Robert Gates is by all accounts a pretty smart guy (though
he got a few things wrong near the end of the Cold War), and he's been a much
better Secretary of Defense than his predecessor (admittedly a low bar to clear). But the intemperate remarks he directed at a NATO meeting two days ago mostly
reveals a complete lack of understanding of the theory of collective
goods. As we've understood
since Olson and Zeckhauser's classic article, multilateral alliances where one
state controls a disproportionate share of overall resources inevitably
encourage free-riding. Why? Because a powerful state's allies know
that it will provide the collective good (in this case, military spending and
protection) out of its own self-interest, and the weaker members can therefore spend a
smaller percentage of their own wealth and still feel safe.
One implication is that it makes no sense for the stronger
power to complain about this situation or expect it to change very much, especially when
it keeps insisting on doing the lion's share in places like Afghanistan. The only
way to get our European allies to bear a significantly larger share of
the
collective defense burden would be to reduce our own contribution
significantly; nagging them as Gates did hasn't worked in the past and
won't work now. Did Gates and the rest of the Obama
administration notice that the Europeans didn't exactly leap to follow suit
when Obama decided to send an additional 47,000 troops to Afghanistan (17,000 last
spring, and 30,000 more beginning last fall)? We pounded the desk and asked for more, and got a mere token
response.
Which is precisely what we should have expected. Again, the only reliable way to get
Europe to take national security seriously is to stop subsidizing its defense,
and a good case can be made that the United States no longer needs to do much
of anything to help defend Europe itself. Europe is peaceful, democratic, and loosely united within the EU, and
the danger of serious conflict there is remote. So if the United States is feeling over-extended and looking for a
place to cut back, Europe seems like an ideal candidate. And it might even lead them to do a bit
more on their own.
Just don't expect them to start matching America's bloated
defense effort. The EU member
states don't face any any significant military threats, and they aren't
especially interested in our grand schemes for social engineering in various
far-flung places. So it's not
clear why they would want
a military
akin to ours, even if we were no longer protecting them. (Nor is it
entirely clear that Washington would like that better, but that's
another story.
The real source of Gates' frustration is his desire for our
European partners to relieve some of America's current burdens. In other words, he just
wants Europe to do what we tell them to
I can understand why he thinks that would be desirable, but not why he thinks it will happen.
Two solutions to America's worries about Europe "free-riding" on security:
1) Spend less on defense yourself, prompting the Europeans to do so
2) Actually have a foreign policy oriented around... security! And I don't meant the totalitarian concept of "security" America has had since 9/11.
"The only way to get our European allies to bear a significantly larger share of the collective defense burden would be to reduce our own contribution significantly; nagging them as Gates did hasn't worked in the past and won't work now."
Probably easier to write from the safety of the university than as a public official responsible for two wars and thousands of lives.
1. Gates isn't carrying a gun, either. And even if he were, that wouldn't mean he's right on this issue.
2. Either Walt is right or he's wrong. If you disagree with him, state your case. These puerile put-downs may suit many echo-chamber message boards out there, but this isn't one of them. The bar's a little higher here.
"Probably easier to write from the safety of the university than as a public official responsible for two wars and thousands of lives."
When you say lives are you referring to careers and M.I.C. stock portfolios? If so, then I agree. IGates is acting in good faith to his masters. f you are referring to physical danger to individuals, I would say if Gates was truly concerned he would come out and call for our troops to come home
Maybe for some reason it's just my reading of Walt's post here but I can't figure out if he more means to indict the Euros for free-riding, or the U.S. for wrongly perceiving threats and the need for ever more "defense" that the Euros more astutely don't.
For my part at least I don't think the reason that the Euros were and are shy about piling in big-time and helping in Iraq and Afghanistan is because they were and are free-riding. Instead I suspect that to a large degree they simply did not and do not see threats emanating from same as seriously as the US does and certainly not as directed at them as they are at the US, and to another large degree perceive that what threats the US does face from the region are in good measure of the US's own making.
I.e., not much of a "commons problem" if any at all, at least in the ME.
It is interesting though this kind of talk directed at the Euros from Obama's Gates. You'd have expected it from him while he was working under Bush. But to hear an Obama-ite lecturing the Euros damn near like Cheney would have liked to ... somewhat surprising.
Regardless, reading what Gates' comments actually were I don't see how they were "intemperate," and indeed many seem realistically grounded. NATO does seem to have some systemic troubles especially in terms of simply funding what nobody disputes it should be doing.
I'm not so sure that Europe would boost defense spending if the United States pulled out. Don't get me wrong, the U.S. should stop giving Europe a free-ride. Americans are sick and tired of their hard-earned tax dollars going to overseas ventures, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most American citizens are concerned with getting jobs these days, not worrying if their country is making good on security commitments in Europe, Japan, and South Korea.
But let's be realistic here. Even if the U.S. did remove its defense shield from Europe, would things change all that dramatically? My guess is no. Europe has been one of the most stable continents over the past seven decades. Wars are a distant entity. And when European diplomats do spar over certain issues, they only need to look at World War II for them to cool the rhetoric and start making compromises.
Besides the Balkans, there is no real conventional threat that Europe needs to fight. What they do need to start paying attention to is homegrown Islamic fundamentalism, which could be combated through intelligence sharing and law-enforcement cooperation.
Speaking of "grand schemes for social engineering in various far-flung places," I think we would all be interested in your thoughts on two recent opinions: The first is your fp blogger colleague Tom Rick's recent deluge of blog posts, op-eds, and think tank reports on his reasons why we should stay in Iraq despite his belief that invading was the biggest foreign policy blunder in history. Surely he cannot be thinking strategically?
The other, more related to this post, is Andrew Bacevich's recent article advocating for withdrawal from NATO. Probably completely unrealistic (in a political sense), although it makes a little too much sense this Realist-sympathizer.
Is this for real or is this a Stephen Colbert routine? SECDEF with a quadruple-digit IQ versus a blogging professor. For Stephen Walt to claim that Bob Gates "doesn't get it" is like me criticizing Lebron James on his jumpshot.
Why are we still up to our necks in two unwinnable wars, on the verge of a third, and all while we're spending ourselves into Second World status? The days of the U.S. Imperium are numbered, and Gates is merely hastening the end's arrival. The policies he's supported, brilliantly, have put us in China's thrall. That will have real-world foreign policy implications.
Also, does being brilliant mean one is never wrong and thus can't be criticized? Nixon had a high IQ, as does Carter. Care to defend their masterful policies?
Look, either Gates is right, or Walt is. There is an actual logical case to be made either way, without ad hominem attacks. Make the case, or hold your tongue.
Prof. Walt's French counterpart makes the observation that all NATO does is make members spend on a lot on expensive stuff they really can't afford (such as Slovenia). And now there's the hectoring.
The Spanish and the British have lost scores of troops to no purpose and what their commanders avow is an impossible mission.
P.S. Give it up, trolls. No one here is influenced by your ranting.
People, people (or maybe trolls) read what Prof Walt is saying! He is explaining how the "COLLECTIVE GOODS THEORY" works, i.e. if one party is willing to spend a greater amount because of its own self-interests, then the other parties involved will go along for the ride.
Prof.Walt is saying that the SecDef doesn't seem to understand how this economic theory works.
Then Prof Walt is saying that maybe the US should redefine its self-interests and if Europe finds that it is in their self-interest to spend more on its defense, it will do so. Indeed, there was talk of developing a unified European defense structure some time ago, but the US instantly found that approach unacceptable.
-rather than fight one's way in. And the Americans will stay, you can rest assured. But not necessarily with tens of thousand of soldiers. They can quickly be airlifted back in if need be.We need the Americans to keep the French and the Germans in check, so that they don't get any fancy ideas. Only a few soldiers will do, because no Europeansof will seriously want to mess with America.
French and Germans needs to be kept in check
The French and the Germans -- which both have had dictators who tried to conquer the world, are the ones that needs to be kept in check - for their own demons essentially. And everybody loves the Americans and their easy-going ways. The Americans --being two-third Germans themselves -- have done a tremendous job trying (mind you trying, it's a difficult job) to make the Germans more easy-going and relaxed. And the Germans know their own limitations, and just love to have the Americans around.
But if you can get them to pay more for it -- although I think the Germans actually have paid a lot -- it will just be fine. But as I said the solution is fewer troops in Europe, but keep the infrastructure there, so that soldiers quickly can be flown in.
Actually the German and French policy vis-a-vis Americas two wars this century , has been commendable. You can say a lot about these two nations -- and Lord knows much have been said -- but they actually know war. The Germans necer got controle of Jugoslavia and last swats of occupied Russia, but constantly faced insurgent-attacks in their rear. And because of these bitter experiences and their deep knowledge of wars limitations, they collectively refused to participate in Iraq.
Likewise with the French, where Jacques Chirac had personal bitter ecperiences from Algiers war of liberation, to an extent that he passionately tried to warn Bush Junior of the dangers of invading an Arab country. Nuth Bush -- whose sole military experience was trining flight in the skies above Texas - new better. and the rest is -- as they say -- history.
I think essentially, there is a great problem with the structure and function of NATO. The world has evolved and its problems got more diversified, than the current form and content of MATO can sope with. For the last few years, all the concerned parties and people in the know, have been talking about the need for changing NATO, yet nothing much, or tangible, has happened.
Therefore, one would guess, there will be more statements such as the ones made by Sec. Gates from his counterparts in the western alliance, which will only arise to the status of frustrations at worse, or advisory at best. I think both the US and Europe, have to compromise on the future plans of their trans-Atlantic alliance.
khairi janbek.paris/france
dependency in an area of need [I assume you agree defense is a need] leads to a decline in related skills and possibly of more significance a rise is attempts to justify or rationalize this deficiency or weakness. There was a void in the West after WW2 that America was happy to fill and has done well accordingly - but you're suggesting if that commitment has become too burdensome that America simply walk away and let the EU take up the slack. How, if it lacks the skills and the will to do so? More likely it resorts to bureaucratic muddling and rationalization - leaving America where? It will still have vital interests that involve Europe and Europe's support. Seems to me you're then left with two choices: embrace going it alone, a Reagan-like solution; or solicit, admonish, beg for, hope for cooperation, which sounds a lot like Obama. You're dumping on Gates but, one, there's not a ton of choices here and, two, look at the president he's serving.
Both Walt and Gates tend to talk sense. Gates knows he's not going to persuade European governments to rearm even to inadequate cold war levels. So why speak? Because the European governments need some cover for present and future Af-Pak commitments. Getting their taxpayers to worry about the US leaving is one way of doing that. His speech might even have been requested by certain Europeans I can think of.
Now if only Russia could be relied on to remind European taxpayers why NATO has been such a success for the last 60 years ;)
That is a distinct possibility, indeed. Realpolitik has a way of coming out in odd ways. Gates may very well be providing cover for European heads of state to maintain (or simply not drastically reduce/withdraw) current troop and funding levels. It's going to get a whole lot stickier as the problems afflicting Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, et al. roll out to the rest of Europe. The EU's in for some rough sledding ahead—but then, so are we here in the U.S. As we continue to rely more heavily on China for bankrolling our foreign adventurism, we are effectively ceding a veto to the PRC over our foreign policy moves. There is, after all, a reason no serious effort has been made to intervene in The Sudan's various war crimes. Alliance with China is a great way to keep the UN at bay, and the world's tyrants aren't stupid.
I suspect many Europeans look to Russia as more of a desperately needed oil provider, rather than a potential enemy. Russia has sufficient problems tending to relations with its former Soviet republics (and wannabe independent states) to keep it plenty occupied without looking further east.
NATO is indeed a relic. But just as it took, what, 90 years for the U.S. to rescind the telephone tax enacted to pay for the Spanish-American War, I suspect NATO will hang around for many years.
Embra - not sure that makes sense - you leave yourself vulnerable by grousing for something you know you're not gonna get merely to protect a dubious status quo - sounds more like desperation, confusion, frustration or the lack of a convincing long term strategy.
Walt makes a very interesting point and the Olson/Zeckhauser article is highly relevant.
The Europeans are not only free riders in the military sense; they're also free riders in the economic sphere. After the recent catastrophe in the world financial markets and the accompanying economic dislocation, the United States through the good offices of the Obama Administration was the only player responsible enough to adopt sufficiently expansionist fiscal policies which provided the aggregate demand required to lift the world out of the crisis; for the most part, Europe demurred. France and Germany, the two largest economies in Europe were especially irresponsible in their decision to allow the United States taxpayer to bear the brunt of the deficits needed to reflate the world economy.
To some extent this is only fair; this crisis was born and bred in the United States. Nevertheless, European behavior in the years leading up to the crisis was highly irresponsible as the involvement of so many European Banks demonstrated. France and Germany in particular were delighted to let the United States do all of the heavy lifting in the race to save the world economy. They were "free-riders."
Walt loves to excoriate the "special relationship" between Israel and the United States. Perhaps he would be wiser to focus his obsession on our "special relationship" with Europe. The subsidies (military and otherwise) that the United States provides to Europe dwarf anything that the United States provides to Israel. Our expenditures to advance European interests (even where American interests are only marginally affected) are profoundly higher than American expenditures in favor of Israel. Walt and others object to American subsidies to a modern, developing nation like Israel with a high per capita GDP. Those same people should find it even more deplorable that the United States provides massive subsidies to European nations far richer than Israel. These subsidies are not only in the military sphere. In the medical arena, Americans pay virtually all of the cost for research and development of new medicines (through high drug prices and federal appropriations for NIH) while Europeans free-ride and pay for drugs based on their miniscule manufacturing costs.
The Europeans are the biggest free-riders in the history of the world and unlike Israel they show no loyalty or even appreciation for what the United States has done for them.
One other point on a different subject; in this post Walt criticizes Bob Gates. As he surely knows, the two "realists" in prominent positions in the Obama Administration were supposed to be Gates and General Jones (NSA). Gates, according to Walt has now left the reservation and Jones is traveling to world promising harsh Iran sanctions.
All this suggests that the "realist" cause within the Obama Administration is in extremis. Obama's "realists" are jumping ship from the "realist camp."
Realists no longer hold positions of authority within the Democratic or Republican parties. There are no realists left in the House or Senate (with the exception of one or two members) and there are no more realists left in the Obama Administration.
The realist school of foreign policy now only exists in the halls of academe where it can assume its rightful place next to the study of archeology or the study of classical literature. All are highly interesting subjects and they can provide insight into matters of contemporary concern. But they are all marginal disciplines that for better or worse (I think worse) are on their way to extinction.
This may be the last generation of realist thinkers in the world of international affairs.
"The Europeans are the biggest free-riders in the history of the world and unlike Israel they show no loyalty or even appreciation for what the United States has done for them."
Europe was a definitely "free rider" during the Cold War. It's not clear that it is now. In any event, during the Cold War and now Europe was, and still is, America's most important ally. It's by far our largest trading partner and it is the other half of NATO. On the issue of loyalty, it certainly pursues its own interests most of the time, but it did go into the quagmire that is Afghanistan with us despite having no obvious security interests of its own there.
As to Israel, the costs are much greater than the direct financial and military aid we provide. Think the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the 9/11 attacks, and our ongoing challenges with the Muslim world. Our relationship with Israel is directly responsible for the first calamity, and is deeply tied to the other two. And what is the benefit we get from this tiny country of eight million? Loyalty? It refuses to comply with repeated American requests (and its legal obligations) by continuing to settle the occupied territories, which further aggravates America's challenges with the Muslim world. And, Israel is China's number two foreign military supplier right after Russia. That's loyalty.
Speaking of China, in the not implausible event that America and China someday end up having a military showdown, I'd rather have 500 million European allies than 8 million Israelis. (Though I'd happily take them both if Israel stopped behaving in ways that make it such an obvious liability.)
"The Europeans are the biggest free-riders in the history of the world and unlike Israel they show no loyalty or even appreciation for what the United States has done for them."
The United States done what it did for economical advantage and political power. The Post-WW2 European recovery was vital to America's exceptional economical growth and in its strategy in Cold War.
"The realist school of foreign policy now only exists in the halls of academe where it can assume its rightful place next to the study of archeology or the study of classical literature. All are highly interesting subjects and they can provide insight into matters of contemporary concern. But they are all marginal disciplines that for better or worse (I think worse) are on their way to extinction.
This may be the last generation of realist thinkers in the world of international affairs."
I can think of at least one country where the realistic school of foreign policy is of great use: China.
Sir- you answer your own question. That is, the implied question of why Gates does not withdraw troops but continues ineffectual nagging. Namely, that Europe no longer has an expeditionary interest and that their militaries are not configured for an expeditionary war. Were America to withdraw a significant number of forces from Afghanistan, at best a slight surge of European troops would be witnessed, and only long enough for European governments to key in on the American withdrawal as an excuse to withdraw all troops.
Europe does not have a vested interest in the final state of Afghanistan. Their presence exists only as a show of NATO solidarity reflecting the NATO call-to-arms post-9/11. It will never be in their best interest to increase their troop levels in Iraq, so if you accept the fact that sustained troop levels are necessary for a successful American strategy in Afghanistan, then Gates is relegated to whining or silence. And in the end, what's the difference?
Just don't expect them to start matching America's bloated defense effort. The EU member states don't face any any significant military threats, and they aren't especially interested in our grand schemes for social engineering in various far-flung places.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. The French meddle extensively in their former empire (they had troops in Ivory Coast for a while once things went south there), and they've been expanding their presence (they have a base that's going to open up in the next couple of years in the Gulf area). The British have quite a few islands that they need to protect (particularly the Falklands), so they need to have power projection. The Eastern Europeans are all wary of Russia (not afraid they'll invade, but wary), so that's a push towards higher defense spending.
Those are just some examples, all of which would probably lead to much higher per-GDP military spending if the US backed down considerably.
"In order to be worthy of our lasting sympathy, a nation must pursue its interests for the sake of a transcendent purpose that gives meaning to the day-to-day operations of its foreign policy."
I'm sorry Lucien but for all his other virtues this kind of statement from Morgenthau seems to me to just embody the amazing conceit of a certain type of critic/commentator that we have all too many of these days.
I.e., there's not a syllable in Morgenthau's sentence that doesn't strike me as self-important twaddle. Who is he anyway to so unctuously demand that nations strive to be worthy of his sympathy? I always thought nations were essentially formed and maintained so as to protect and advance the collective interests of their citizens. Thus, who's to say that nations can even *have* any interests that are possibly for "a transcendent purpose"?
Awful nice of him to judge what's "transcendent" and not though.... Reminds me of Leo Strauss.
While precocious and even understandable given his times, this Morgenthau—who it is possible to like enormously otherwise as I do—has nevertheless become somewhat of the archetype of a certain kind of commentator these days: The world or its selected parts exists it seems at the end of their (often uptilted) noses for their scrutiny, and woe betide those moral lepers within who don't measure up.
E.g., in politics, what seems to me the perfect recipe for having one's nation jerked around by the fleeting fashions or self-interested passions of some self-selected moral elites. Indeed perhaps the recipe that led to us believe we should invade Iraq, try to remake the Middle East, and ought now try conclusions with Iran.
It amazes me that anyone would expect Gates to be anything but pro war, pro conflict, pro chaos. You can bet he is making lots of money, either directly or indirectly, on all the wars the USA is financing. He really is no more than a reasonable appearing Chaney! He's a war monger, pure and simple. His greatest gift is being able fool people as smart as Walt.
Perhaps no NATO nation has a responsiblitiy to bail us out of a failed cold war covert CIA operation gone rogue and causing 30 years of unremitting misery and suffering for the Afghan people. Who supported the first terrorists there? Who had a secular and femist friendly country at the time? Who started using Islamic fundamentalist for our our selfish purposes to lure the Soviet Union into occupying the country and getting their Vietnam experience? Who somehow lost the faveor of those freedom fighters who then lashsed back at us? Who is fooling who?
While Gates may not know collective goods theory (thank God!) it does not mean he doesn't understand alliance dynamics.
Walt's assumption is that Gates really believes is harsh comments might change European behavior. I would be shocked if Gates actually believed that.
Maybe what Walt needs to think of is that Gates me be playing a two-level or nested game. By verbally hammering the euros on this issue it sets the stage to ask for concessions on other issues.
Might Walt need a refresher on bargaining logic?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(30)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE