it is interesting to see how European nations compare to the rest of the world if the US were taken out of the equation. While you see it as favorable, I wouldn’t, were I European. China and India are only likely to spend more on the military, and as you mention, they have substantially larger populations (with growing GDPs). Russia seems to be building up its already formidable strength relative to its Western near-neighbors. Meanwhile, Europe is facing demographic issues that make maintaining its current level of military spending and troop levels very difficult. So one must view Europe, and perhaps even the US, as fading powers. Of course, the US is fading from a far higher level of power than Europe. China and India will need time to catch up to Europe militarily, but not much time.

24. 24. Darren on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    It’s also worth noting that Western European countries are held to NATO standards, so they’re unlikely to get off cheap in the weapons systems department. They could save a lot of money buying S.300s instead of Patriots, or SU-33s instead of building Eurofighters, but for interoperational reasons they have need to keep to the NATO standard.

    There is also the whole European military-industrial complex to consider, their independent programs (Panavia Tornado, Eurofighter, Rafale) are also excuses to spend lots of government money keeping voters in jobs and happy, as well as keeping their engineers sharp and working between Airbus revisions. These are as much social programs as defense spending, particularly in France. Witness the troubles EADS has had with the A400 — ostensibly defense programs are continued despite development problems, very long development timelines and the fact that similar aircraft can be purchased internationally. Parallel development tracks are just as expensive as buying international (and here I am specifically thinking US equipment), and the units purchased are smaller, meaning less bang for the R&D buck. How many AESA air-to-air and air-to-ground radar systems does the world need, and how expensive is it to have Thales and Raytheon invent separate variations on the wheel?

    The most prominent argument regarding European defense capabilites comes from Robert Kagan in ‘Of Paradise and Power’, it’s a very good book. He quotes a statistic that over 90% of the bombs dropped in Serbia, a European conflict, were dropped by the US. As other commenters have mentioned, this may be because European forces are configured for homeland defense more so than power projection, whereas the US has carrier battle groups and longer-ranged strike fighters to allow it to carry the majority of the load.

    If you’re wondering why the UK and France end up high in defense expenditures, one reason could be that both of those countries maintain an independent nuclear deterrent force. Nukes are costly to maintain and you can’t run SSBNs for cheap.

    Another question I would raise is the period of time that your data covers. Political changes can lead to significant changes in expenditures. Kennedy’s budgets had defense as a portion of GDP as high as 9%, by comparison Clinton’s “Peace Dividend” budgets were as low as 3% and Bush’s two-war budgets were as high as 4.5%, if I remember correctly. Defense investments are often long-term investments in hardware, if you happen to catch the Europeans in a moderization cycle (e.g., switching from Tornados bought in the 1980s to Eurofighters, fielding a new class of frigates or submarines), your expenditure data may have a bubble in it. The other bubbles may be related to new expenditures to support those countries’ NATO operations in Afghanistan. If your data has bubbles of cash infusions included for new operations or equipment, it will overlook a lack of investment in the past that would change your conclusion.

    And finally, 0.6-0.8% of GDP is not chicken feed. In the US, that’s 80-100 billion dollars. That was a lot of money in the recent past, and over time that investment adds up.

25. 25. Eric S. Raymond on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    I’m not a conservative, myself, so I don’t have any tribal investment in defending the position you ascribe to them. But, though your numbers are illuminating, I’m a student of military history and grand strategy and it seems to me that you’re missing the conservatives’ point. Or, possibly, I’m overinterpreting the conservatives’ position in light of what I know…but here goes.

    What you establish that the Europeans are doing is spending a reasonably competitive amount of money for the functional equivalent of U.S. National Guard formations – heavy weapons and air, yeah, but no power-projection capability. Their naval posture reinforces this; none of their fleets are heavy enough to do much more than show the flag out of area. Even the Brits lack the basing infrastructure to run operations for extended periods outside the Atlantic littoral and the Med without American help; the airlift and sealift capacity they’d need just isn’t there.

    What this means is that in the event of a serious conventional-warfare threat to Europe, the EU’s strategic posture would be stuck in a static defensive mode, fighting on its own home ground rather than the enemy’s. The only possible exception to this would be an attack from Russia, which is accessible overland…but attempts to actually reach the Russian heartland from Western Europe do not have a happy history.

    “What’s wrong with this?” you might ask. It’s not like Europe actually faces any credible threat of this kind in the forseeable future. But now we’re sneaking up on the conservatives’ point…because until the end of World War II, the power-projection capability of Europe was superior to the U.S.’s or anyone else’s. Way superior. It’s why they were able to play the game called “imperialism” and fight on the other guy’s turf.

    So the conservatives have this much right. The Europeans have voluntarily retreated from a position of military dominance, abdicating to the U.S. the role of dealing with out-of-area threats. The retreat was so rapid and comprehensive that by the early 1990s they weren’t even able to properly pull their weight even in Bosnia!

26. 26. SMSgt Mac on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    I don’t believe you’re some kind of ‘Leftard’ just because your analysis is poor and superficial. May this interest be the first step on a rewarding life of learning. Your analysis is problematic for a lot of reasons, but the most important are:
    1. Acceptance of Paul Krugman’s assertions at face value. Greg Mankiw had a very useful caution on his blog the day after Krugman blew that sunshine out of his….
    2. China’s Numbers: Given their production and force modernization. They don’t add up. Like EVERY stinkin’ Commie regime, they lie..alot. RAND has an excellent assemblage of China defense topics that can (and in my case has) take years to break down and study.
    3. Your focus on proxies such as troop strength, square footage and raw $ defense budget. Focus on what was mentioned in passing at the last of your post: %GDP. While the % differences may seem small between the US and Western (old) Europe, those differences are significant when factored in year after year. Also consider the possibility that even the % we spend (outside the GWOT) is not enough to tread water forever much less modernize.

27. 27. Kman on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Tobias,

    It is very common knowledge in the Defense community that the actual defense spent in China is MUCH higher than what you show or published by others. It’s probably closer to 2 to 3 times more than what you show. They are good at hiding capabilities than are currently developing or have developed (we’ll see more evidence popping up in future just how far they are moving ahead). They are building one heck of a complex military industrial base — this is what we REALLY need to be worried about. Their military technical capabilities are advancing much faster than what we did with the Apollo program in 60s here! Of course you won’t here this from MSM or WH. They have a very real sense of purpose over there — they have something to prove and they are very committed to it. The numbers of engineers they have working on this stuff over there is astounding. And yes, the US covers up work also, but not even close to the degree China does.

28. 28. anon on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Tobias,

    Great post!

    And it validates a belief I have long held. With the Western Europeans spending that much with so many troops, there is no longer a NEED for US troops to be stationed in Europe. After all, Western Europe is so strong no one but a madman would dare invade them!

    Unless of course you hold the belief that say, American boots on holy German soil keeps the Hun somewhat quiet :-} Just as American boots within easy reach of the Japanese Imperial Palace has the same effect.

    In any case, why are so many Americans in the UK or France? Aren’t THEY our putative allies?

    Might I suggest that along with withdrawing from the peaceful nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, should not we also leave the much more warlike states of Western Europe?

29. 29. wlpeak on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    I think Chris @13 covers the current source for the ‘Slacker Euro’ argument.

    But what is missed in just arguing numbers is actual, you know, combat capability. Overpaid glorified border guards are not the same as highly trained and skilled soldiers.

    For instance, remember back in ‘90 when we were about to go into Iraq. More number crunching non military types were concluding that we would get our heads handed to us because, on paper, the Iraqi army was just so big. So many tanks, so many planes, so much more experienced than our troops in war.

    The lesson learned by all should have been that in big wars quality trumps numbers. We spend so much money so that we can project power into multiple places and go mega kinetic. Thus we ate the Iraqi army for lunch.

    But the Euros cannot do this. Thus, a comparable entity, the EU, is not comparable militarily.

    Are they slackers for this? I dunno. But they certainly are not trying to build a military a world player would want.

30. 30. Mason on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    I tend to agree with Chris here. Saying that Europe is crumbling may be somewhat of an overstatement, but I think there is some meat to the idea. Like he and you said, by the raw numbers, Europe has a decent amount of military hardware and troops, but the trouble is that they have very little ability to do anything significant beyond their own borders. If they do deploy troops overseas somewhere, their supplies and air cover are coming from the US Navy. This is quite a contrast to the colonial era, in which (basically) all of the european countries could and did regularly deploy troops overseas.

    So they may have a fine ability to defend their own borders, but almost no ability to take the fight to an overseas enemy. This may indeed be at least somewhat by design, and it may well be better then the situation during the colonial era, when those forces were mostly used to extract tribute from various native populations and set up colonies. But it does make a big difference on the international scene whether you can deploy troops anywhere you like, or at least plausibly threaten to.

    I would also take issue with the characterization of the EU as a greater military bloc. As we have seen, for example, in the runup to the Iraq war, they may be united in some ways, but there are still deep disagreements about whether to deploy military forces to do any particular thing, and what exactly they should be doing if they are deployed. IMHO, the bottom line is that various people and organizations have been trying to unite Europe for over 2,000 years, and nobody has succeeded at it yet. I’m not holding my breath for this time to be different.

    So they may not be crumbling, but their influence over international affairs is nowhere near what it used to be, or what they sometimes seem to think that it is.

31. 31. memomachine on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Hmmmmm.

    A few points:

    1. Military forces cannot be compared on a GDP basis. They also cannot be compared on a per capita basis. They also aren’t easily compared in a size basis.

    So your analysis is nonsense from start to finish.

    2. All European militaries are oriented largely around employing people and not so much on winning wars. Case in point are German troops in Afghanistan. They drink a lot, but really don’t do much else.

    3. European militaries spend the vast bulk of their funding on salaries and perks, not so much on equipment. When the US military came out with the BFT, Blue Force Tracker, there was no equivalent in the European militaries.

    4. A case in point is the UK Royal Army which is currently “consolidating” the regiments. Sure the Brits are engaged in war but they’re also busily cutting their defense budgets.

    …

    Frankly there is a lot of nonsense out there but the idea that European governments do not depend heavily on US military backing is silly.

    As for the EU being a military force? Sorry that’s a farce.

32. 32. Barry Rose on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Really good article Mr. Buckell. If you could do this for each article written by Mr. Krugman I would like to keep score for his hits and misses.

33. 33. Kevin on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    I don’t think it’s a fair assessment of the argument unless you look at relative numbers (all the ones you’re citing to are absolute). There’s a list here of a statistic that I personally think is more telling – the percentage of GDP that each country spends on its defense:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

    The numbers are a little older, but it leads to the opposite conclusion. For example, the U.S. spends 4.06 percent of its GDP on defense. The United Kingdom spends 2.4 percent, Germany 1.5 percent, Finland 2 percent, Italy 1.8 percent.

    So basically, as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. is spending twice as much on defense as compared to Western Europe. At $14.4 trillion in 2008, that means we’re allocating 288 billion per year in defense spending that, if we spent at a similar rate as Europe, would be available to us for something else.

    Whether that makes them deadbeat socialists I don’t know, but I do think there is more truth than not to the idea that Europe is paying less than they otherwise would if “Pax Americana” didn’t exist through our spending.

34. 34. Paul on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    European military are shells compared to the US. They couldn’t even drive to Kosovo. They are older, fatter, out of shape. They deploy shorter, if not at all, field their troops inadequately equipped and then poorly supplied. ( See the Brits who struggle heroically along everywhere, with nothing ) Frankly, a lot of the time outside of political solidarity, having some of their units around is a net burden to the US logistics, command.

    Your use of statistics, without the feet on the ground walking around experience reminds me of the decades of reports I’ve read about the success of GM, or Urban Renewal, or Head Start, or even my time in bureaucracies.

    To be blunt, and no knock on good EU soldiers, but the average EU unit could be taken out by a equal US reserve unit. Mis-paraphrasing Stalin ( no slouch where rubber meets the road ) Quality has a quality all it’s own.

35. 35. Kevin on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Excellent post. Well thought out and supported by verifiable data. Must admit my initial response was that you were wrong. But you have convinced me to change my mind. Your site has earned a bookmark next to Instapundent and Belmont club.

36. 36. lagibs on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    I think you are being guilty of being impressed by the “numbers”. Looking at just money figures is a poor way to judge a Europe’s fighting potential. In each of the figures you provided only a small number of troops are trained and actually have enough equipment maintained to fight.

    It is a open secret that real European fighting capability has been drained, with most European budget going into personnel cost for maintaining a “welfare” army, whose main purpose after the Cold War was to keep young men out of trouble and not actually winning wars.

    This leaves a hollow force that on a whole is inadequately trained with poorly maintained equipment. Germany, the third most powerful NATO country, is probably the most guilty of this. (If you are fluent in French, google for the French Defense Ministry readiness documents in the French press for an embarrassing examples)

    Any money left after personnel cost are spent on big prestige project like the Typhoon, and Rafale, which are of no consequence in the primary mission of NATO today which is to win in Afghanistan. Beside selective pockets of excellent NATO special forces, the way NATO troops operate in Afghanistan has been embarrassing (with exceptions).

    Even if their governments allowed them to engage in the fighting (again with exceptions), they would be unable too and/or would rely exclusively on US logistics because NATO is by definition a hollow force that has no legs or bite.

37. 37. Rick on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    No doubt about it this is a very interesting and challenging post. Two things I would question you about. First, you take published budgets of totalitarian dictatorships seriously. Sorry guy, these are lies. A second thing to think about is actual ability to fight. The performance and equipage of US allies has been less than stellar in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another way to think about this is Saddam’s army in Iraq, on paper it was a great fighting force and I guessing had a good budget. In reality it was completely useless. Budgets do not tell the whole story.

    But in any case, I would your post is great.

38. 38. James on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Your analysis may be real or not. It depends on a variable that is very hard to find. Namely:

    Is the European military largely a welfare/jobs program that pays a lot of salaries, but spends almost nothing (relative to salary) on logistics, equipment and training? Your budget numbers don’t answer that question.

    Secondly, is the above statement true for most of Europe far more than it is for Great Britain? In which case, Britain is really the only fighting force in Europe.

    Strategy Page (www.strategypage.com) has run articles in the past essentially making the above points. Are they shills for Republicans? The have seemed pretty accurate over the years I’ve been reading them, but I guess I don’t know that.

    James

39. 39. dawnfire82 on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    That’s a rather shallow analysis. There is more to military analysis than numbers of troops and dollars. i.e. the size and status of armored formations, number and capabilities of aircraft and ships, political and legal restrictions on the use of force, technological base, ammunition stores, levels of professionalism and training, etc. Most of the nations on that list are largely conscript armies, with terms of service from 1 to 3 years. Many of them have antiquated equipment, and almost none of them have fleets capable of projecting significant power further than their own coastal waters. Many of the smaller nations (like the Netherlands) have unusually large proportions of ‘Peacekeeping’ troops in place of actual combat forces and small or nonexistent armored corps. And so on.

    But since you referenced the source, I did look at that Wiki spreadsheet, organized by tanks. And it doesn’t look good. The first Western European power on the list was Italy, with 1,180, in 21st place. Next after that was Spain, with 552, in 37th place. Mexico(!) has 1,171. Turkey, 4,205. Ethiopia has 7 more tanks (400) than the United Kingdom (393). Russia has several times as many tanks (more than 22,000) as all of Western Europe combined.

    Air and naval forces are somewhat less embarrassing, but still not near the top. Egypt has more than twice as many fighter aircraft than Germany, for instance.

    Western Europe developed a dependence upon the US security guarantee that they seem to finally be starting to regret. This is not a right-wing talking point or polemical jab. It is a fact of the Cold War that has continued under its own inertia.

    And recall also that ‘Western Europe’ is merely a geographical region, not an entity. You can’t simply group all of their military power together into a gigantic lump sum of force, and you certainly can’t count Switzerland, which is famously neutral; they didn’t join the UN until 2002, and is not party to either the EU nor NATO. And speaking of NATO, it’s mostly useless anyway. One single dissenting member-state vote (like Iceland) shuts down NATO.

    Considering their relative sizes and wealth, the countries of Western Europe are not well armed. Because they haven’t had to be. With the decline and likely retreat of the US colossus, they may have to change that.

40. 40. Skyler on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    I think some important points are not addressed here.

    Europe has numbers and it spends money. But what capabilities do it’s various militaries have? You use the term “force projection” rather loosely. China and North Korea might be large but they really can’t project their power very far, being mostly limited to nations directly bordering them. Most of Europe is similar with, as far as I can remember only France, the UK, and marginally Spain having any force projection capability at all. All others are almost entirely dependent on others for any projection. Even those with some ability are extremely limited. Only the UK has acted independently in the past thirty years and they had a lot of problems in the Falklands.

    Contrast the US which has a constant and continuous global presence and abiity to project it’s power anywhere on the globe. This is what Krugman’s critics are referring to.

    In essence, if these numbers are correct then it only showcases that Europe is not getting much for their money or that their militaries exist mostly to supplement ours.

    Last point. I’m a reservist but even with that bias I will tell you that reservists are quite limited until they are called up and have a couple months to train. Most reservists in other nations cannot mobilize and be effective for quite some time. Including reservists in totals must be done with this in mind.

41. 41. Chris on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    …France’s 65 million citizens…

42. 42. JIMV on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    This is a false comparison as it implies money buys the same thing across borders…China can buy a lot more top flight aircraft than France or the UK because their manufacturers pay their employees chump change. What really matters is not spending or men under arms BUT material numbers and force projection ability. Remember, the UK could not even threaten to project sufficient force to get is kidnapped sailors back from a 3rd rate power like Iran a year or so ago.

    Yes, European powers DO have sufficient military power to protect themselves from other European Powers, but defending their world trade routes, friends in the rest of the world, or to respond to aggression half a globe away…nope, not possible.

43. 43. Keith on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    First, I’m rather perplexed by your thesis that the Europeans are holding up their fare share when you give us the supposed apples-to-apples chart showing that Western Europe spends approximately one third that of the US on defense. But in the end, you say Europe spends 2.5 to 2.7% of GNP on defense to America’s 3.3%.

    Not sure how they arrived at the GNP statistics. If the US has a GNP of roughly $14 trillion and we spend 600 billion on defense, that roughly 4.3% of GNP.

    As far as “Europe” is concerned, the definition keeps switching from Western Europe, to Eurozone Europe, to (what I expect) is European NATO nations. This was probably done by Krugman to massage the numbers to fit his thesis. Judging from your graphs alone, which seem to reflect the biggest European nations (and certainly the vast majority of expenditure) they don’t even contribute a third of US spending.

    To find out what the real numbers are, first define your point. What the conservatives are complaining about are the traditional West European nations as defined by the Cold War. Stick with them and don’t introduce other nations at random.

    Now, whether they contribute their fare share, you must determine GNP per capita at purchasing power parity for the US as opposed to West Europe (as defined above). Leave out any of these criteria, and you muff the comparison.

    To further complicate matters, you have to look at how expenditures are directed. Contrary to your heavy reliance on troop numbers, they matter little compared to amount spent per soldier, which a quick look at your chart says is again a fraction of US spending.

    A major complaint by the US is that the Europeans spend their military budgets on personnel as a “make-work” program that has little to do with their ability to project force in order to help police the world.

    In fact, the Europeans have almost no capacity to project force whatsoever and rely on the US for most of their logistics. The very few soldiers that they actually pony up come close to crippling their military budgets.

    The claim that Europe is able to defend itself (now that the Cold War is over) I don’t think is in dispute. Though during the Cold War we certainly subsidised their defense. Now that its over–and the Europeans claim to want their fare share of say in international affairs–we’re asking them to pay their fare share as well (which goes well beyond the meager amount needed to defend their boarders now that the Cold War is over–again, thanks to us).

    This is a very complicated issue, and I’m sure I’ve forgotten many important comparatives. But answering these questions might be a good start.

44. 44. Hyphenated American on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    The main hypothesis is whether Western Europe is doing enough to boost its military capability. If we are to take the data presented on this website at face value (military spend, then Western Europe should be able to take on Russia, China, India, Iran and both Koreas at the same time. But alas, this is obviously untrue, since Western Europe does not have enough soldiers nor military equipment for that. All in all, European military spending is akin to a large welfare program, and its purpose is not defense but “social justice”. The only country in the whole Western Europe which does something for defense is United Kingdom – everybody else is quite pathetic.

45. 45. Bob D. on Jan 15th, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    There are only two military forces in the world that can match the United States military forces in terms of quality and ability. Israel and Japan. The rest might want to be, but don’t have the resources or resolve.

46. 46. Rob Jones on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    I have spent my entire adult life either in the military or working for the military. This experience has taught me that troop levels and money spent are very poor indications of military commitment. Your analysis is that of a novice. Also, even if that information was as important as you portray it, Wikipedia is not a valid source for this information.

    Your analysis does not take into account where money is spent. How much is spent on training and doctrine? How much on weapons development? How much on pensions? How much on social programs? How much on base infrastructure? These are just a few of the questions that must be answered before one can make a judgment on commitment.

    Western Europe wastes an enormous amount of money in their military budgets on social programs. Their weapons development is completely insufficient. Their equipment supply and reserve equipment is completely insufficient. Their training is poor. Anyone who has recently served with the British has marveled at the quality of their soldiers and despaired at the lack of proper equipment and support.

    You should have consulted an expert before simply going to Wikipedia, pulling some graphs and pronouncing Western Europe committed to their defense. The fact is that the bulk of Western Europe’s military is just a large social program that is used to provide jobs to a segment of their citizens and is not a proper fighting force.

    Both you and Mr. Krugman have done a disservice to your readers by making uninformed judgments based on irrelevant information that sound good to a novice but is obviously incorrect to an expert.

47. 47. W Smith on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    You make the mistake most analysts make. We pay our sargents $50k a year and China pays theirs about $5k a year. Europe also pays about 30% less than US for its troops. Therefore they get more bang for their troop bucks.
    On the other side is equipment such as Navy ships, aircraft and tanks. US swamps Europe on this. Iraq had a lot more troops than US but lost quickly.

48. 48. Steve Ducharme on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Accepting the #’s at face value for the moment. Two thoughts.

    In a regional conflict, “European” command structure would likely be a disaster. Ohio vs France be a very fair comparison as Ohio would have no independant influence on deployment. I expect the US would have much greater efficiencies and react much more quickly than the combined nations of Europe thus likely negating the “sum of their parts”. But I admit that it tis only tangentially related to your point.

    There is also a historical aspect that is not being factored in. This is a decent enough snapshot. I would be interested to see these regions (US Europe Russia China India etc etc..) charted over time (in current dollars) and see which way the charts are trending. I would imagine that accumulated spending over given periods of time and history would greatly favor differing parts of the world. Europe until the 20’s and then US/USSR from post WWII to current. The future will likely see India and China grow drastically but that is only a guess. In total (and current) dollars I would still wager that the cold war years would put the US / USSR way out front.

    Still, interesting reading and a very good snapshot analysis. And that’s coming from a knuckle dragging conservative.

49. 49. Steve Ducharme on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Please forgive my previous typo’s I crashed mid comment and pasted it back together quickly.

50. 50. lucklucky on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    First of all no one compares military spenditure by dolar values.
    And i am not even going to hidden budgets, budgets outside Military etc, which means it is very difficult . I am talking about comparing to the % of GDP. That shows the effort a population makes in its defense with caveat that there are always holes precise values.

    Going to analysis, it is very incomplete.And i am not even talking about expeditionary Forces.
    If it was sound would have questioned why Europe had the need to ask mainly USAF to bomb Serbia in 90’s. If they need to ask today for USAF to take a comparable effort the answer would be yes they still need USA. Now imagine Russia takeover of Baltics and a part of Poland and absent Nukes(France and Britain have) what could Europe do without US?
    They can’t unless they put the industry in War footing because they don’t have stockpiles to fight any war that lasts more than a week.

    “Regarding GDP/capita, I should point out that according to Wolfram|Alpha Western Europa has a GDP/capita of $43,821 compared to the US’s $45,230. So they are in fact on a par.”

    What is dolar/euro value in that comparison?

    This shows that in 2008 it was impossible to achieve that difference.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

51. 51. robotech master on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    While europe maybe able to defend itself this analysis displays alot of novice mistakes and a huge number of “best case scenarios”.

    First you compare apples to oranges with reserve numbers and such with countries like Finland… they basically have national draft policies… if your going to throw them in as “reserves” then you need to restructure your argument that all US forces are “active” and the US be given the same “reserve” policy…

    Basically meaning that redneck billy bob will be on his front porch to shoot at the invading chinese(or whoever). Overlooking the fact the US public is
    1. Armed to the teeth(and in fact better armed and trained then most countries armies).
    2. Is very willing and has a long history of willingness to engage in armed conflict(unlike many euro countries).

    One must then consider that in a real global war the US army active and reserve numbers would increase to the numbers of 10-30 million people. The numbers are so large in fact that the US would likely be able to deploy 20 million soldiers overseas and still have millions of both active and “Finland” style reserves at home making it near impossible for anyone to invade. Once again unlike the euros(expect the UK) the US could deploy those 20 million soldiers anywhere in the world.

    Once again when you compare apples to apples the numbers are very lopsided in favor of the US. More so when you consider that the US has a long history of taking the fight to the enemy vs europe history of cowering until the last minute. If the US was invaded europe its doubtful would lift a finger to help us…(expect the UK) on the other hand its well known that the US even if many euro countries treat us like crap will deploy large amounts of forces and aid to protect europe.

    What could be called your “best case scenario” would be the euros working together without the US. Never in history has this every happened and their is zero proof it would ever happen even with the US being directly involved. Lets once again take Finland which has always maintained a neutral stance in everything and refuses to join NATO. You’d be hard pressed to find a single sane person that would say that Finland is going to jump into battle with russia should they invade europe…. never going to happen. The only way Finland(and many other countries) would enter the war is if they were invaded. If russia offers them a non-aggression pact they will take it, same with many euro countries. Which of course means those countries won’t be providing a untied front and thus shouldn’t even be counted.

    This further weakens the overall euro defense in many respects.

    Another major problem with the europes is their complete lack of combat seasoning and more importantly that they run huge draft armies. All throughout history draftees have always fought at a sub-par level next to people that have some type of willingness to fight or join a fight(even if “required”).

    Now on the plus side for the euros is that draftees tend to perform better when defending they’re homeland but still not anywhere close to what a volunteer soldier is going to do. Europe is even more in problems from this perspective do to the almost pacifist nature of many of its countries. The US currently has millions of combat seasoned troops from iraq and afgan… the euros outside of poland and some of the other countries has near none… nor do they have commanders who have run military ops other then how to supply enough sun screen for all the sun bathing they do in afgan.

    Money alone does not make a good soldier…

    And what maybe the biggest of all issues when dealing with europe. When you remove the UK, europe as a whole couldn’t deploy even 1/10 of their military anywhere. They have next to zero blue navy or transport capacity. This means that europe can only defend itself(and barely at that).

    With china and even india building deep water navies the euros fall farther and farther behind… for one of the key things you need to wage war is raw resources… something that once again europe lacks most of all oil(along with lots of other resources). To put it into perspective just how lacking the euros are without the UK, the US Coast Guard would likely crush the combined navies of europe if outfitted with the proper missile setups.

    We’ve seen how much chaos can be caused when russia cuts eruope off from natural gas and other resources. Unless we get some massive global warming(which isn’t going to happen since were entering a 30 year cooling cycle) europe will be even more dependent on importing energy.

    Europe as a whole is effectively the UK of 1940 without the deep water navy… sure they could fight hitler back but they will run out of ammo, fuel, food and countless other supplies.

    Europe without the US to hold their hand is nothing more then a small collection of countries that would slowly be eaten until they hit the germany border in which france and germany would defend together… they would throw all of other eastern european countries as cannon fodder in their attempt to slow down and bloody an invading russia. France, Germany and other countries have even publicly stated repeatedly and recently that the warsaw pact countries “still belong in russia’s sphere of influence” and some have said that they just plain belong to russia still.

    The simple fact is that with out the US the euros are spoiled children who would gladly make their own side deals and so forth as they have always done throughout all of history. WW3 would play out almost exactly as WW2 did…

52. 52. mondonico on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    A thoughtful analysis, to be sure. However, I’m not sure the number of reserves and the amount of money spent in Europe necessarily supports your conclusion. Are the reserve members really trained up? Is the money spent on training and equipment rather than personnel welfare tranfer payments?

    How do the European nations project force? Didn’t the UK mothball most of its fleet? Last I heard, France’s flagship, the carrier Ch.de Gaulle, had to limp back to port after a propeller fell off.

    You ask, who could ever invade Europe in the US’s absence? The near term answer is Russia. The economic collapse of the USSR did not deprive Russia of its most plentiful military resources — men and the means to feed them and fuel their tanks.

    (The long term answer is jihadist Islam, which has already started its slow-motion invasion.)

    Again, you may be right, but the raw numbers don’t necessarily prove you right.

53. 53. Mondo on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Toby,

    Since I think the best posts–at least for me–are those that provide information that I can use, I rate this one: “Excellent”.

    You were completely down the the middle with no axes to grind. Others are free to use the data you’ve collected and presented in one handy-dandy report any way they see fit.

    This post should be tagged “spin-ready”.

    Very useful in that regard.

54. 54. Harun on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Have you corrected for the fact that Western soldiers must be paid salaries far higher than Russians or Chinese?

    10,000 Americans or Germans cost far more than 10,000 Chinese, just in salary and benefit terms.

    Also, the EU has a larger population than the USA, relies on trade more, and has land borders with difficult states. Seems to me they should have larger military than the USA rather than the other way around.

55. 55. Someone on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    Why not just look at spending as a percent of GDP and save a lot of breath and typing?

56. 56. Chris Gerrib on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    A few points:

    1) Power projection is not the end-all of military power. China has very limited power projection capabilities, but nobody seems to argue that their military is crumbling or weak. Whether or not a country is able to project military power is (or should be) a function of foreign policy.

    2) Argentina vs. Great Britian actually supports Buckell’s point. Argentina has around 40 million people, Great Britain 60 million. A fight between the two sides taking place fairly close to Argentina’s borders and 6,000 miles from Britain’s should be a relatively close thing.

    3) Yes, military might is more than dollars spent on troops. But for a first-level analysis, that’s where you start.

    4) The “but China can get more military cheaper” is again somewhat true. It also overlooks a lot of factors, including that in China as elsewhere, if you don’t pay the troops enough cash, they don’t stay in very long. There’s a reason that China is trying to transition to a higher-paid military.

    5) In 1979, the US was unable to project enough force to get its embassy back from the Iranians. “Ability” and “will” are different things.

57. 57. NK on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    alas commenters such as memo machine and rob jones are correct. the Euro armies are almost entirely extensions of social welfare programs and localized defense forces. the military does what their governments want, provide social welfare programs for unemployable teens and twenty-somethings owing to stagnant civilian job markets, civil defense for emergencies and a credible deterence against miltary attack from Russia, Iran or North Africa. Those armies cannot and will not deploy against enemies, on that the Euros rely exclusively on the US, Brits, Aussies and Eastern Euros. Krugman is as usual wrong and misleading.

58. 58. george on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Those are great graphs and thought for provoking, too. I understand better why the EU bureaucrats are aching to form a more perfect union. However, if Europe actually felt like it was a unitary power, the aggregated military power would be more impressive. But Europe no more has a united foreign policy than it has a military one.

59. 59. Beldar on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    You’re trying to give the impression that you’ve made an apples-to-apples comparison, because only then can you argue that the numbers prove your case.

    But — as many commenters have pointed out — for a variety of reasons, your comparisons aren’t apples-to-apples. You’re looking at an international fruit market in which some vendors don’t even HAVE apples.

    That turns this into a not-very-useful exercise.

    You’ve also set up a ridiculous straw-man by defining the relevant question as whether “Americans are bearing the whole burden of defending freedom.” No one argues that, and knocking down that strawman is easy.

    The relevant question — which you implicitly recognize, because that’s what your attempt to do an apples-to-apples comparison is designed to shed light upon — is whether America bears a DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE of “the burden of defending freedom.”

    Trying to answer that question by counting soldier heads (including reserves that really shouldn’t be counted as soldiers) and defense budget expenditures is stupid: By those measures, the North won the Civil War very decisively by the end of 1861. Action counts. Casualties certainly count. Grant and Lincoln understood that; McClelland didn’t.

    When you actually factor in what various countries have actually DONE to bear “the burden of defending freedom,” the U.S. has, since 1939, carried a vastly disproportionate share of the burden. That’s a subjective judgment, but it’s one in which I’m quite confident, your strawberry-to-cumquat charts from Wikipedia notwithstanding.

    It need not be a bitter judgment. Recognizing that America has borne most of the burden, even a disproportionate burden (based on population or even GDP), doesn’t necessarily imply an insult to other countries. We are an incredibly gifted nation, with broad and deep resources and traditions, even though we’re not naturally very good as hegemonists. The Brits have been fabulous allies on the whole, and I’m appalled by the way Obama has disrespected the “Special Relationship.” The French have been useful in the cause of freedom more than occasionally, if nowhere nearly as consistently as the British. The Germans and the Japanese are still valued strategic partners in their geographic areas of influence. And one can be, and should be, genuinely appreciative going down the list of countries who’ve been part of, for example, the Gulf War coalition or, more recently, the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.

    But tell me what the Belgians, for example, have done to actually bear any burden in defending freedom on a worldwide basis. A strong argument can be made that Poland and El Salvador have made more significant contributions to the establishment or maintenance of freedom in the world than the Belgians — and that’s pretty pathetic. You’re going to need some more creative charts to make that argument, I think.

60. 60. Steve C. on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Taking your numbers at face value implies that Europe should be able to field an active military force at least as large as the US. From that starting point it’s clear that Europe should be able to provide a 100,000 man expeditionary force to fight the good war in Afghanistan.

    They haven’t and by their own admission, they can’t.

    Poland provided an entire brigade for Iraq while the Bundeswehr has trouble fielding one battalion in Afghanistan. And the Canadian commitment to Afghanistan as a percentage of active duty/reserve forces is higher than the US.

    The numbers you cite appear correct, but there is clearly something else behind the data.

61. 61. jvon on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    I don’t think one has to be a “conservative” to observe that the US has 70,000 troops in Germany, and question why they are there if not to provide for Europe’s defense.

    So: if the Europeans are capable of defending themselves, why ARE we spending all this money to do it? And do you not suppose the Europeans would have to spend more money on defense if we did not?

    I for one have never argued that Western Europe was some kind of third-world region; clearly that is not the case. What I do say is that we are subsidizing them and enabling them to live like a bunch of spoiled teenagers. And now we’ve got a ruling class here who doesn’t even understand why the Europeans can afford the indulgent social programs they’ve enacted, and seem to believe that we can have them here too while continuing to pay for Europe’s defense — and our own, of course.

    Interesting graphs, but I think you miss the point.

62. 62. luagha on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    It’s also important to think about ‘generations’ of military technology. We say things about how the F-22 Raptor is a ’sixth generation’ stealth fighter. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is by comparison only a ‘fifth generation’ fighter. It is slower, less capable, and has less powerful avionics/radars/computers. (It can carry more weight for bombs and ammo than the F-22 Raptor however).

    The F-22 is what the US developed for ourselves for personal air superiority. The Joint Strike Fighter is what we developed with a consortium to put together so that anyone who wants one can buy one – it is designed to be a cash cow, a plane that everyone who ‘bought in’ at the beginning can buy… and thus leapfrog their own Air Force capabilities from second or third generation (like Saddam had) to fifth.

    Anyone with several Joint Strike Fighters and the support capability to run them can be expected to defeat the air force and attain air superiority over any third world nation running the old Russian/French/Chinese surplus.

    The F-22 Raptor is capable of taking out the Joint Strike Fighters. (We won’t know how many until the Joint Strike Fighters are actually finished and tested. Right now the F-22 beats upgraded-avionics F-16’s (about generation 4.5-5) thirty to one. That means you have to field 30 F-16s as meat for one to get close enough to the F-22 to detect it and shoot at it.

    And if we take all this back to the question at hand, it’s that these other nations aren’t developing the state of the art the way we are. Russia was, China has been mostly stealing from us. But Western Europe simply isn’t maintaining the technology curve on their own.

63. 63. Oscar on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Numbers of troops are irrelevant without the political will to use them or the logistical capability to project power, neither of which Western Europe has.

    Think about it. Why was Western Europe unable to stop Milosevic without the US? Milosevic was a third rate dictator in Western Europe’s back yard. With the Exception of the UK, all the European powers could have transported their forces by land to the former Yugoslavia. Yet Western Europe was completely unable and/or unwilling (take your pick; the result is the same) to neutralize him without the US taking the lead and the bulk of the mission.

    The US had to fly and ship forces from across the Atlantic Ocean to come to Europe’s defense for the third time in one century because the Europeans were unwilling/unable to handle a problem on their own continent… for the third time in one century.

64. 64. A Friend on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Interesting post. According to your data, with similar population we spend three times what Western Europe spends on the military. The difference, $400 billion, is what, about $1,000 for every single person in Western Europe? It’s laughable to suggest they are doing anything remotely like us. Take $4,000 from every European family every year for defense and see if it doesn’t change their attitudes towards welfare taxes. That’s the conservative argument: they are coasting on our spending.

    As others have pointed out, inputs (men, material) are not outputs (effective military.) You want to spend LESS and use LESS men, to have a more productive and effective military. Although the individual service members of other countries can be outstanding, on the global stage the US is the only effective military force.

    If you truly believe the European countries are spending adequately to defend themselves, then we should lower our spending to their levels, scrap the aircraft carriers, satellites, missiles etc., and each get our $4,000 per year back. This will work great, for a while. Also, we can save some money by no longer installing locks on the doors to our houses. No one will come in, I’m sure.

65. 65. Phat on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    Tobias,

    First of all, love your books!

    Second, I am an AF officer and a C-5 pilot and the one thing your analysis neglects is that we are the only country that has the ability to deploy our forces with very little notice.

    Our airlift capabilities are the cornerstone to our force projection capabilities.

    No other nation has the ability to there ‘first with the most’ than the US.

    The soldiers I served with in ISAF in Afghanistan were awesome. The Estonians stood out as especially bad ass. The Brits are good, the Germans as well.

    The crux of the matter is: who provides the logistics?

    When it comes to delivering ‘bullets and beans’ the USAF is who handles it. The European countries can have an awesome fighting force, but none of them have the infrastructure to support them in the field.

    Maybe the Germans, they have a small force of C-130’s, but I doubt they have any airdrop capability.

    Bottom line: Love your books!

66. 66. Lyle on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    The obviously deficiency in Europe’s military is the lack of political unity, and therefore the problem of using all that military power as a balanced whole. There’s also a lot of duplication of forces in Europe, which makes Europeans forces on the whole, much weaker than they appear to be on paper.

    Europe needs to have a combined military arm for any true comparison to be fruitful.

67. 67. Kirk Parker on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    I mostly agree with what Eric S. Raymond says in #25, but the concluding bit about Bosnia misses the mark. If my map-eyeballing is correct, no place in Bosnia is further from Germany than Moscow is. I’d put the European failure in Bosnia squarely in the Will column, with maybe only a small-print apostrophe under Capabilities.

68. 68. Xavier Itzmann on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Two quick points:

    1. The size of defense must be proportional to the wealth being protected and the threat. I think the Finns get the point, as do the French. The Germans and Spaniards, not so much. The French outsmart the Finns because they bought the trump card -nukes- early on and keep advertising they will not hesitate to use them.

    2. There was an article in the WSJ about how the Belgian army is significantly made up of “lifer” cooks and barbers. People who can hardly be considered “soldiers” and who are waiting to be 45 to retire with full benefits. And if I recall correctly the Belgian government sees its army as a sort of jobs program.

69. 69. PMain on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Interesting argument, but in truth our NATO allies aren’t as well trained, supplied or combat ready as the money spent would suggest. About a year or so ago, BlackFive had a letter written by a french soldier & his amazement at the attitude, training, drive & accomplishments of the US military. The US soldiers were in better physical & mental condition, better prepared & out of all nations present were the ones that could be counted on to support, give aid or rescue troops from other nations.

    While the monies spent maybe in league via comparison, the facts from the field tend to show there is a much greater poverty between Europe & the US – w/ the exception being the UK, Poland & Canada.

    I’d suggest reading some of the military blogs including postings of people actually in the field w/ our allies & the consistent story I’ve gathered so far is that they mean well, they are very poor in direct comparison.

    Here is the link to the artivle I mentioned above. I apologize I couldn’t embed it properly.

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/12/french-comments-on-us-military.html

70. 70. Marc Malone on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Some things not considered. (Note: I read all the comments first.)

    Our reserves are able to go to war within 30 days, and this includes the National Guard units. They are not quite as effective as the regular units, but they are far superior to most anyone else’s units, because many of the members have extensive regular unit experience. Our guys get at least six months of training before they can even join a unit.

    To compare, Euro reserve units are pathetic. Even their regular units consist of 65% short-term (one-year) conscripts, except the Brits. The Brits sign up for six year hitches, which is why they are well-trained (but their equipment lacks).

    We spend a LOT of money on rear area stuff. We STILL have unused bases. We do a lot of scenario development and war theory. Our military Intel has surpassed the CIA in its scope and ability. Force projection is absolutely a requirement for us. That big moat cuts both ways. All this means that it requires that we have 10 men for each combat soldier deployed to fight, but that one man fighting is FAR superior to anyone else’s, especially when you consider our extensive actual combat experience. (Example: Fallujah. Brits got their butts kicked. Our Marines went in and cleaned it out in short order.)

    If you take out the money spent on force projection (our massive logistics infrastructure that no one else has), you’ll see that we still spend somewhat more than the Euros, but we get far more bang for the buck. Ours is a professional military. Our total reserves should be included as part of our standing army, because our reservists are trained.

    If we decided to invade Europe, it would be a bit tough at first, but would rapidly become a lopsided fight. We would inflict enormous losses, their reserves would not be up to any kind of par, and their morale would collapse in short order. This force projection and quality is what makes us the world’s lone superpower… and don’t you forget it. It’s apples and oranges.

71. 71. Holdfast on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    A couple of things to think about in any comparison:

    1) The US has certain assets that are simply not found in European militaries – supercarriers and heavy bombers. These things cost a LOT of $$, and the Euros just don’t have them.

    2) The Euros generally lack the tools necessary to conduct expeditionary warfare – large numbers of transport planes, and transport and assault shipping. The French and Brits have a little, but neither could assault-land more than a brigade minus. Again, these are invaluable tools of power projection, and America picks up almost the whole tab.

    3) Most European armies are still configures as speed bumps for the Warsaw Pact, lacking the equipment, training, doctrine and will for expeditionary operations. For instance, because the bulk of the German Army are draftees, only a small portion is actually available for overseas operations, since draftees are not deployed outside Europe.

    4) I don’t have the numbers, but things like aircraft readiness and modernization lifecycles are important. How old are the systems? How much is spent on acquisition, and how much on maintenance?

    5) The US Navy generally patrols the world’s waterways, which protects everyone’s commerce – if the US didn’t or scaled back, what would be the cost to the Euros.

    Look at it this way, if the US were to disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow, how much extra would the Euros have to spend to achieve security similar to what they enjoy today.

    If Europe were to disappear tomorrow, how much extra, if anything, would the US have to spend to achieve the security it has today? Or would it be a net saving. A world without Europe would be a poorer one for a who host of reasons – but it might be cheaper for the US military. Without Europe, a lot of America’s points of friction with Russia would disappear. Also, America would have a greater dominance in high tech weapons without the French selling technology to some of America’s adversaries.

    Nobody expects that Europe would or could save America from an invasion by, um – Russia? Anybody? Canada?

    America still extends an explicit guaranty to Europe, protecting it from the unlikely, but not impossible, possibility of invasion or other attack.

72. 72. Andrew Robinson on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    The budget spending for China is much underreported, like the old Soviet Union (present Russia does much better) the “official” defense budget was actually a fraction of the actual spending.

    One thing to consider, as to whether the US is carrying European defense, is what we are spending on. European countries spends little on military transportation and offshore support ability, as opposed to the US

    While the US transportation capacity is for more than just supporting our allies (like, invading Iraq), it’s still money spent in part to defend Europe, if needed. Also, Europe largely uses our transport to shift their own forces aboard in bulk.

    In addition, until ten years ago or so, our entire strategic nuclear defense force was in part to defend Europe. Not only did we defend ourselves, but we also shielded Europe from Soviet Union/Russia NBC threats.

    In short, a significant part of the US military budget is spent on dual use capabilities that not only serve the US, but fills in crucial gaps in European budgets, which they are unwilling to spend for on their own.

73. 73. matt on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    Interesting graphs, but it leaves out a significant factor, which is the real cost per equipped soldier.

    China’s military is massive, but does not have a great ability to project force. The cost per soldier for equipment is based upon the “China price”. Quality of weapons systems is functional but primitive by Western standards in most cases. Same with Russia, India, and Pakistan.

    On the other hand, the cost to equip Western European soldiers is the highest in the world, as much of the cost is swallowed up by indirect spending. The bureaucrat/REMF ratio is higher.

    In Afghanistan, a good proving ground, it has been proven time and again that the Western European armies are simply underequipped. Inadequate armor, transport, weaponry, and training have all been seen. Frankly, many of our allies have been doing a magnificent job with shoestring budgets. The defense budget in the UK has become a national scandal.

    In China, the PLA is the largest industrial employer in the country and has been able to fund itself with more independence that in any other country. I doubt the Politburo even knows ow vast their resources are. Believe me, they run their Army on the cheap in all ways possible so the bang for the buck (literally, in this case) is much higher. Their secondary (or maybe primary) function is to protect the regime at all costs so this is a factor in resource allocation as well.

    lastly, the training issues in Western Europe are manifest. The Regular military in almost every country face daily issues our military would find intolerable.As to territorial/reserve units, they are more militia than military.

    The differentiator in the U.S. military is that it has been trained to fight many battles; counterinsurgency, nuclear warfare, force projection, logistics, sea lane protection, nation building,etc and does an amazing job in each of these arenas.

    When assessing relative military strength, the devil is in the details

74. 74. RHH on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Sorry, couldn’t let it pass. While we could quibble/dispute a %GDP here, or a population figure there, and I got all revved up to go all googley sitey on you…….Huh. Let’s just go right down to your bottom line instead of discussing intermediates. You concur with Krugman that Europe makes an effort at defense that, while not equal to ours, is in the same ballpark.Please allow me to infer from that, that Europes defense capabilities must somewhere in the same ballpark. Let’s compare directly the numbers of supercarriers.Of ‘light’ carriers. Oh wait.

    Your conclusion is flawed to death.

75. 75. Chris on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Many moderate-conservatives, such as myself, have never doubted that there is still a solid military commitment in Europe. EU countries routinely have (and continue to) provide military support and personnel for US-related missions…though not as much as they used to. They also continue to provide a presence in their former colonies (France is a notable case of this, with a sizeable presence in many parts of Africa).

    My argument, though, that Europe IS a “economic hellhole”, stems not from a supposed military decline, but through the resultant oppressive taxes that support both that level of military spending in conjunction with the burdensome social-support networks and other socialist-leaning programs that most of the European countries, and certainly all of the “major” EU countries, have in force. These military spending numbers actually lend MORE weight to that belief, now that I’m seeing how much more they actually do spend as a percentage of their population base.

76. 76. Al Fin on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    An interesting analysis. Food for thought, and fodder for further discussion.

    Many of the comments point out that the reality of combat and war is far different from the analysis of relative strengths. An analyst is not a soldier, typically. An analyst goes home to a good dinner, a few drinks, and a warm bed.

    Too bad we cannot send cardboard cutouts of statistical graphs to war, to do the fighting.

    But no. The map is not the territory, the model is not the climate, and the analysis is not the reality. The critically important things were left out, things only a real soldier would even know to think about.

    Toby, you’re an intellectual. Your concerns are an intellectual’s concerns. Those would take up perhaps 1/10th of 1% of what is important in the world. I think you understand that. You have never come across as arrogant.

77. 77. Stan on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    The analysis is just a start. Charts and graphs are tools to present information: their advantage is simplicity, their drawback is inablilty to accomodate complexity. So, using graphs and charts for analysis is problematic. Correct usage avoids misleading inferences. The better informed comments present the essential aspects that the charts and graphs don’t address.

    This whole post is a lesson about Krugman and his assertions. On the surface, ignoring complexity and nuance, he makes a presentation – but simple graphs and charts don’t necessarily lead to correct conclusions.

    I think the “proof text” on the issue (as said by others) is Bosnia/Kosovo… Europe couldn’t/wouldn’t respond to the admitted crisis and it speaks directly to the issue of their willingness and ability to defend themselves.

78. 78. the brain on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    I would like to point out that much of the EU’s equipment is of inferior stock. The EU may have a grand total of 8 Aircraft Carriers, but these are small carriers that mass around 14 to 50 thousand tons. By contrast the US has 10 nuclear carriers that mass over 100,000 tons each. Britain and Germany can afford the better US fighters, but the rest of the EU relies on the cheaper F-16 and variants as their main force.

    The EU also has a large variety of equipment. Eastern Europe uses a variety of updated Soviet designs while Britian, Germany and France have competing tanks, rifles and aircraft designs alongside considerable US equipment. This makes logistics more expensive for the EU then the US.

    Some EU military forces pull double duty as police. A third of France’s troops are part of the “Gendarmerie”. Finland, Denmark, Greece, Germany, and Switzerland have conscripts in the force. These forces are less well trained and equipped then full time volunteer military forces.

    Nor is the full extent of the EU’s forces available at any given time. Member nations can block the use of their troops and equipment for specific missions, or as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq put such restrictions on their use that they are more a liability.

    Lastly, as other posters have mentioned, the EU lacks the ability to project its military might outside of its own borders. They have only 40 or so long range transports, compared to 120 in the USA. Similarly they don’t have much in the way of beach landing ships or carrier groups. If they cannot ship forces commercially they have little ability to get them their on their own.

    As such the EU cannot effectively enforce its own political decrees. EU forces alone could not have defeated Saddam’s Iraq, nor invade and largely defeat Afghanistan. They don’t have the ability to deter North Korea from invading the South, nor protect Taiwan from China. An offer by the EU of protection to former Soviet client states is a hollow one, as the EU has not demonstrated any ability to defend another country. As such they have reduced political clout internationally. This is what conservatives gripe about. The EU can defend itself from external aggression, but that is about it. If the USA was ever invaded, the EU could not muster troops quickly enough to assist.

79. 79. RHH on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    RE: #53
    Just a additional thought for those of you who don’t appreciate my quick hitting snide.
    Real world examples can provide you an opportunity to understand. The recent unpleasantness in the Balkans: most of a decade of rolling civil wars and mass civilian slaughter while the ‘never again’ euros dithered. They wouldn’t and couldn’t intervene in their own backyard until we finally said enough. Gulf War I, where the euros’ geostrategic interests were certainly more at risk than ours. Their minimal military contributions were almost only useful for political/PR purposes.

80. 80. Alex on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Sometimes numbers don’t tell the whole truth. Take some recent history – the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. In all three cases, there was much anecdotal evidence that despite these numbers, the US military left these others far far behind. So much so that even soldiers from these Western European countries criticized the gap. I doubt many in the former USSR satelite states would feel very safe if all they had to rely on were their Western brethren. Does any sane thinking person actually believe the EU would be spending at the same levels they are with Russia on their doorsteps if it was not for their overreliance on NATO and US support?

    Your question might easily be turned around to ask how so much money is being spent on such ineffective forces.

81. 81. Naif Mabat on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    This may or may not pertain to Western Europe in this century, but it’s probably worth pointing out that the size of the military (however you measure it) is not necessarily a measure of its efficacy or prospects in war.

    History is replete with examples of armed forces that looked awesome on paper but collapsed like cards in the heat of battle. Training, a sense of mission, and political resolve on the home front can make or break armies.

    Just to name one example, on the eve of WWI, everybody took two things for granted:

    1) Austro-Hungary could easily squash Serbia, which would be helpless without the Russians.

    2) Russia had the largest and most formidable army in Europe, if not in the initial mobilization, then in the long run as it had near endless resources.

    These assumptions were based on numerical strength and estimated resources. Yet as soon as the fighting began, it was clear that Austro-Hungary could not successfully invade Serbia, even before the Russians got involved. The first Russian action was against East Prussia, where Russia enjoyed a 2:1 manpower advantage over the German defenders. Yet the invading Russian armies were completely routed. And after two years of fighting with little success, the Russians lost the will to continue fighting. The Austo-Hungarian army had also completely imploded by that point.

    This is just one of many such historical examples. Clausewitz loved to point out how war was not an exact science. Things often turn out differently than they seemed on paper in peace time. Again, it’s not clear what this says about Western Europe at the present time. But that’s precisely the point.

82. 82. Jake on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    Grt fd fr thght. d hv th pnn tht rpns r ssntlly bnch f psss. Spn’s wthdrwl frm rq wth ts tl tckd btwn ts lgs sms t spprt tht pnn.

    rlz ths s qck Ggl nlyss s dtls r lft t lk prvsly mntnd: cn ths rsrvsts d nythng thr thn shw p t cln p ftr ntrl dsstr? Cld thy ctlly prvd ffctv spprt t th rglr rmy n rl shtng wr?

    Bt ls wndr n dffrncs btwn th sgs. t th mmnt, frgttng th vl jdgmnt tht gs wth ths, w hv n xprncd ctv fghtng frc. Th Brtsh nd fw f r thr ‘cmmttd fw’ ls hv tht ftr. Bt mst f rp hs stndng rms tht hv bsclly bn plyng pntbll. ’v plyd mdrn wrfr; ’m s qlfd t g nt cmbt wth r rmy s thy r. S wht ’m gttng t: fr ll thr mny, wht xctly hv thy bght? Cld rp nvd rn s ffctvly s w nvdd rq? Cld thr prsnnl cndct n prtn f ntn bldng n frc s w hv dn n fghnstn?
    rlly dn’t knw nd ’m jst nthr dmb rd nck tht dsn’t knw nythng, bt frm wht s n th nws nd rd n th ntrnt: thnk th rnns wld stp rpn nvsn nd d nt thnk thy cld sstn n prtn lk w hv n fghnstn.

    cn ply mdrn wrfr ll dy, by th bst cntrllrs nd th bggst TV. t dsn’t mk m wrrr. rp cn mtch th S dllr fr dllr nd sldr fr sldr bt tht dsn’t tll th whl stry.

    t n’t th rrw tht mttrs. t’s th ndn frng th rrw tht mttrs.

    [Where are the vowels?]

    Jake is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

83. 83. Tobias Buckell on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    A lot of you are engaging in a strawman argument of comparing Western European forces with the US and getting excited about proving to me that the US has better forces, more forces, better funded forces, and can mobilize faster to invade someone else than Western Europe is.

    None of which was claimed, or even is contradicted, in the above post, just an FYI.

    The point we’re discussing, and that most of you are choosing to argue something else, is whether Western Europe spends money, time, and effort with an eye toward *defending* itself.

    I’m a bit puzzled as to whether most people actually stopped to read, or just skimmed and then jumped in to say “US forces are better! EU can’t force project nearly as well, if it all. You’re not a military expert!”

    None of those are points I’ve argued. Again, the point we’re discussing, and that most of you are choosing to argue something else, is whether Western Europe spends money, time, and effort with an eye toward *defending* itself.

    This is a much more specific point.

    Please stop rebutting claims never made, or comparing EU to US forces. That is not the point of the above.

    Address whether you think the EU can stop an invasion from other nations (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran) would be more on topic.

    From now on I’ll disemvowel off topic posts now that I’ve caught up and realized such a large percentage of people are choosing to argue a point that was never made, which I kind of find annoying.

    Thanks.

84. 84. James on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    k s mny ppl lv th grph f mrcn spndng mny n dfns.

    nd thr ttly wrng.

    Thnk bt t ths wy. Hw mch ds th S spnd n ch sldr cmprd t chn…..nswr….LT mr. nfct mst f r spndng s n prsnl.

    ls whl rp my b bl t stp thngs n thr wn cntrs. Thy lck th blty t prjct tht frc t thr shrs.

    Knd lk tht whl lts g sv drfr thng tht dd bfr t rlly bgn.

    [Where are the vowels?]

    James is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

85. 85. jsallison on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    From JJ-
    “…What nation would dare invade Europe?”

    Dar al Islam, mayhaps?

86. 86. micah on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Hw mny sprcrrrs nd strtgc bmbrs d th wstrn rpn ntns hv cmbnd?

    Th nswr: 0.

    Nthng sys frc prjctn bttr thn rcrft crrrs nd B-52s. Jst sk th Twns.

    [Where are the vowels?]

    micah is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

87. 87. mrsizer on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    sr t nswr ths qstn wth nthr qstn: Whr r th rpn trps spplyng d t Ht ftr th rthqk?

    W (th S) mngd t hv bts n th grnd n ndns n tm t hlp wth tsnm rlf.

    Hw bt ths qstn: ln spccrft lnds n th mddl f th tlntc; wht cntry’s Nvy wll grt t?

    [Where are the vowels?]

    mrsizer is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

88. 88. mrsizer on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    Just read your comment about disemvoweling, so I’ll reply more “on topic”.

    Does Europe spend enough to defend itself? Yes.

    Does Europe spend enough to cover its share of global “peacekeeping”? No. Very arguably, neither do we. Who would have thought there would be piracy-at-sea in the 21st century?

    Someone has to keep the oceans safe – even though they are no one’s territory to “defend”. Prices of imports – to Europe as well as the US – would be much higher if every oil tanker and container ship needed an escort. The reason they do not is the United States Navy.

    So, yes, Europe spends “enough” on defense – but they are still taking advantage of Pax Americana.

    BTW: The Krugman quote is “defending freedom” not “defending their homelands”, so your pique at the off-topic posts seems somewhat odd – because they are not.

89. 89. Sandy MacHoots on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Mr. Buckell, I’m not sure you’re adequately responding to the post. You relied basically on three comparisons, number of troops, amount of money spent, and percent of GDP. Several knowledgeable commentators have pointed out that those comparisons are pointless unless adjusted to deal with different accounting measures (what gets charged to the defense budget versus other lines) and what exactly countries are buying with their money. As several people have noted, the contention is that Europe is using the armed forces as a combination public jobs program and internal industry support program rather than an actual combat force. If true, it is inappropriate to count them as part of defense expenditures. (It’s like saying that school A spends more on education than school B, because school A just got a new $500 million football facility.) The argument is that one of the reasons that Europe can use its military as a public welfare/industrial subsidy program is because the U.S. has provided the (much more expensive) military muscle that has protected them. (Whether we should be doing that, of course, is a separate issue.)

    I don’t know whether you have a response to those comments, but unless we’re comparing apples to apples your point isn’t any better than Krugman’s and no knowlegeable person is going to find it persuasive. I commend you for trying to actually answer the question, but you’ve got a whole lot more work to do before you’ve refuted the original claim.

90. 90. JIMV on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Anyone who thinks they can keep the terms of a debate where it started and define the terms and limits of that debate is fooling themselves or simply using the heavy handed power of a ‘moderator’ to limit the discussion to areas where the moderator is comfortable.

    In direct response to the last comment, the initial premise was flawed. It made a comparison that in itself proved nothing. One simply cannot compare the military effort or spending of different nations unless one takes a good look at what the spending buys, 100,000 overpaid and under equipped Europeans v a million Chinese under arms…not the same thing at all.

    The power of a military is in its size, training, equipment, staying power, national will, and ability to be used in a variety of situations…simply comparing money or numbers of troops only proves some nations are richer, more expensive to build a military in, or simply more interested in defending itself than others.

    Put another way, any modern European nation that could not beat a mid sized third world nation on that 3rd world nations turf, is not a military to be considered seriously outside of its borders and perhaps not there.

    I do not believe the Dutch, Danes or Belgians could defend themselves against the NY state national guard much less a real enemy.

    Living up to ones responsibilities is not about waiting for the USA to show up with all the logistics, airlift, air defense, naval support or transport.

    No, Europe does NOT carry its fair share.

91. 91. Shannon Love on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Mst f ths typs f nlyss mss tht whl vrtlly ll rpn dfns spndng stys n rp whl s mch s RC 20% f S dfns spndng nds p vrss.

    Whn th S. blds nd mns bss n thr cntrs, th lns shr f th cnstrctn cst, prtns cst, nd py f prsnnl gts spnt n th hst cntry. Snc prsnnl cst r th prmry cst f th mltry, ts sy t s hw srvc ppl spndng thr py lclly dds p. Th S mltry hs bn pmpng bllns f dllrs yr nt th cnmy f rp vry yr snc WW.

    thnk wht chfs th cnsrvtvs, spclly sltnst cnsrvtvs, mr thn rltv spndng s th fct tht bg chnk f r dfns bdgt xst slly t dfnd rp prpr nd th s lns spprtng rp. f w ddn’t hv t dfnd rp w cld hv ct r dfns spndng by s mch s hlf vr th lst 70 yrs.

    [Where are the vowels?]

    Shannon Love is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

92. 92. robotech master on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    To 83. Tobias Buckell

    I think its pretty simple and straight forward… europe could not defend itself from russia or that matter really any major attacker without the US handing its hand.

    Once china or other military power built/rebuild their navies europe can easily be boxed off and staved out. While in the short term and on paper most euro countries could defend themselves… long term and vs any major opponent that would want to take them over they would lose hands down.

    Europe survives solely by trade and importing natural resources. If these were cut off from global war or a blockade they would be finished. Since europe can’t attack anyone they couldn’t break the blockade nor could they take the fight to the enemy… thus a slow death. Once again very much like what would have happen to the UK in the early 40s if not for the US supplying them with well everything.

    Unless europe can invent electric jets, tanks, missiles, etc… they are helpless.

93. 93. Peter on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    Rght nw thr s Crrr Bttl Grp nd fw shps frm th mphbs hdng t ll hd fll t Ht. Nt bcs nyn wnts t nvd th plc bt t try t sv lvs.

    Thr r C130s fll f mdcl tms, wtr, fd nd thr mrgncy sppls. ll f ths s cmng frm Th ntd Stts f mrc, nt rp. rp hs n Crrr Bttl Grps, t hs n “Gtr Nvy”.

    rp hs mltry cls t th S? rp cn’t vn mnt n ffctv dsstr rlf prtn.

    [Where are the vowels?]

    Peter is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

94. 94. Robert on Jan 15th, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    Okay, here’s a thought. Let’s take all the graphs and statistics at face value. The Europeans lack any real ability to project force. Their militaries are largely defensive in nature. Fine. Perhaps that’s all they need. Perhaps that’s all they want.

    Let us assume then that the US decides to follow the European model, and maintain a military force sufficient to defend itself with little ability to project force. How might that alter the situation?

    Well, let’s look at our neighbors. The US has two extensive borders. To the north, the vicious hordes of Canada, their massive army hardened by unending cold temperatures and hockey brawls. To the south lies the Mexican Jugernaught, poised to strike at the slightest provocation and more than willing to flood across our borders with a veritable sea of… day laborers and landscapers. Let’s not start with that massive threat to US territory, Cuba…

    Let’s be honest here. If the US was only interested in defending itself (as Europe seems to be) we wouldn’t need to spend a FRACTION of what we do on conventional forces. Add in the degree of civilian firearms ownership (and proficiency) and a conventional attack on the US is madness.

    So why DO we need to maintain such a huge standing military? Well, of course, it is NICE to have the ability to bomb brown people from time to time. So maybe we wouldn’t cut back quite as far as Europe. But still… why DO we need such a huge naval fleet? Such a large air force with long range capabilities? Such an advances and expensive army? Surely it can’t ALL be just to bomb brown people and maintain control over our many imperialistic colonies (you know like… Peurto Rico I guess?).

    If we went the way of Europe the percentage of GDP we would have to spend on the military would be a FRACTION of what they spend now. Instead their spending if substantially lower than OURS. Because WE project power FOR them. WE deal with the big threats and dangers. WE shuffle their troops around when they CAN be bothered to help out. WE subsidize THEIR standard of living since WE wouldn’t need half the military we have if WE weren’t picking up their slack.

    And that’s not even taking into account the issues of equipment readiness, training, and the military as a welfare program.

    Having said that, is IS money well spent. Having safe shipping lanes is worth the price of the navy. And a defanged Europe is less likely to start blowing itself to pieces (again) and interupting trade and whatnot. Still, it WOULD be nice if they put a bit more effort into carrying their own weight.

95. 95. Charles on Jan 15th, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    You are right to say that you have to begin with the numbers but they have to be the right numbers, numbers that are comparable and tell a coherent story. The numbers here are a starting point but don’t really answer the question: have the Europeans effectively received a security subsidy from the US either currently or historically since post-WWII? At best it suggests that the Europeans might be spending almost as much as the US which doesn’t answer the question. If I waste my money and don’t pull my share of the load that has to be pulled, I am still being subsidized.

    One point required to be fair to the Europeans is that separately from what they spend on their own militaries, many have and often for many years paid significant sums to the US either in subsidies for bases and other such support or in direct payments.

    Points that have been raised that are necessary to get to a useful numerical profile: 1) Money needs to be in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) not nominal exchange rates. 2) Like needs to be compared to like – standing professional well trained and equipped volunteer armies are not the same as largely conscript based armies and neither bear resemblance to various forms of reserves. 3) A comparison to Europe needs to be against a fixed definition of which European countries (EU, NATO, continental Europe, etc.?) are being included otherwise it is a mess. 4) Defined purpose needs to be taken into account – i.e. is the military for defensive purposes only, for managing unemployment figures, for creating a shared sense of civic purpose, hostage rescue, international police action, UN peace keeping participation, etc.? and 6) How are military budgets deployed (wages, benefits, R&D, training, weapons/weapons systems, etc.)

    Once you have that numerical frame you then have to address the numerical context. I think there are two key issues. Scale and uniformity.

    Scale: Typically, all other things being equal, because of specialization and efficiencies related to size, a large army will be able to deploy a larger percentage of its soldiers into the field than a smaller one.

    Uniformity: Typically, all other things being equal, a single command will be able to deploy a larger percentage of its soldiers into the field than a divided command. Walmart might have the same number of stores in the midwest as seven or eight regional competitors combined together but Walmart will have lower costs because of reduced duplication.

    With several small forces of 100k-250k under multiple command structures, your ability to effectively deploy a significant number of soldiers for extra-territorial purposes is vestigial compared to a single large military.

    In terms of effectiveness (ability to present a credible defense if attacked and to project force when national interests are threatened remotely) you cannot simply sum the European numbers.

    Then, finally you have to look at overall context. The Swedish and Swiss military investments are very credible but almost entirely oriented to self-defense. France and Britain have historically had excellent limited force projection capabilities but for very specific circumstances such as hostage rescue, citizen evacuations (Lebanon, West Africa, etc.) support of multinational efforts and the like. Germany’s forces post WWII have been almost entirely self-defense oriented and with almost no extra-territorial capacity until the last decade or so and even then under very restrictive rules of engagement. None of these can really be looked to as sources of real effectiveness for dealing with sudden, protracted, extra-territorial threats.

    The political constraints on any one of these country’s army, even when they are in the place where they are needed tends also to completely undermine their effectiveness – witness the Belgians in Rwanda, the Brits in Basra, the Dutch in Srebrenicia: the individual soldiers and units can be first class but can’t be effective with their hands tied.

    The proof is in the record. Even within Europe, where the logistical issues of force projection ought to be minimal, the Europeans were not able to address the military aspects of Bosnia or Kosovo without the decisive involvement of the US. Outside of Europe, the Europeans, with the remote possibility of the Brits or French, have no capacity for sustained and active engagement. As has been pointed out, the only protracted hot engagement any European military has engaged in since the seventies was the Falklands war by the British. They accomplished their mission but it was a stretch.

    Another way to look at it is to identify which cutting edge military technologies have emerged from the European forces. Stealth planes and ships, drones, smart bombs, etc. It is all coming from the US.

    So there is no record (other than UK and the Falklands) of any European country or group of countries successfully dealing with any extra-territorial security situation of any duration or scale for the past forty years.

    All major military technology changes are being sourced from the US.

    The only military with the global logistical reach to address any given situation is the US.

    Just about the only country with a political system with the capacity to generate the national will to deal with extra-territorial dangers in a sustained fashion is the US.

    None of this says that the US always identifies the right dangers, or deals with them effectively. Just that if the danger is real, there is virtually no probability of any constellation of other nation states dealing with it. The US is the almost indispensable factor.

    The US has functioned, sometimes intentionally, sometimes by default, as the global policeman since WWII. In some conflicts we have had material (though at most supplementary) support from allies (Korea, Gulf War I) and other times either it has not been material (Vietnam) or it has not been particularly effective (Gulf War II). In no cases that I can think of, particularly post-sixties, has Europe collectively managed and lead the resolution of a hot global situation.

    The net is that the US has proved capable of creating and sustaining a military that can be credibly and quickly deployed to address most types of extra-territorial security situations at most times in most places. No other country, autonomously or in cooperation with others can do that. We might not always choose the right instances to deploy that force and we might not always sustain the effort to victory but we are the only ones that can do so if it is necessary.

    None of the others are necessary or sufficient.

    So where our interventions have effectively generated global benefit such as Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo and Gulf War I (legitimate arguments can be made on both sides for most the rest) and where we were the necessary element and/or the sufficient condition, no matter what others are spending their money on, we are subsidizing them.

    Way too long a reply to address the historical ups and downs (UK has pretty much gutted their military in the past ten years so some of the above statements are more true historically than currently and in the Cold War era, Germany’s conscript defensive army was more of a contribution in Europe than could be counted today) but I think that there is a reasonably strong argument that the US has served more or less reliably as a global policeman for forty and more years and in a fashion that has generally benefitted most other countries, has paid a high financial and more critically human cost for that role and has received relatively little material support (with occasional notable exceptions).

    Are there some good to excellent soldiers in Europe?: certainly. Is Europe able to independently address material security issues without US leadership?: No. Have the Europeans received benefit from the US security efforts?: Yes. Have their contributions been necessary or comparable?: No. Therefore I think it is inescapable to conclude that they have received a “subsidy”.

96. 96. Thucydides on Jan 15th, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    I will make only one objection to your observation. While the EU may see itself as a singular political and economic union, the performance on the ground (in Afghanistan, where I served as part of the Canadian contingent) could not be further than the truth.

    The British take part in some of the hardest fighting in Helmand province, but their (and our) supposed EU partners cherry pick quiet areas where they will not face the Taliban, or literally retreat into fortress style strongpoints and hunker down. This is not to call down their soldiers (who like the rest of us, follow the orders of our national commands), but rather their national leadership, which sees making a gesture as being more important than actually getting results on the ground. The contrubuting European governments are very risk adverse, and so frightened by the idea of casualties that they hobble their troops with overy cautious mandates and Rules Of Engagement (ROE’s).

    Other recent or potential members of the EU from Eastern Europe have done a stellar job with very limited resources, such as Poland, Roumania and Bulgaria.

    So the amount of resources and manpower is an important factor, but needs to be backed by political (and cultural) will.

97. 97. RHH on Jan 15th, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Wow—I felt that you were recommended(in effect) by Glen Reynolds. Given what has happened to this discussion–particularly to the comment by Shannon Love, someone who I do not know, but have certainly enjoyed reading in the past on other venues–I think I’ll take my toys and go home. May you have joy of your flawed analysis and your agreement with Krugman. ‘Spect I’ll be “de-vowelled.

98. 98. Darren on Jan 15th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    If you want a straight answer, no the European nations with the possible exceptions of France and Britain do not materially bear the defense costs of maintaining their own freedom.

    The costs are more than expenditures. The costs are also in assumption of responsibility, and in this category all but Britain and France fail because only those countries maintain the responsibility of independent nuclear forces. The Belgians have to hope the the Americans will trade New York for Brussels if they are attacked, but the British and French are willing to maintain their own fleets of nuclear trump cards along with the moral assumption of the right to use them. They do not shelter under our ultimate umbrella, everyone else is dependent on the US to respond if they are attacked in a nuclear fashion.

    In Afghanistan, the relegation of European troops with the exception of the French and British to rear echelon duties also speaks to the unwillingness of the other European nations to take responsibility for defending freedom. The moral stain of having killed someone is something they are unwilling to bear in a political sense, and so their military contribution is limited. Somebody has to drive trucks and run the radios, but it takes far more than that to “maintain freedom”, much less expand the bubble of freedom to cover others. Having more Europeans in combat positions would add credence to your argument, but while there is much power in your graph-fu, the boots on the ground are simply not there. Afghanistan commanders have gone begging for even transport helicopters from European countries and have not been able to get enough.

    In the Cold War years it was always assumed that Europeans could not maintain their own freedom if the Soviet tanks crossed the border. Thus the prepositioned equipment, the annual REFORGER exercises and the implicit promise of NATO that the United States would defend Europe. After 1970 or so the European nations were back on their feet economically and could well have spent the necessary amounts to take over that responsibility in whole, yet they did not.

    In the current climate, they are able to defend themselves from attack, but they do so largely because there is no way to attack them without going through US forces first, and the only nations with land access to Europe are no more prepared for war than the Europeans. If a territorially-ambitious Iran developed amphibious assault capabilities and the equivalent of our LHDs and Marines, it would be interesting to see if the Europeans responded by increasing their home defense capabilities. I think they would consult a map and figure that the US Navy could handle most of it, and their limited blue-water navies the rest.

    They could well defend their own borders against their neighbors, but only because nobody else in Europe either wants to or is prepared to fight a protracted war. If you’re asking “Do they spend enough to maintain their national sovereignty”, then the answer is yes, though with the caveat that they do so in a security environment defined by the power projection capacities of the United States and its nuclear and conventional forces. That caveat covers quite a bit, though, for all intents and purposes they could spend nothing on their militaries and enjoy the same benefit. It is hard to argue about whether they are successfully meeting their obligation to defend against military threats when there are actually no military threats, that’s kind of a rhetorical divide by zero error.

    If you take an expansive definition of the word “freedom” to include helping others become or stay free, their inability to field sufficient forces even in NATO-committed missions like Afghanistan would suggest that the answer to Krugman’s numbers is still a real-world ‘no’. Maybe the accounting works, but the product does not.

99. 99. jimf on Jan 15th, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Good work…I consider myself a moderate who is strong on defense and having worked for DoD for a period…at one time the argument that we were spending all the money defending western europe was correct…but we have pulled out a lot of troops and closed bases since the early 90s… and probably could close a few more.

100. 100. Tobias Buckell on Jan 15th, 2010 at 7:46 pm

     RHH: All I did was asked people to stop making arguments to something I never claimed (US military superiority).

     You’ll note, there are plenty of people disagreeing with me who am I am not disemvoweling.

     If that hurts your feelings or makes you feel overly victimized that I chose to moderate my own living room strongly, please, by all means, leave.

     Anyone else, whether you disagree or not with me, as long as you do so as the comment policy indicates, I’ll be happy to leave your post up.

101. 101. Steve on Jan 15th, 2010 at 8:17 pm

     I’ve seen a lot of convincing arguments and opinions in the comments that the charts do not tell the whole story, or even most of it.

     Tobias, do you still contend that Paul Krugman was right, and that
     “Western Europe is fairly well equipped as the second largest military machine on Earth to watch its back. They’re not walking around under a US umbrella”?

102. 102. Mike Spehar on Jan 15th, 2010 at 8:26 pm

     From my perspective of 40 years in the US military as an officer and civilian, I think the idea of comparing militaries by how much they spend to be a bit (a lot) misleading. Militaries have different styles, customs, traditions, and national interests, not all of which show up on a graph.

     When I was on a staff in Germany at the height of the Cold War, we Americans studied our allies about as hard as we studied our enemies. The phrase “Needs Americans to Operate” (NATO) often resonated with Americans working at desks next to those of their often absent allied counterparts. Levels of professionalism varied country to country and there were often gaps in the military tasks we could reasonably expect some of the allies to perform.

     The gaps are stilll there. It’s only to be expected – numbers have a quality of their own. No navy can match our carriers or nuke subs and they don’t even try. The rest of their usually small navies just wouldn’t matter all that much if it came to exchanging heavy blows with a powerful enemy. The same applies to our air forces. Likewise, most European logistical support is far behind our capability and we usually help them out so they won’t slow us down. The difference in technology, especially in ISR and communications, is also striking. Then too, Americans spend much more time and money on realistic training then do our allies. So, while their best often is individually close to our best, our standard line units are miles ahead of most allied units.

     So, while the Europeans are probably doing about as much as their governments feel they can, they are definitely still dependent upon us. But that’s okay. Better they depend upon us than they get the impression that they can do without us. Because, history tells us, once they do that, eventually bad things begin to happen.

103. 103. MM on Jan 15th, 2010 at 8:33 pm

     Tobias,

     You’ve said, “The point we’re discussing, and that most of you are choosing to argue something else, is whether Western Europe spends money, time, and effort with an eye toward *defending* itself.”

     So I’ll try to argue with that. Yes, your graphs show Europe does spend some money on defense. But you began this discussion with a Krugman qoute, “…the claim, from conservatives, of course, that Europe is only able to prosper because we Americans are bearing the whole burden of defending freedom.”

     Defending freedom, and just defending your own borders is not the same thing. A big part of defending freedom is making sure the high seas are open which requires an expensive blue water Navy. Force projection is a big part of that, and since you started with the Krugman qoute I don’t believe it is fair to disregard discussion of it.

     Putting aside my assumption, about the breadth of the burden of defending freedom.

     What those conservatives are trying to say is that in addition to carrying the burden of defending freedom around the planet with a blue water navy, the US is specifically paying for a significant percentage of European defense. Because European countries do not have to pay that, they are able to redirect those funds into social programs that raise Europeans standard of living. Thus without the US defense umbrella, Europe would not be as nice a place to live.

     As for your analysis, you have shown that Europeans do spend money on defense. But I believe your argument has flaws. It seems like you are assuming some metric of spending, or spending per soldier, or spending per population per GDP per soldier (or some variation of something like that) accurately reflects what a country should be spending in order to remain *safe.

     You show this assumption when you mention “Comparing Belgium to Iran in terms of military expenditure is much like comparing Ohio to India.” I believe what you are saying is that Belgium is tiny in size and population and so its not fair to compare its spending to larger and more populous Iran, yes?

     Only no, this is warfare and war is not fair. If we extend your concept to historical spending, would it have mattered if Belgium spent the same amount (by your metrics) as Germany? Or would the 20th century still be neutral Belgium being invaded by Germany because to properly keep *safe, Belgium would have to invest a lot more percentage-wise than Germany?

     You cannot make an assumption that a certain percentage of spending is what each and every country needs to be *safe. Every country is different. Defence spending isn’t keeping up with the Jones per soldier per GDP etc. Some countries have natural advantages, like the Alps.

     To answer the point raised by conservatives we have to run the thought experiment proposed by Holdfast.

     Imagine the US turns completely isolationist, does European defense spending go up? and how much? How much Europe spends then would be a true reflection of how much Europeans think it costs to keep Europe *safe at this time. And does that increase in European defense spending result in a decrease in social spending? Or out of control debt?

104. 104. Che is dead on Jan 15th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

     The Western Europeans are completely dependent on the U.S. military – remember Kosovo? The German NATO commander resigned in embarrassment over Europe’s pathetic state of military preparedness. European pilots were unable to fly missions with their US and Canadian brothers-in-arms. They lacked proper logistical support and were incapable of handling a critical situation on their on doorstep. Please, save all the charts and graphs, the proof is in the execution and they were a joke.

105. 105. RHH on Jan 15th, 2010 at 8:36 pm

     RE 98–
     Of course I never made any claim about US superiority, and yes I was not censored. However your argument is irrelevant, and only effective insofar as the way you framed it. By my lights, the reasonable question is: do the euros spend enough on defense such that they can look after their own interests? Are they dependent on US resources to defend them.
     The answer is yes to both. Whatever they are spending(supposedly) does not result in the military capability necessary to sustain their interests. Perhaps they are smart to take advantage of our resources, and that is in their narrow interest. But that’s another issue and you’ve shown how you don’t like the comments to stray.

106. 106. Holdfast on Jan 15th, 2010 at 8:48 pm

     Toby:

     I think part of the problem is that the world security situation as we know it is heavily shaped by the US possession and deployment of strategic military assets, and the resulting environment is thus significantly more pacific then it would be without the US preeminence at sea and in the air. In that sense, Europe is absolutely taking a free ride on US-provided security, as are pretty much all the other nations on earth, from richest to poorest (even strategic competitors like Russia benefit from the US 7th Fleet keeping an eye on China). The difference, however, between Europe’s free ride and that of other smaller, poorer, nations, is that Europe could pay for a complete, strategic defense capability, if it chose to, whereas most other nations cannot.

107. 107. Tom Perkins on Jan 15th, 2010 at 9:11 pm

     “Ths s nt th grph f grp f ntns tht hs jst gvn p n mltry dfns!”

     t crtnly s. Whl mny vr whlmngly vld crtcsms f yr jjn pst hv bn md, qck txt srch ths n hs nt: “Th bst dfns s gd ffns.”

     nd rp hs jst bt gvn p n ffns–pwr prjctn.

     [Where are the vowels?]

     Tom Perkins is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

108. 108. robotech master on Jan 15th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

     To 100. Holdfast

     Yeah you’d think with the massive raise in pirates since the end of the cold war and russia scraping its fleet that the euros would belly up to the table and start producing some ships…but NOOO not them they are to busy having committee about what rights and acts the US should obey when we capture pirates…

109. 109. DeckApe on Jan 15th, 2010 at 9:57 pm

     In 1971 I was privileged to be assigned to an army doctrinal study that involved some very complex economic analysis of several (50 countries) civil/military structures. I worked on the Executive Summary of a three year project. Most of the officers involved had Phds (some had several), and all had multi conflict (three plus wars) and deep policy experience.
     The BASIC approach was very similar to yours. We did not and would not have used Wikipedia. Our public source reference libary was six,twelve foot bookshelfs. Our staff, for the summary was 10 people, the total staff over three years was probably over two hundred. A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing, but at least you are asking the right (first) question. Ask yourself this next , does the EU force posture have any STRATEGIC weight without the Nato treaty?
     If not why not?

110. 110. jgreene on Jan 15th, 2010 at 10:10 pm

     These statistics are meaningless. Western Europe doesn’t really field a military that is prepared to defend itself or extend its power to assist others defend themselves against aggressors. Pretty pathetic actually.

111. 111. Valerie on Jan 15th, 2010 at 10:10 pm

     Wlkr Frmn s rght n. W ll knw th r’s spnd dcnt mnt n thr mltrs, bt whr r thr trps n th fld???????

     [Where are the vowels?]

     Valerie is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

112. 112. Drew on Jan 15th, 2010 at 10:51 pm

     These statistics are actually very meaningful. But Toby points out that Europe’s defense spending is slightly lower as a percentage of GDP than the US’s is. But Europe is in a more dangerous part of the world, so in a more rational world Europe should be spending a higher percentage of its GDP on defense than the US is. And while we’re only talking about a couple of tenths of a percentage (of GDP) here, that couple of tenths means that Europe is spending billions of dollars less on defense each year than it probably ought to. Compound that over time, and suddenly we’re back to where we started. Europe is spending way less on defense than it ought to be, and America is picking up the slack to the tune of many many dozens of billions of dollars over the course of years.

     Of course, in an even more rational world would-be-aggressors would realize how much they hurt themselves by aggressing and nobody would have to spending anything on military defenses at all. Oh well.

113. 113. JorgXMcKie on Jan 15th, 2010 at 11:08 pm

     I hope you don’t take this as totally off-topic, but as I was reading the blog entry and then the comments, it struck me to wonder if Krugman [and by extension, you] would accept a similar argument for not changing the US health care system.

     After all, if we were to go merely by spending/GDP/capita and then the numbers of doctors and nurses and so on, it should be obvious that if there is a difference health care spending it is in favor of the US.

     I mean, and here is the meat, even if we merely ask if Europe can defend itself [against, say, an invasion by Russia] then it would appear that those numbers aren’t of much help.

     I do appreciate the even-handedness of the effort, though.

114. 114. Tobias Buckell on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:17 am

     @JorgXMcKie:

     That comment about Krugman and healthcare, you’d have to direct that at Krugman. As for me, I’m not sure where I would stand on that, you’d have to clarify your question a bit more I’m not sure I understood what you were getting at (genuinely, and I apologize for that).

115. 115. Tobias Buckell on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:18 am

     “Of course, in an even more rational world would-be-aggressors would realize how much they hurt themselves by aggressing and nobody would have to spending anything on military defenses at all. Oh well.”

     Sadly, we don’t live in that world

116. 116. Tobias Buckell on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:20 am

     @DeckApe: wow, that’s really fascinating. I’d love to see that data/conclusions on THAT!

117. 117. Tobias Buckell on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:26 am

     @Steve: so far there’ve been pointing to data that refutes my point, that taking the US out of the equation, comparing EU to the rest of the world, the EU matches up. So far there have been a lot of anecdotes, and people saying that the US has a better military force (with which I very much agree), and pointing out to me that the US uses it to good effect (with which I very much agreed) doing things including anti-piracy and humanitarian aid (with with I very much agree). But no actual data/studies refuting my point. People are fielding opinions. They may sound workable, but I’d like to see some rand studies or military (like the US military puts out several studies in this vein each year, I read one of their futurist studies last year about developing blue water navy development in the near future that was interesting).

     Again, people are arguing against a point I’m not arguing, and seem to be unwilling to provide refuting data.

118. 118. Tobias Buckell on Jan 16th, 2010 at 1:28 am

     @Thucydides: that’s a very good objection! Command and control structure is fragmented and the willingness of overseas engagement by EU forces vary wildly. Again, though, I was speaking more of defensive nature, but I can’t refute your point!

119. 119. Pete on Jan 16th, 2010 at 2:12 am

     The article and subsequent comments have been excellent, so thanks to all for your time and insights.

     “The differentiator in the U.S. military is that it has been trained to fight many battles; counterinsurgency, nuclear warfare, force projection, logistics, sea lane protection, nation building,etc and does an amazing job in each of these arenas.” Matt, there is little doubt that the American armed forces have as much or more experience than anyone, but IMO, your confidence in our abilities in COIN and nation-building is possibly misplaced. If you look at the historical record, militaries of nation-states have a pretty poor record of defeating 4GW opponents; we are no exception. Yes, we have won some some guerilla wars and beaten insurgencies, but have lost some as well. The Phillippine Insurrection and Indian Wars are examples of the former, Vietnam of the latter.
     The end game has yet to be written on Iraq and in Afghanistan, so isn’t it way too soon to claim our expertise in nation-building? Post-WWII Japan and Germany can be cited as successes, but that was a different era, some of whose lessons are not applicable to our current wars.
     No western nation has ever done what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan and Iraq; and our success (if/when it happens) cannot realistically be judged as such until perhaps 15-20 year have passed.

     European nations may finish a distant second to us in force projection, logistics and other areas, but what can these nations teach us? The long colonial histories of Britain, France and other nations should have ample lessons for us in COIN, nation-building, and similar tasks if we are wise enough to seek them out. Furthermore, since many nations of Europe are small, and know they will be probably be outnumbered in a fight, some have surely developed whatever edge they can in innovative training methods, intelligence gathering, and similar capabilities. To claim that the Europeans (or any other nation for that matter) has nothing to teach us, is asking to get our clock cleaned sometime down the road. Never, and I mean never, make the cardinal mistake of over-estimating your own capabilities or under-estimating those of your would-be allies or even possible foes.

     The Joint Chiefs have for years claimed that the US military was sufficiently robust to fight two medium sized wars at once, but Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that our forces have a much tougher time meeting the operational demands of 2 wars than most planners thought. There’s a lesson in that, for those who think we can’t ever lose, or that just because you are the king of the hill today, that you will alays be.

120. 120. Kirk Parker on Jan 16th, 2010 at 2:23 am

     Tobias,

     I think you’re missing the point of many of the objections: in fact the EU forces, while perhaps looking tolerable on paper, are of very little practical use. The fact that other countries are even more poorly defended is mostly irrelevant; it’s not like France is going to have to fend off an armed invasion from Mali.

     And you want people to counter a Krugman NYT column with something serious like a Rand report? Seriously??? Surely you know that part of Krugman’s contract with the Times requires him to take stupid-hack-pundit pills 3 hours before writing, and that any resemblance between Krugman-the-pundit and Krugman-the-economist are purely accidental.

121. 121. robotech master on Jan 16th, 2010 at 2:24 am

     Well another point one can argue about being ready for anything is case in point Haiti or the tsunami… whos on the ground first always with aid, supplies and manpower… The US military…

     Europe likes to fancy itself as giving foreign aid and the same with the UN… but when real problems come up its always the US military doing pretty much everything for months until other countries get their acts together(if they ever get it together).

     As for “But no actual data/studies refuting my point. People are fielding opinions.”

     The graph you post are far less meaningful then most of the opinions expressed. The graphs you present are as meaningful as a picture of a skyscraper to an architect…

     If you want studies I’m sure you can easily search Jane’s or army data bases for old studies… or you can go straight to the source that those studies are based on… history.

     A simple review of history most of all periods such as WW2 will display the completely flawed idea that europe can ever “work together”. Thats having a good “paper”army even a high tech “paper” army is meaningless.(a classic being france which had far better and more tanks then germany yet they got rolled… along with the brits). Or past wars and how NATO, UN and other groups truly response and effect things when you strip out all the media propaganda surrounding these groups.

122. 122. DeckApe on Jan 16th, 2010 at 2:26 am

     @Tobias 116

     At that time I was decompressing from a tour in Vietnam, and had brought a bit of prejudice about rear echelon types and staff poques. I was very quickly made aware of my own lack of intellectual depth. It was one of the most interesting periods of my life. The boss of the show was a powerhouse and I still use him as an example of intellectual rigour.

     Four of us got on a tangent one evening. Eygpt and Israel were making headlines. I took the boss on, arguing that the middle east was the most obvious point of instability in the world. I took the position that if a worldwide conflict were to erupt that the Sinai was the place. The boss said no, we made a bet. I lost. running the data through the the mathematics (all a bit above my pay grade) was a major,Phd
     economist. The numbers proved me wrong. To make his point, the boss allowed me to change some of the numbers to better support my argument,still the same results. We did this four times, always the same results; the locus of greatest instability…. Pakistan,Afghanistan,Kashmir…spooky huh?

123. 123. Ari Tai on Jan 16th, 2010 at 2:26 am

     A couple of missing items. Turkey believes they can march to the channel (per tabletop wargaming) almost unopposed with their current forces, which have a balanced portfolio from logistics to transport to arms to “armed” services (v. mostly chair warmers with no transport beyond their personal cars in the EU). Not that they would, but they could, and this analysis is supported by other NATO members looking over their shoulders.

     And this doesn’t consider that most of the E.U. forces are unionized, with work rules limiting time on the job to 9am to 4pm and not on weekends (so the Turks move at at 6pm on Friday . Or that a very small percentage of EU personnel train with a weapon or have slept on the ground (you think the U.S. has a terrible tooth to tail ratio problem??? Save for the Swiss….). After the wall fell, the “peace dividend” moved most of these defense efforts from a national security justified program into into a classic political constinuency focused & maintained by those votes jobs programs (much like the U.S. weapons laboratories). Which is also why we find it hard to close bases in Europe (the political need they have locally to sustain those U.S. forces related jobs – driven by the influx of U.S. spending in the area).

124. 124. DeckApe on Jan 16th, 2010 at 2:48 am

     @Tobias 116
     I should mention that the goal of that project was not to predict future areas of conflict; thats why I said we were on a tangent. The goal was to develop a baseline/ method for assessing capabilities of indigenous armed forces in different
     types of conflicts (intensity, external,internal threats etc.)

125. 125. Kirk Parker on Jan 16th, 2010 at 2:56 am

     Ari Tai,

     “Or that a very small percentage of EU personnel train with a weapon or have slept on the ground”

     Indeed; part of the non-performance of the UN troops in Rwanda was that the Belgians’ requirements stated that they couldn’t be billeted in tents, so instead of being concentrated in a couple of defensible bases they were spread out all over the place as they were able to find housing.

126. 126. DeckApe on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:08 am

     @Ari tai

     An excellent point about Turkey. If you start digging around
     you will find a significant shift in Turkeys world view, in say,
     the last two years. Remember where the “Caliphates” were
     centered? Now throw in Irans push to lead the Muslim world?
     Pakistan has just entered into an agreement with China to build (not buy) 4gen fighters. India has just signed agreements with Russia for airbase privleges. We do live in interesting times.

127. 127. Johnny Utah on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:22 am

     interesting- although, if Russian tanks start rolling west, I still would rather depend on the 3rd Armored Division than the Bundeswehr.

128. 128. lagibs on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:55 am

     Lks lk ths rtcl tchd nrv wth th cmmnt sctn. Th thng bt “mdrts” s thy ssm vrythng s n btwn nd tht thy r bv th fry. ts lk f n sd s syng 2 + 2 ql 4, nd n sd t qls 6. Th mdrt wll sy t prbbly qls 5. Thy r mdrt bt thy r wrng.

     Bng mdrt mst f th tm mns y hv flxblty f cnvctns, nd r t cwrdly r/nd lzy t ctlly rsrch smthng nd mk jdgmnt cll. t s mdrn rltvty t t wrst.

     [Where are the vowels?]

     lagibs is a troll. Since trolls can only grunt, his comment was adjusted as well

129. 129. Xavier Itzmann on Jan 16th, 2010 at 9:56 am

     #117 Tobias

     «But no actual data/studies refuting my point.»

     I mentioned already the WSJ article regarding the fact that the Belgian army is mostly a jobs program for cooks and hairdressers, not an actual military force (they require hotel-like accommodations when in “battle”, for example), a point also mentioned by numerous others with regard to the general status of non-elite European forces.

     The article comes with a handy-dandy chart illustrating why the Portuguese, for instance, could spend as much % of GDP as the US, or as much per soldier as the US, and yet would be utterly ineffective in battle.

     As apparently full chapter and verse is required around here, here you go:

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1045087925290850423.html

     Yes, the Euros underspend and/or mis-spend because they know we’ve got their back in case of total war and they know we keep open the worldwide shipping lanes in case of less than total war.

     The situation varies by country, with the Finns, Swiss and French being less unserious than others.

130. 130. Tom Perkins on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

     Let’s see if you disemvowel something that’s not derogatory by any stretch of the imagination.

     Your charts do not prove what you need them to prove. They are beside the point. They show money is spent and that their are bodies in uniform. They say nothing about the effectiveness of those people and nothing at all about the relative worth of the result of the expenditure.

     I did not choose my previous words incautiously, or without an eye to their exact meaning.

     The best defense is a good offense, Europe has no commensurate or balanced ability to conduct offense, to project power.

131. 131. Chris Gerrib on Jan 16th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

     It seems like there are two arguments running in the comments. First, what the Europeans are getting for their money and second whether they should be playing a more active role in out-of-area operations.

     It’s been almost two decades since I worked with European navies. I found them very competent and capable, but that’s a long time ago so I won’t make an argument on that front.

     On the second front, military decisions are not make in a vacuum. Since the US is (apparently gladly) handling the expeditionary role and allied with Europe, it is very hard to make a case that the Europeans should be working on expeditionary capability.

     This “our allies are doing it, we don’t need to” cuts both ways. USN minesweeping assets are frankly lacking, largely because our European allies handle that. Ditto escort capability (frigates) – we’re retiring our ships of that type.

     In short, the US and Europe are defining “adequate defense” differently and this leads to different militaries.

132. 132. Naif Mabat on Jan 17th, 2010 at 8:46 pm

     I’d love to help you, Tobias. But evidence of a negative is notrotiously hard to come by. It’s just a question of how much lack of evidence you can live with.

     You seem to have accepted the proposition that troop numbers and budgets don’t necessarily tell you much about what said troops will actually do when push comes to shove. But of course, it doesn’t prove they won’t do, either.

     Consider the following breaking news out of Haiti (one hour ago as I write):

     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7012413/Haiti-earthquake-10000-US-soldiers-due-as-violence-on-the-streets-intensifies.html

     This is purely andecdotal, but 10,000 troops at the drop of a hat is a heck of an anecdote. And are you really surprised the troops are American, even though the US is already heavily committed around the world at the moment? Of course, this doesn’t prove Western Europe can’t or won’t do this sort of thing. It just proves America can and will. And with all the troops and budget Western Europe has in those lovely graphs, maybe it was just coincidence it wasn’t them this time around.

     But this is of a piece with world history since Britain abandoned its protectorates in the Persian Gulf in 1970 and left guess who to fill in the void. And I hope you’ll agree that securing the safe flow of oil from the gulf is more of a neccessity for the western world and not just “humanitarian aid” as Haiti might be.

     I doubt you’ll ever find smoking gun empirical proof that Western Europe is free-riding. Just 40 years of US forces standing up every time they stand down. But if you weren’t surprised to read it was US troops going to Haiti and not Western European troops, then maybe you’ve already made a non-quantitative assessment yourself. And I mean not just an assessment of which army is “better”, but which army is even a real-world army in the sense that the accusation of free-riding implies.

133. 133. Naif Mabat on Jan 17th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

     Sorry for the back-to-back posts here. I discovered this thread Friday and found it very interesting and didn’t have a chance to get back until now.

     To address your question “whether Western Europe spends money, time, and effort with an eye toward *defending* itself”:

     It undoubtably spends all of the above with precisely such an eye, but whether it realistically has a chance of defending itself is quite another matter. But of course, in the absence of a successful full scale invasion, this is impossible to prove.

     The last time France was invaded, in 1940, it surrendered in a matter of weeks without ever committing the full use of its fighting forces. And its military then was far larger than it is now. But the problem wasn’t the size or the budget of its army, it was their willingness to fight, or lack thereof, even in defense of their own freedom. It’s your call whether you think they’ve grown more or less willing to fight in the intervening 70 years.

     Thank you for use of your blog space.

134. 134. B. Mac on Feb 8th, 2010 at 6:57 am

     According to the CIA World Factbook, the US spent a considerably larger portion of GDP on defense than most of Western Europe in 2005.
     USA: 4.06%
     France: 2.6%
     United Kingdom: 2.4%
     Italy: 1.8%
     Poland: 1.7%
     Netherlands: 1.6%
     Germany: 1.5%
     Belgium: 1.3%
     Japan: .8% (which is technically not European but sometimes lumped together with Western Europe)

     It really depends on what you count as defense spending.

     As the report cited by Krugman notes, “Although the IISS and the U.S. State Department aim to provide figures that are
     as consistent and accurate as possible, cross-national comparisons of defense spending are inherently imperfect. Available sets of figures are useful, but often do not correspond with one another for a variety of reasons.”

     I vaguely recall, from a course on defense industries I took a few years ago, that one major discrepancy was about how to tabulate research expenditures. For example, Iran claims that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

135. 135. Paschten on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 4:39 pm

     The German army is a conscript army. Presently it is still restructuring. Whereas the active reserve is about 300000 personnel, the suitable operative reserve is about 15000000. Keep in mind that civil forces like volunteer fire brigades or the disaster relief organization THW are forming strong infrastructures for protecting the citizens in case of attack. The present army size also is part of the guarantees made to the former allies in the course of reunification. I doubt our friends and allies would really like several hundred divisions of trained German troops again. And Germans also do not like that idea. War is not something to be proud of. It would be a fatal error, however, to underestimate all that and derive a low motivation of Germans for self-defense from that. Or to assume that we would not likewise support our neighbours if they need help. Another state doctrine is that Germany also sees itself in obligation for ensuring Israel´s integrity.

136. 136. Paschten on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 5:07 pm

     In the German children book of “Jim Knopf and the Wild 13″ there is that wonderful figure of the fake giant that gets smaller the closer you get to him, so that what would look impressive from distance gets smaller and far less impressive once you stand in front of it. The US army has already been overstretched despite its enormous spending by waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. This at a fighting level far below WW2. When it comes to make the case, and all infrastructure is bombed down, ground forces are needed nevertheless sooner or later. And US forces don´t like it when their technical expenditure is geographically, strategically restricted. So they try to overcome that with further high tech gadgets. The arts of war, however, often do not follow that logic so easily. And with a little more of self-analysis, the US troops might be surprised to discover, that they also have some traits in common with the fake giant of the fairy tale.