Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, May 16. 2008
Observing Hermann has posted a revealing article that references the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) most recent survey on global arms transfers (HT: Joe Noory):
The survey says that the USA, Russia and Germany are the world’s leading weapons exporters, with Germany’s latest weapons export piece of the pie profits coming in at around $3.395 billion. Damn, just think of all the ploughshares you could buy with that.
Taking a look at the numbers more closely reveals some interesting facts:
 In 2007:
• The USA, Russia, and Germany held 31, 19, and 14 percent of global exports respectively
• France was the fourth largest arms exporter, with 11% of the global market
From 2006 to 2007:
• Russia’s market share dropped 25% to 19%
• Germany’s market share rose 11% to 14%
• France’s market share rose 6% to 11%
The chart above shows Germany's global arms exports have increased steadily over the past few years. This is interesting considering Germany's resistance to take on an active combat role in Afghanistan, instead preferring to focus on reconstruction projects. As Observing Hermann wryly states:
All I can say is that it’s good to know that all of these German weapons are being used for goodness and niceness and purely defensive purposes (did you know that Wehrmacht meant defensive force?), not like some other countries’ weapons out there, if you know what I’m sayin’. Otherwise a whole lot of people in this country wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Afghanistan: Merkel has “No Time” for Burden Sharing Proposals
• Afghanistan: NATO Crisis Gets Worse
• War for Dummies: Step 1, Fighting is Necessary
• Afghanistan: Fighting is Not Most Important
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Saturday, May 3. 2008
Due to a shortfall in contributions from NATO allies, the Pentagon is considering sending as many as 7,000 more US troops to Afghanistan, write Steven Lee Myers and Thom Shanker in the New York Times:
[Senior Bush administration officials] said the step would push the number of American forces there to roughly 40,000, the highest level since the war began more than six years ago, and would require at least a modest reduction in troops from Iraq.
The planning began in recent weeks, reflecting a growing resignation to the fact that NATO is unable or unwilling to contribute more troops despite public pledges of an intensified effort in Afghanistan from the presidents and prime ministers who attended an alliance summit meeting in Bucharest, Romania, last month.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Bumper Stickers Slogans: What is the Purpose of NATO?
• Afghanistan: Merkel Has "No Time" for Burden Sharing Proposals
• Rupert Murdoch: Alliance Based on Shared Values, not Geography
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, April 28. 2008
France has signaled over the past few months that it may pursue reintegration into the NATO command structure, which President Charles de Gaulle fitfully left in 1966. A sympathetic member of the French National Assembly published an article in Newsweek arguing this move is, “no less than a revolution for NATO and transatlantic relations.” The article explains Sarkozy's proposed tradeoff:
By showing that France is America's trusted friend again, Sarkozy hopes to gain influence on American policy, and, in particular, on lifting the longtime U.S. veto on European defense.
This is an interesting proposal: France will rejoin NATO if it can pursue its own parallel EU military structures. Many in the US defense establishment have long been concerned that a more autonomous European Security and Defense Policy is intended to act as a counterweight to the United States, or that it will duplicate/detract from NATO programs and assets. As Soeren Kern of the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos states in World Politics Review:
… most of Sarkozy's proposals seem to be geared toward creating a rival European defense structure that over time will duplicate but not double NATO resources… Indeed, some of the more U.S.-leaning European states suspect that France's renewed interest in rejoining NATO is in fact a Trojan horse designed, ultimately, to destroy the Atlantic Alliance from within.
At the same time, the United States has been pushing Europe to build stronger military capabilities since the Alliance was born, based on a plea for "burden sharing." One common sentiment, although often expressed with reserve, is that “it doesn’t matter where the forces come from, so long as they come.” By rejoining NATO, Sarkozy may be able to strike a balance of confidences between what on the face appears to be double-think: convincing America of France’s commitment to Atlanticism, while concurrently pursuing greater European military autonomy.
However, Soeren Kern points out that even if Sarkozy’s intentions are Atlanticist in nature, they will probably not outlast his term of presidency:
For most of the French ruling elite (the anti-American Left and the nationalist Right), the United States is considered to be the main problem in international affairs because of its reluctance to share its power. The only solution, in their view, is a French-led EU superstate that can counterbalance America on the global stage. And a unified EU foreign and defense policy that is completely independent of NATO (i.e., the United States) is essential to achieve equal status. Until then, anti-Americanism will continue to be the preferred means to accelerate the process of loosening the transatlantic link.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
• Europeans View China as the Biggest Threat to Global Security
• Europe is a Threat to the United States
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Friday, January 25. 2008
A group of European and American military leaders co-authored a report that was released last week, titled Toward a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World, Renewing Transatlantic Partnership (PDF version available from CSIS). The top brass – all with NATO experience – argue that the Alliance remains critical to both Europe and the US:
We are convinced that there is no security for Europe without the US, but we also dare to submit that there is no hope for the US to sustain its role as the world’s sole superpower without the Europeans as allies.
The manifesto begins by arguing that many current and future threats – such as terrorism, international crime, demographic shifts, energy security, climate change, etc. – cannot effectively be addressed by any single country on its own. Instead, NATO provides the best opportunity for western countries to address new threats because it "links together a group of countries that share the most important values and convictions and that took a decision to defend those values and convictions collectively."
Continue reading "Military Leaders Outline Plan for New Transatlantic Bargain"
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Thursday, January 17. 2008
After months of pitfalls and procrastination, talks have picked up again on the placement of US missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland – and negotiations are not getting any easier for the United States. The NYT reports:
The new [Polish] government apparently intends to press the United States to pay for creating, maintaining and protecting the system and to modernize Poland’s air defense capacities by providing Patriot missiles. “The new Polish government is prepared to drive a hard bargain because much is at stake if this system goes ahead,” said Tomas Valasek, director of defense at the Center for European Reform, an independent research agency in London . “Poland wants security guarantees from the U.S. since it is not convinced NATO would provide that guarantee. This means the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Poland but also helping Poland to upgrade its air defenses.”
What I find interesting is that Europe is supposed to benefit from the missile shield, and yet is now demanding more money and goodies from the US to secure European support.
The harder line by the new Polish government is not a surprise, but nonetheless will increase uncertainty for a project that is already facing domestic opposition in Europe, official opposition from Russia, and is not too popular among Democrats in Congress either – all this during a US election year. Congress is wary about expanding missile defense systems based in large part on high costs and frequent let-downs in the technology. According to a recent report by the reputable non-partisan Congressional Budget Office:
Carrying out current plans would cause total investment costs for missile defenses to peak in 2016 at about $15 billion [per year] (excluding cost risk), CBO projects, and then decrease, as systems finished the procurement phase and became operational. This peak occurs about three years later than that projected by CBO in October 2005 because of delays in several major programs, as discussed below. If cost risk is taken into account, DoD’s projected investment needs for missile defenses might be about $3 billion higher each year.
The new Euro-missile sites in the Czech and Poland are alone estimated to cost roughly $18 billion between 2007-2017.
I wonder if Poland's harder line signals the death of Rumsfeld’s unequivocally pro-American "New Europe"? The US appears willing to entertain Polish demands for now, with a Pentagon spokesman stating, "Because of [Poland's special relationship with the U.S.], we believe that we can overcome whatever differences may exist on this issue very quickly." However, there is definitely a notable reticence to back US missile defense plans from the new Polish government that was not found in its predecessor.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, December 11. 2007
While many Americans criticize Germany and other European countries for not spending enough on defense, there seem to be more and more Americans, who criticize the huge US defense budget, which is not only much much bigger than the combined budgets of half a dozen US enemies and allies, but also huge compared to other foreign policy instruments.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for instance calls for more money and effort to "soft power" tools, including communications, because the military alone cannot defend America's interests around the world. (See Atlantic Review post "Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America").
Today, James Carroll refers to Gates speech and writes in The Boston Globe (HT: David): "For US foreign policy, it's all power, no influence":
A MAN bit a dog last week. Not just any man, and not just any dog. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decried the vast disproportion between America's annual investment in the Pentagon - something like $700 billion - and what is spent on the State Department - about $35 billion. That's less, Gates said in a speech in Kansas, than the Defense Department spends on healthcare. The total number of foreign service officers is about 6,600 - which is less, Gates said, than the number of military personnel serving on one aircraft carrier strike group.
And a for me even more shocking comparison was quoted in FP Passport: "There are substantially more people employed as musicians in Defense bands than in the entire foreign service," says David J. Kilcullen, a senior advisor to Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq.
I know, why Germany spends comparatively little on defense: a) A long history of starting the wrong wars, b) domestic priorities (unemployment, ageing society etc), c) less fear of terrorism than in the US, and d) belief in soft power, especially in the stabilization effects of an ever expanding EU.
But why is the US spending comparatively little on regular foreign policy, including public diplomacy? Why is the Pentagon budget and staff sooo much bigger than the State Department budget and staff? Why is hard power considered soo important?
Which country's policy is more short-sighted and could prove to be more of a problem in the coming years? Germany's or America's?
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
US Foreign Policy on Wednesday, November 14. 2007
AFP reports: Two of the four US combat brigades left in Europe were supposed to move to US bases over the next year, but General Bantz Craddock, the commander of US forces in Europe, has recommended postponing the move by about a year. [Secretary of Defense] Gates "is inclined to embrace the concept of leaving two of them there for a time longer than originally anticipated," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. Craddock had recommended the slowdown in withdrawing the troops, saying more forces were needed for "security theater engagement," Whitman added. The plan is seen as a "short term solution" to a troop crunch in Europe, but it also indicates the US military is having second thoughts about a two-year-old plan to scale back its presence in Europe. Stars and Stripes: [U.S. Army Europe commander Gen. David] McKiernan said two weeks ago at the Pentagon that he wanted to keep four combat brigades not two in Germany. Specifically, he wanted to keep the Schweinfurt, Germany-based 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division; the Baumholder, Germany-based 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division; the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Italy; and the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment from Vilseck, Germany. He cited a resurgent Russia, a potential for violence in Kosovo and unresolved energy issues near the Caspian Sea Basin as among very valid reasons to be forward-present in Europe. McKiernan said he believed the Army should keep about 40,000 troops in Europe, down from 43,000 now stationed there. That's some 20,000 fewer than there were three years ago and some 16,000 more than the plan for Europe envisioned when it was announced in 2003. Gen. Bantz Craddock previously said that even with current troop strength it was difficult to fulfill European Command missions. Commentary from Atlantic Review on this matter in the post: Reductions of US Troops in Europe Could Impede US Operations
Posted by Editors in
German Politics on Friday, November 2. 2007
German soldiers use ten rolls of lavatory paper each day. Roger Boyes asks in The Times Online (HT: David): "Were peacekeepers in Afghanistan being force-fed dried prunes? Or perhaps soldiers were hiding in lavatories rather than doing their duty?" No, apparently "the grey recycled paper is the best way of cleaning small-calibre weapons every soldier knows that."
Posted by Editors in
US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, October 16. 2007
Marc Schulman does not expect the Democrats to take note of some positive developments in Iraq. He quotes the Washington Post in his American Future blog:
In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. Last week, Marc wrote about about a NYT article describing a changed sectarian landscape: "Sunni extremists largely defeated in many Shiite neighborhoods" and Baghdad's Shiites "disillusioned" with the Mahdi Army. See his post: "Turn of the Tide in Iraq.
None of these developments made (big) news in Germany.
UPDATE: Today, the Washington Post also runs an Op-Ed by 12 former Army captains: "The Real Iraq We Knew." They argue that the US should "leave Iraq immediately," unless the draft is re-instituted:
Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. (...)
Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.
This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
US Foreign Policy on Saturday, October 6. 2007
When Gerhard Schroeder suggested lifting the EU's arms embargo on China, many Americans were furious. Never mind that there was never sufficient support for such a move in Germany and in the European Union. Anyway, it now seems that China will profit in some other ways from the United States. The Washington Times: A Chinese company with ties to Beijing's military and past links to Saddam Hussein's army in Iraq and the Taliban will gain access to U.S. defense-network technology under a proposed merger, Pentagon officials say. (...) Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he is worried the deal will lead to the loss of sensitive technology to China. Also, the government of Iraq makes an arms deal with China. Washington Post: Iraq has ordered $100 million worth of light military equipment from China for its police force, contending that the United States was unable to provide the materiel and is too slow to deliver arms shipments, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said yesterday. The China deal, not previously made public, has alarmed military analysts who note that Iraq's security forces already are unable to account for more than 190,000 weapons supplied by the United States, many of which are believed to be in the hands of Shiite and Sunni militias, insurgents and other forces seeking to destabilize Iraq and target U.S. troops. This reminds me of Representative Murtha's statement from 2006: "The only people who want us in Iraq is Iran and al-Qaeda." Well, European policy analysts want Americans to stay in Iraq as well...
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, October 3. 2007
"Drunken superiors, life-threatening vehicle training on mined territory and a vigorous trading of beer for United States military intelligence -- these are part of a long list of accusations contained in eyewitness accounts and documents that have just surfaced," writes Spiegel International about the Bundeswehr's elite Kommando Spezialkraefte (KSK) in Afghanistan: One colonel in Kandahar is said to have been so fond of alcohol that American officers were forced to complain about his presence at mission briefings, during which he was clearly intoxicated. (...)
Ed H., a US soldier stationed in Kandahar from December 2001 onward (...): "Basically, the Germans were not allowed to do anything," he recalls. "They looked around for things to do. They were incredibly bored." (...) But then the Germans' reputation abruptly changed. A rumor spread among US troops that at least one thing was worthwhile in the German unit -- its supply of alcohol. "Beer was like a currency," says one US soldier, who stocked up on the beverages provided by the KSK troops. "To us, the German beer supplies were Big Rock Candy." And the German and US troops also bonded over their beers. The KSK troops were especially interested in socializing with US reconnaissance troops. By drinking with them, they obtained access to confidential situation reports, and even satellite photographs and intelligence reports. Sometimes they were able to make phone calls using US satellite facilities. Even helicopter flights and other transportation services were traded for beer. One source says the KSK used the alcohol trade to "creatively compensate for the material deficits of the German forces." Why isn't it legal to share beer and intel between NATO allies? ;-)
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Quotes, US Domestic and Cultural Issues, US Foreign Policy on Wednesday, September 19. 2007
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said according to Yahoo! News:
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." Totally unrelated: Gainesville Sun reports about a shrewed journalism student and the incompetent and brutal security service at the University of Florida. Many US universities are better than German universities, but here students don't get tasered, not even obnoxious self-promoters.
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
Just like me? Zyme's suggestion that that old, outmoded embargo being done away with [...]
Joe Noory about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
So evil is alright if it's done with élan and panache. The same old one-sided story [...]
jabgoe about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
So, what is the consequence of this article? Is it intended to convice everybody that [...]
franchie about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
no, But I like precision, the sense of the details, (typically french :lol: [...]
franchie about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
nah, their making business, protecting their jobs, just like you do ouh ouh !
Pat Patterson about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
You have to go to the link and find the figures listed for 2006 and 2007 for the UK [...]
Joe Noory about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
Yeah? You and what Army? Selling arms, as we've seen by the rapacious example of [...]
Pat Patterson about Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France
Franchie-All I can suggest is that if reading one of my posts causes such agony and [...]