Britain’s vote to leave the EU in 2016 was
followed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s arrival on the world stage. Since
then, the feeling has only grown in the EU that its foreign policy has to
change to meet the bruising, confrontational challenges of a new age. (1)
This is not a new age.
The world has not changed. It’s
the same brutal, ruthless, often evil world it’s always been. The only change is that the West has grown
soft and complacent. Worse – far worse –
is that the West has come to believe that the rest of the world is as civilized
as the West believes itself to be.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Most of the world is a violent, hateful place ruled by warlords (regardless
of what title they choose to bestow upon themselves) and governed by the
ancient and still totally relevant principle that ‘might makes right’. The strong survive and thrive and the weak
die in subjugation. Evolution does not
reward meekness or pacifism as a survival strategy.
As the article succinctly states,
For decades now, the EU has tried to be the
counterpoint of alpha male superpower politics, spreading its “soft power”
brand across the globe based on economic and developmental aid, cultural clout
and the promotion of human rights, among other non-coercive strategies. (1)
While it is laudable to strive for a world based on warm, fuzzy
feelings and mutual respect it is also foolish to ignore the reality that the
world is a brutal place and most of the world doesn’t respect or care about the
niceties of polite society. I’m not going
to bother citing the litany of soft power failings - you know it as well as I
do.
Now, the EU is being forced to confront reality.
“We Europeans must adjust our mental maps to
deal with the world as it is, not as we
hoped it would be,” Borrell [EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell] wrote
in an article last week. “To avoid being the losers in today’s U.S.-China
competition, we must relearn the language of power.” [emphasis added] (1)
Wow! ‘The world as it
is, not as we hoped it would be’. That’s
basic, eternal truth being relearned the hard way by the EU. Hopefully, the US will also learn the lesson
of reality from this.
How does one avoid being a loser in today’s world? The answer is the same as it’s been
throughout history – have a powerful military.
Unfortunately, that immediately leads to yet another painful lesson for
the EU.
That will be something made even more
difficult without the military clout of Britain. French leader Macron says
“Europeans must take more responsibility for European defense.”
“The European Union needs to shoulder
greater responsibility for its own security and also step up its geopolitical
presence,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said at the EU parliament this
week. (1)
How long has ComNavOps called for the US to pull out of
Europe and let Europe defend themselves?
Finally, at long last, the EU is beginning to recognize the faintest
glimmer of this reality and the wisdom that motivates it. If the EU wants security and safety, they
have to fight for it. No one is going to
hand it to them out of the goodness of their hearts. As the saying goes, ‘If you want peace,
prepare for war’.
A US pullout from Europe is not only in the best interest of
the US but it’s also in the best interest of the EU. It will force them to end their welfare-like
dependence on the US for security. That
dependence may have been necessary immediately after WWII but it hasn’t been
necessary for many decades now. That
dependence not only is a source of weakness for the EU but it breeds resentment
towards the US as all dependence ultimately does toward those bestowing the
welfare.
Not only should the US pull out of Europe, the EU should
kick the US out and take their proud and independent place among the nations of
the world !
The road ahead for the EU will be difficult and painful as
noted here,
Firas Modad, a senior analyst with IHS
Markit, issued a downbeat assessment of the EU’s stature as it struggled
unsuccessfully to keep the Iran nuclear agreement intact.
“Europe is regulated from Washington,” he
said. “The European banking system depends on the dollar, the European economy
depends on the European banking system. The Europeans don’t spend on their own
defence. The weak don’t have a say. (1)
Again, this illustrates the vulnerability of dependence by
the EU. It will be challenging but the
EU must accept responsibility for its own well-being and security and rise up
and stand on its own.
Now, how does all this tie into military matters beyond the
obvious call for the US to disengage from Europe?
The answer should be obvious. Just as noted in the article, the US
geopolitical strategy must recognize that the world is a brutal place that does
not recognize our desire for gentle approaches.
The world respects power and only power.
That power can take many forms but its ultimate foundation is military
might.
We need to stop bending over backwards, to our own
detriment, trying to persuade barbaric countries/rulers to miraculously become
civilized. By all means, let’s try the
soft approach the first time but when that fails, as it almost always does, we
need to switch to the application of power.
That does not mean we should instantly bomb every country that doesn’t
agree with us on the first attempt. What
it means is that we should defend our interests (and our boats, drones, ships,
aircraft, and personnel) with all necessary force.
I’ve posted on the moral and legal aspects of this so I
won’t bother repeating myself. Suffice
it to say that the US needs to begin reasserting itself and its interests.
- When Iran can seize two US boats and crews with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
- When Iran can shoot down US drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
- When China can seize US underwater drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
- When Russia can conduct unsafe harassment of US ships and aircraft with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
- When China can order us out of international waters - and we comply - with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
- And so on …
Just as the EU needs to relearn the brutal lessons of the
world, so does the United States. Our
security is being threatened daily, in many different ways, and we need to
begin defending ourselves aggressively.
While that defense should take many different forms, one of the obvious
forms is the military. Deploying around
the world while being unwilling to act is pointless, wasteful, and provocative. It’s past time for the military to take
aggressive action, when threatened.
Note: While it should
not be necessary to say this, I’ll say it anyway for those who are incapable of
grasping the obvious. Calling for the US
to pull out, militarily, from Europe does not mean cutting off all diplomatic,
financial, trade, cultural, and scientific interactions. All of that would continue. It also does not mean zero interaction with
European militaries. There is nothing
wrong with cooperative training, personnel exchanges, technology exchanges,
etc. In fact, there’s nothing wrong with
the US maintaining basing rights or a military presence where it suits American interests.
__________________________________
Breitbart website, “EU Mired In Squabble Over Who Should Pay
to Cover Lost British Money”, 15-Feb-2020,
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/15/eu-mired-squabble-over-who-should-pay-cover-lost-british-money/
Your comments are spot on, sir.
ReplyDeleteFormer reserve OOD(F), XO, NAVIGATOR
I appreciate that. Given your background, what naval presence, if any, should be maintain in the European region?
DeleteOn a separate note, any thoughts on modern navigational training (or lack thereof) in the US Navy? I'm asking about debilitating dependence on GPS and automated nav systems as opposed to lookouts, cross-bearings, charts, and old fashioned plotting. Any thoughts?
Since you got no answer, I'll contribute. I liked your question, there's probably room for a separate thread. It isn't just NAV training that is in need of more rigor, but tactical and operational training as well. Singular reliance on modern systems - satellite based NAV, IBNS, digital charts, collision avoidance and so on - reinforces a basic disregard for the risks posed by the marine environment. USN should be in the business of raising the professional skills of every sailor who puts to sea. The ultimate end state would be for them to be as proficient as licensed professional mariners. That wouldn't be a bad goal, although it isn't a guarantee against disasters, see the sad result of El Faro. Proficient Seamanship could use more emphasis IMHO, and in wake of FITZ and MCCAIN, I think the fleet is taking steps. But if you don't practice the basics - DR, Celestial NAV, moboard, tactical formation training, seamanship thumb rules, etc - you will be in extremis when the environment or an enemy (sometimes the same thing) takes your nice automated system away. Even sailors who were very skilled have encountered disaster - 75 years ago last December, over 700 sailors lost their lives in a Pacific typhoon due to failure to read and heed the signs of the oncoming storm. I highly recommend one of my favorite books - Typhoon: The Other Enemy, by Captain Raymond C. Calhoun, a true WWII hero and skipper of USS DEWEY during the storm. Should be required reading for all sailors. For those interested, here is a link to a video featuring Captain Calhoun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJXx25aSzE
DeleteVery good comment.
DeleteYou're absolutely correct about the basics. When I was young and calculators came into vogue, my school system allowed and encouraged calculator use in elementary school so that the students could begin focusing on 'higher' math. Well, it failed completely because it produced several years worth of students who couldn't do basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in their heads. They didn't know their multiplication tables!
We've raised a generation of 'sailors' who can't do the basics of navigation. Every officer in the Navy should be an actual licensed master mariner since the Navy has no equivalent program.
Master sailing and then move on to mastery of tactics and operations with the same degree of competence.
You probably dont mean 'every officer should be a master mariner' but maybe deck officers above a certain rank.
DeleteHowever the current situation is even worse as this story comparing the career path of a destroyer captain with that of the MSC oiler its refueling from
https://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/
"The reason for this is due in no small measure to the fact that the U.S. Navy is different from the world’s seagoing organizations (military, governmental, or commercial) because we do not have separate, defined career paths for seagoing line officers. As such, instead of producing savvy, competent warfighting seafarers, engineers, or weaponeers, we often end up with the generalist/careerist who is concerned primarily with arriving at a 20-year retirement without any bumps in the road."
The destroyers chief engineer isnt a specialist either , nor likely for the other specialties on board. Not all Navies work like this
This is the problem in a nutshell:
"He spent the last six years before taking command of the destroyer in required staff and joint assignments ashore — three years as part of a destroyer/cruiser squadron staff, and three more working at the Pentagon."
The biggest problem I see with the European militaries, in particular their land component, is the lack of readiness. We often have this problem as well, but they tend to have it to an extreme that is boggling. When we talk about NATO contributions it's almost exclusively about percent of GDP investment in their armed forces. I think we should stop haranguing them on money and start harping on useable and deployable capabilities.
ReplyDeleteEuropean military lack of readiness - correct, however, ready for what? Where is the threat?
DeleteAlso, militaries are driven by politicians, politicians have a shed load of problems, very vague military threats are way down their list.
I look at militaries a bit differently than most politicians might, armed forces should be a measure of excellence. It reflects on the nation for a start. It can also be a good national training institution for people to some degree.
Essentially I believe your last sentence to be spot on.
"however, ready for what? Where is the threat?"
DeleteYou pose an interesting question that can be answered both philosophically and demonstrably.
Philosophically, a strong military is the best guarantee of peace regardless of whether there is a direct, active threat or not. It's far easier to maintain a military against the possibility of a threat than to try to raise a military from nothing when a threat actually arises. Cost, of course, is a separate issue.
Demonstrably, there are a few threats to Europe. One is Russia. Russia has demonstrated the willingness to annex territory and invade countries. While I don't believe Russia poses an immediate threat to Europe, I believe that is because Europe is armed (setting aside readiness issues). In the theoretical extreme, if no European country had any military, I don't think Putin/Russia would hesitate to annex/invade countries that they either consider 'theirs' anyway or that would offer benefits to owning.
Beyond outright invasion/annexation, Russia has extreme interest in various bodies of waters where de facto ownership would be of benefit in providing expanded seafront access. Given that those bodies of water are already owned by European countries, enforcement of territorial ownership becomes problematic without a military.
Finally, Russian cruise, ballistic, and nuclear threats alone would be sufficient to force European countries to capitulate to Russian demands for favorable financial and trade benefits without European military force to counter the threats and render them moot.
Another threat is the several Middle East religious and terrorist movements that are, in fact, executing a de facto invasion and occupation of several European countries. It would not take much for this 'peaceful' invasion to turn violent.
The US hasn't been at war in the European understanding of the word since 1865. It is no accident of history that the EU speaks of military preparedness, 100 years after the War to End all Wars ended, man is quick to forget. The Middle easterners kill each other in the 10s of thousands, Europeans kill each other in the millions.
ReplyDeleteOn a happier note, Brexit is only stage 1, then comes
a United Ireland, Sexit and maybe Wexit.
Sexit is awkward, the BritBoomers are based there.
"The US hasn't been at war in the European understanding of the word since 1865."
Delete????? What is the European understanding of war? One would think that WWI and WWII, among others, would qualify as war.
European wars are generally fought in Europe at great cost to the civilian populations.
DeleteUS wars are generally fought at great cost to someone else's civilian population.
The difference is significant.
Ah … okay. And how does that relate to the post?
DeleteIt may be that having centuries of wars fought on your home ground has given the Europeans a somewhat different outlook about how badly they want to fight another one.
DeleteThe US hasn't experienced the same level of devastation on home ground in recent times and seems a little too eager to engage as a result.
I'm not sure if this fits within the context of the original comment, but it is very definitely a point of view of some Europeans. Wars are a last resort rather than a tool of diplomacy because of the consequences.
"view of some Europeans. Wars are a last resort rather than a tool of diplomacy "
DeleteYour (meaning Europe, not you personally) view of war as a last resort doesn't change the fact that much of the rest of the world views war as a routine activity. Putin and Mother Russia, for example, seem to show little hesitation to engage in war if they see a benefit. The Middle East is full of factions/countries that view war as routine. China seems firmly committed to a path that will lead to war with the US. And so on.
This is exactly the quote from the article/post: 'world as it is, not as we hoped it would be'.
And, if you want peace, prepare for war.
Some in Europe may view war as a last resort but some of their neighbors may view it as a first resort especially if Europe shows weakness (like running out of munitions in a week in a live fire skirmish in Libya!).
So, Europe can either,
1. prepare for war as a way to ensure peace or,
2. learn a new language so that they can communicate with the people who conquer them.
Nato was a good vehicle for western Europeans to join together to face an external threat. Historically that was a change from the infighting that caused two world wars. A diminished but resurgent Russia is a minimal threat at this day in age, so if the Europeans arent willing to expend their share on defense, we should leave Nato. If for any reason we ever have to return to Europe, we will always have the UK as a jumping off point, and that costs us nothing...
Delete"There is nothing wrong with cooperative training, personnel exchanges, technology exchanges, etc. In fact, there’s nothing wrong with the US maintaining basing rights or a military presence where it suits American interests."
ReplyDeleteIts not explicitly mentioned, but where do you stand on military alliances like NATO and security agreements with other nations?
"where do you stand on military alliances like NATO and security agreements with other nations?"
DeleteIt would depend on the specific country and the circumstances but, generally speaking, I'm opposed to such treaties because they're not really necessary or wise.
Unnecessary - If two countries have good relations and their coexistence is mutually beneficial then no treaty is needed to secure cooperation during war. For example, the US will never allow the UK to stand alone in a war, if they needed our help - and vice versa.
Unwise - Security treaties invariably result in one party footing more of the responsibility and cost than the other(s). For example, NATO. NATO has 'allowed' the non-US countries to farm out their defense/security without paying for it. This is bad for all parties, as explained in the post.
Let me be crystal clear - the US should immediately pull out of NATO. The threat for which NATO was created no longer exists and Europe has more than enough capability to handle the Soviet remnants - meaning a vastly downsized Russia - without US assistance. Every organization needs a sunset clause and NATO is long past its expiration date. It stinks like spoiled milk.
As usual, you don't pull any punches. All too often, an organization develops its own interia over time and lasts longer than it should. Sometimes an organization reinvents itself to adapt to the times. NATO seems to be an example for the former. NATO served its purpose during the Cold War and in the first years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But, I'm coming around to the idea that NATO should be disbanded.
Delete"As usual, you don't pull any punches."
DeleteWould you want to read a wishy-washy blog? The Navy already has a website that doesn't say anything of consequence! :)
NATO serves a purpose as a standardizer and a means of coordination between allies. It does little for defense because it is indecisive and cumbersome. Eliminating NATO would create significant inter-operability issues.
ReplyDeleteI propose that every country is given a particular security obligation: for example: the French provide 2 infantry Regiments and 2 Armor Regiments on a standby 2 year rotation, the Germans provide 1 Artillery Regiment and 2 Fighter Squadrons,etc...NATO becomes a grading and evaluation system for measuring each country’s contribution against a common standard.
This type of NATO would be smaller but play to the strength of the Alliance and reduce the bureaucracy.
"Eliminating NATO would create significant inter-operability issues."
DeleteOnly if the various countries allow it to happen. In fact, it is in the best interests of each country to maintain the highest degree of interoperability they can.
This is not to say that non-standardization won't creep in - it will. It even happens within the US military and even within in individual services in the US military.
Bear in mind that NATO has already been 'replaced', in a sense, by the EU. With or without NATO, the EU can easily function to ensure interoperability.
"every country is given a particular security obligation"
This idea gives me a feeling of unease but I can't say why. I'll have to think on it a bit. I can see the upside - known, specific contributions - but I suspect there's a downside that I'm not immediately seeing.
America conquered Western Europe in 1945 an turned those countries into de facto vassals, which is what they are to this day (they are called "allies" to save face, Britain aside).
ReplyDeleteYou correctly point out that without NATO European countries would get stronger militarily, but doing that would go against the core of US strategy since the last war.
Washington much prefers a bunch of military weak European countries that can't do much on their own to having Europe grow stronger and rivaling the US.
(If they didn't, they would not have stopped Germany and Italy back then.)
You're welcome to your opinion but that's about the most far-fetched thing I've heard in a long time! The US would love nothing more than to be able to pull out of Europe so that we could concentrate against China. The US would love Europe to be able to stand against the Middle East. Trump has been pounding on Europe to pay for, and grown their militaries. A strong Europe would free up US naval units to focus on China. None of that fits with your theory.
DeleteThis is not a political blog so we'll let it end there.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but you're making virtually the same argument made by isolationists in the inter war period.
ReplyDeleteHow quickly we forget the lessons of WW2.
If you're referring to my call for the US to pull out of Europe/NATO militarily, you need to bear in mind several key differences.
Delete1. I'm emphatically NOT calling for abandonment of all interaction and presence - just military.
2. The military presence removed from Europe will be reallocated to the Pacific and the Chinese threat - the opposite of isolation.
3. America has always had a strong isolationist tendency. It's in our nature.
Europe has allowed their militaries to atrophy to a dangerous level. Indeed, how quickly we forget the lessons of WWII. America needs ALL of its military focused on China, not scattered around the world and especially not in places that are more than capable of taking care of themselves, like Europe.
A country should have alliances for only 3 reasons:
ReplyDelete1) To secure food supplies it lacks.
2) To secure energy supplies and/or key strategic minerals.
3) To acquire needed military assistance (troops or weaponry).
After the end of the Cold War in 1990, NATO was unneeded to provide any of these benefits for the US. A new defense architecture is needed.
What about alliances to promote the growth and development of a country that offers us nothing today but might, someday, with guidance and protection, become a viable and beneficial partner?
DeleteWhat about alliances that offer protection to another country just because it's the moral thing to do; in other words, the argument that the strong have a moral obligation to protect the weak.
What about an alliance that strengthens other countries that may form a portion of a united resistance against our enemies (an alliance with Philippines, for example, to resist Chinese expansion, even if we get nothing direct out of it?).
What about an alliance that expands our trade and, by doing so, diminishes the trade opportunities of our enemies?
What about an alliance that promotes cultural and scientific cooperation and interaction?
Are you sure there are not more than three reasons for an alliance?
"A new defense architecture is needed."
If you believe that, what form should it take?
I agree with your examples, however I should have been more precise with my words. By "alliance", I mean a treaty alliance between two nations. One which has been agreed to by the leaders of both countries and signed. Then the people's representatives of each signatory have voted and ratified the treaty into law (in the case of the US, it requires 2/3 of the Senate). This type of treaty carries a force equal to Federal Law and is a pact which we are duty-bound to honor with our lives, if needed.
DeleteYour examples (again, I agree most of them are good, and necessary), are "agreements", "understandings", or "ententes" (understandings). All great to do when needed, but they are not alliances.
"Agreements" are pieces of paper.
Alliances are sacred obligations. They are only to be entered into when there is no other choice. That's why we have so few of them.
New Architecture in next post. Thanks.
Let's have a new understanding with Europe. If Russia invades, Europe will be responsible for defending the Eastern Front while we open up a second, "Siberian" front through Alaska.
DeleteThis new understanding will allow us to concentrate more on basing, transports, and infrastructure for the Pacific.
Obviously, this same infrastructure could also be helpful to take on China as well.