beyondukraine.euandrussiainsearchofanewrelation
beyondukraine.euandrussiainsearchofanewrelation
beyondukraine.euandrussiainsearchofanewrelation
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The Logic of U.S. Engagement 101<br />
welfare for the rich” 20 . Nevertheless, the United States has, at the<br />
same time, been unwilling to change the incentive basis for<br />
European investment in defense and broader strategic engagement.<br />
When taken together, the European members of NATO have<br />
two nuclear powers and over 2 million people collectively in<br />
uniform. Still, while the U.S. was spending 31 per cent of its<br />
defense budget on capability investments, the European allies<br />
spent a combined 22 per cent. Most European defense spending<br />
was national and not coordinated to allow for specialization and<br />
thus lower costs 21 . In 2013, for example, France sent 2,400 ground<br />
troops in an intervention into the African country Mali to combat<br />
radical Islamic militias with links to al-Qaeda. The French force<br />
was small – but the remaining total collective European<br />
contribution was just 450 troops – and limited to a post-crisis<br />
training mission. France could not sustain the operation alone and<br />
had to turn to Washington to provide enabling forces. The absence<br />
of European capability underscored growing costs to the United<br />
States even when an ally tried to lead. For example, the C-17<br />
cargo plane, which the U.S. contributed to move French troops<br />
and equipment cost about $225 million per plane to procure. This<br />
cost the U.S. about $4.5 billion in terms of new planes and<br />
existing maintenance of procurements and about $12,000 per hour<br />
to fly. Personnel costs run about $385,000 per service member<br />
associated with each plane – which grow higher with training<br />
costs for pilots and do not account for retirement and other<br />
associated long-term benefits 22 .<br />
Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, had warned in<br />
2011 that NATO faced a “dim, if not dismal future” and that<br />
“there will be a dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S.<br />
Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to<br />
expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are<br />
20 B. Posen, “Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs,<br />
vol. 92, no. 1, January/February 2013, p. 121.<br />
21 J. Dempsey, “How Much Are Americans Willing to Spend to Defend Europe”,<br />
International Herald Tribune, 7 January 2013.<br />
22 This data is compiled by P. Carter, “The French Connection”, Foreign Policy, 23<br />
January 2013.