Defending Countries that Don’t Defend Themselves
Iceland Review reports that “Former Minister of Justice Björn Bjarnason described the Iceland Defense Agency as ‘remnants of times past’ and said it might even complicate defense relationships with other nations. The Coast Guard should be focused on instead.” Doug Bandow responds:
It may well be true that Iceland doesn’t have many enemies. But if the Europeans don’t believe they need defending, then isn’t this another good reason to bring home America’s troops? Certainly there’s no reason for the U.S. to defend countries which don’t bother to field militaries themselves!
This seems wrong on a number of levels. For one thing, it’s odd to leap from an observation about Iceland—population 320,000—to broad conclusions about “the Europeans.” Iceland is not only tiny, it’s not really located on the European continent, and it’s definitely not a member of the European Union. In fact, overall European defense spending is quite robust:
I don’t think anyone would characterize China or Russia as countries that “don’t believe they need defending” and Europe commits substantially more funds. Meanwhile, much as you could use Europe’s alleged unwillingness to defend itself as a reason to withdraw from our NATO commitments, the reasoning works equally well the other way around—if Europe is as well-defended as I say, then why do we need to help defend them? But if the argument works equally well either way, then it also works equally poorly. At the end of the day, the issue of the advisability of our multilateral defense relationships doesn’t hinge on this issue. I would say that the partnerships are valuable, well-worth maintaining, and that ultimately it makes more sense to see the existence of the partnerships as a reason that we could afford to be more restrained in our defense spending rather than as something that we ought to eliminate in the name of restraint.
Specifically with regard to Iceland, I think the main thing that a large country (the United States) ought to ask of a small country (Iceland) with which we have a defense relationship is precisely not to try to field a full-scale military. A full-spectrum Icelandic military would necessarily be far too small to ever be useful to the United States. And given the existence of the U.S. defense commitment, it’s also unnecessary. Far better for us to have Iceland specialize in the hopes of developing some useful capabilities. A small island nation of 320,000 people, for example, really might be able to raise a reasonably robust Coast Guard capable of performing services in a portion of the North Atlantic that are useful to a variety of nations—Ireland, the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, the United States—whose shipping lanes pass through the area.
Indeed, in general this is the kind of thing we would do well to see more of from our European allies. More specialization, especially among the smallest NATO members.
39 Responses to “Defending Countries that Don’t Defend Themselves”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
The point with Iceland as part of NATO really wasn’t its Coast Guard or specialist services it could offer, but its strategic position in the N. Atlantic. And potential war with Warsaw Pact forces would have been dependent on one thing: the ability of US CAVALRY convoys crossing the Atlantic (by air bridge or my ocean) to reinforce NATO troops in Europe. Could NATO hold the Red Army long enough for the US to bring to bear its vast resources? Or would the WP’s long range bombers and subs disrupt US CAVALRY forces long enough to achieve strategic victory in Europe?
Iceland was vital for control of potential bomber paths for attacking Atlantic convoys, and for sub hunting.
Iceland was also an integral part of the SOSUS line.
Of course, it is useful to have specializing forces as part of an interlocking whole (British sub-hunting being one example), but Iceland is there purely there for its geographical importance.
That’s why it was worth defending, and that’s why, if the US cares about Europe at all, its probably worth maintaining a presence there and keeping it under the protection of the US Military.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Small and specialized military and naval forces are very useful today, especially when they are raised and maintained by a politically stable and intact state. Iceland would be one of those save for its utility as a convenient haven for financial piracy and lunacy organized well beyond its borders.
In fact, it would pay Anglo-America to subsidize and support an Icelandic Coast Guard with a variety of missions of joint interest in that region. It would be more efficient and very possibly more proficient than low-priority US-UK forces maintained at a great distance.
Also, on the chart above, important distinctions in military institutions and organization vanish when money becomes a very poor measure of specialized military preparedness and proficiency.
For instance, most of the Scandanavian or Hanseatic countries have proficient “reserve”, “militia”, “regular”, or “merchant marine” naval forces and auxiliaries. These are much more significant than the defense budget outlay.
For instance, Norway and Holland have extensive civilian auxiliary aviation and fleets of auxiliary vessels (a) that provide service to merchant fleet and offshore petroleum operators but (b) that are also designed, equipped, and trained to operate under military command in a variety of naval roles. Exploiting this dual-use capability is a resiliant way to meet both economic competition and international security challenges.
Doubtless, there is a small element of pork, but it is more a matter of national patriotism, proficiency, and honor.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:12 am
“I don’t think anyone would characterize China or Russia as countries that “don’t believe they need defending” and Europe commits substantially more funds.”
When comparing military spending, wouldn’t it make sense to adjust for different personnel costs? We probably spend more per serviceman (on salary, dependent benefits, signing bonuses, social workers, DoD schools for his kid, etc.) than Western Europe does, and Western Europe probably spends 5 or 10 times per serviceman than what Russia or China spends.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:13 am
1: CAVALRY was the codename for a single convoy in Shan Hackett’s book “The Third World War”, which was made up; the word you are looking for is, I think, REFORGER.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Maybe they could focus on just a special forces squad, like the Green Beret or the Mossad, and leave the large scale military expenditures to the big boys. It seems to me that a small, elite fighting force would be actually useful, good for international PR, and fiscally small enough to be plausible.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Ajay: You’re right, of course. Hackett’s two books were so realisitc I sometimes forget where reality ends.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:20 am
A nation’s destruction at the hands of the United States (or one of its funded and armed surrogates) is a quantifiably greater risk than that posed by the armies of any of its neighbors.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:23 am
“A nation’s destruction at the hands of the United States (or one of its funded and armed surrogates) is a quantifiably greater risk than that posed by the armies of any of its neighbors.”
Great point, Steve. I’m sure countries like Estonia and Taiwan are much more afraid of getting invaded by the U.S. than by, say, Russia or China, respectively.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:27 am
While Europe does spend quite a lot on the military, it’s fair to say that it punches well below its weight. Not so much in terms of “unwillingness to defend itself”, although obviously some European countries are less interventionist except in obvious self-interest than the hawkish right would like, but rather that EU military power is less than the sum of its parts. $100bn of US military spending goes a lot further than $100bn of EU military spending, because of language, command structure, interoperability and other issues.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:30 am
i agree that iceland can makes its greatest contribution to the alliance by going the specialization route.
something like, maybe, an elite delta-force unit made up of chess-playing geothermal spelunkers. the icelandic group could totally kick anyone else’s butt at chessplaying in treeless environments. also, drinking.
‘cept maybe the russians, who are also pretty good at fielding teams of hard-drinking chess-players in treeless environments. but per capita–iceland totally kicks.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Amusing. We account for 48% of world military spending, while the Middle East and North Africa account for 5% (and that includes our ally Israel). Yet we are deathly afraid of them.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:39 am
With its cold, rocky terrain, Iceland would be a perfect place to train our Sardaukar troops.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:45 am
God fucking dammit we spend too much money on this shit.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:52 am
HOLY SHIT EUROPE’S AMASSING AN ARMY! THEY’LL INVADE ANY DAY NOW!
They’ve already sent an avant garde, in the form of trust-fund scumbags, to form a sixth column.
The fifth column is Glenn Beck’s engorged cock, magnificently turgid at the prospect of nuclear war.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:53 am
“Great point, Steve. I’m sure countries like Estonia and Taiwan are much more afraid of getting invaded by the U.S. than by, say, Russia or China, respectively.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, you really can’t make a case for predictable cause and effect when the actions of a mad, rabid dog are at issue. For instance, Saudi Arabia gives birth to over a dozen terrorists and allows them to leave their nation. They mingle with others in Afghanistan, come here and kill thousands of Americans. So, after a brief sojourn in Afghanistan (leaving Saudi Arabia completely unpunished and unharmed) we lay waste to Iraq in retaliation. Let’s see, North Korea attacks California. The U.S. invades Taiwan in retaliation. Sounds about right under a Republican leader in 2018. Ridiculous? Yeah, about as ridiculous as Saddam thought the chances of a massive invasion as punishment when he tuned in to see The Towers drop. Or did he say “Damn, I’m glad I had nothing to do with that foolishness.”? Fat lot of good it did him laying low. No Fred, no one is safe from the U.S. We have trillions in weapons needing expended, far more than we can use up and be discriminate about who we murder in the process. New contracts for ever more elaborate and expensive systems are hard to justify when what you have lays about unused. If war isn’t called for somewhere we’ll manufacture reasons to wage one anyway.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
You know, when there was only one comment on this thread I was about to point out the ridiculous pomposity shown, partly in that comment (”keeping it under the protection of the US Military”) but also in Matt’s original post itself (”far too small to ever be useful to the United States,” “Far better for us to have Iceland specialize”).
I didn’t post this at the time, mostly because I agree with what you’re saying and only object to the tone. I mean, it’s basically facts – Iceland is small. A self-sufficient military in a country of 320,000 would be completely pointless. I just thought putting it like this sounded all condescending and American-exceptionalist, and someone wouldn’t have to be from Iceland to be bothered by that. But you already know that, so why bother commenting to complain about how facts were presented?
But I decided to comment after all when I read the following post. America didn’t invent the automobile and wouldn’t have been the first country to have a Jewish person elected to national office – boo, jingoistic exceptionalism! But apparently sheltering nominally independent countries under our military umbrella is just the facts of life, so who cares if it sounds like imperialism?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Waitaminute, don’t the Icelanders at least have a militia or National Guard or something? Who backs up their cops if they get invaded by corsairs or Vikings pirates or more drunken Russian fisherman then they can handle?
What do they do if the Deep Ones rise up from the ocean and the followers of Dagon start carrying off all the beautiful blondes in the country? Male as well as female?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:10 am
But I decided to comment after all when I read the following post. America didn’t invent the automobile and wouldn’t have been the first country to have a Jewish person elected to national office – boo, jingoistic exceptionalism! But apparently sheltering nominally independent countries under our military umbrella is just the facts of life, so who cares if it sounds like imperialism?
Huh? Iceland’s a part of NATO, so we have a mutual defence pact with them. As long as the arrangement is mutually agreeable, where does imperialism come into play?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
A major cause of WWI was that the different countries were afraid of the others getting ahead in the balance of power.
If they had all agreed to cool it, they probably would have spared a few million souls.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Just two points:
1) The US has indeed withdrawn all its forces from Iceland – so using Iceland and its lack of an army as some kind of “wait a minute” argument for sillyness of the US contributing to the defense of Europe is strange. Also, as several commenters have already pointed out, defending Iceland during the Cold war was not about providing military defense to a foreign country: It was all about securing American defenses and keeping tabs on the Russians, securing supply routes to Europe, and monitoring first their long range bombers, and then nuclear submarines.
Without Iceland US military expenditures during the cold war would have been significantly higher, since the US would have had to keep at least 2 carrier groups in the North Atlantic at all times. So, it was a great deal, all around, since you guys built and maintained the airport, and provided construction jobs and such – equal to 20% of foreign currency earnings in the 50s.
2) Berken: No – Iceland does not have any kind of militia or national guard that could assist the police if things somehow got out of control domestically. Even better – Icelandic police is unarmed… Björn Bjarnason, quoted at the beginning of the post however established a special armed police force, but the point of that force was to deal with crazed drunkards who might own a shotgun and refused to listen to the reason.
Protests by environmentalists, and now the protests that led to the fall of the Socialdemocratic/Conservative government, the “January revolution/Kitchen utensil revolution” has raised questions about the need for more riotgear and among the sillier/reactionary elements of the conservative movement questions about the formation of “white guards” that could deal with “protesting hippies”.
But of course there is no need for a militia – Icelanders are generally quite peaceful and polite people. And if there ever was a revolution Im pretty sure that our Scandinavian neighbors would dispatch some commandos to restore law and order.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“Who backs up their cops if they get invaded by corsairs or Vikings pirates or more drunken Russian fisherman then they can handle? ”
They are Vikings.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Sigh.
A liberal arts education in how to disguise fuzzy reasoning is no substitute for knowledge of ..you know.. the facts.
Iceland’s value to the US is as a spy station /naval base for controlling a chokepoint (GIUK Gap) through which Russian nuclear armed ships must pass to enter the Atlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS#SOSUS_goes_operational
Also, the way you nail Russian submarines is that you fly an Orion plane into the general area, the Orion drops parachuted buoys with sonar microphones on the them, triangulates to establish the precise location of the Russian sub and drops a fucking torpedo on its ass.
Give how cold the fucking Northern Atlantic is, it’s nice if the Orion has a nice airfield to return to.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_Gap
February 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Certainly there’s no reason for the U.S. to defend countries which don’t bother to field militaries themselves!
Isn’t this, uh, a bit backwards? There’s no reason for us to defend countries which can’t defend themselves, we should only defend countries which can defend themselves? But if they can defend themselves, why do they need our help?
This also ignores the fact that we don’t really place our military overseas out of the goodness of our hearts — we do it for selfish reasons, so we can project force around the world.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Tom Clancy made the GIUK Gap a pivotal element of Red Storm Rising. From the above wiki:
“In Red Storm Rising, the Soviet Union launches a surprise attack on the NATO airbase NAS Keflavik. The station is completely unprepared and is taken quickly. The result of the attack is the fracturing of the GIUK gap, which allows the Soviet Northern Fleet to place all their SSBNs (ballistic submarines) in friendly-controlled waters with a few SSNs (fast-attack submarines) to stand guard (a bastion defense). The loss of Keflavik and the GIUK line also allows numerous SSNs to slip through the gap and into the Atlantic unchecked.”
———–
Yes, Clancy is a wannabe and an asshole.
But one of his virtues is that he talks with real sailors occasionally , unlike Harvard philosophy majors.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I don’t think it’s entirely frivolous to evaluate what all this defense spending has achieved in the past and ask what it should achieve in the future. It seems in the back of many people’s minds there is a thought lingering along the lines of “more defense spending = more security”. I don’t think this is correct at all.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Specialization of our NATO allies is actually something I recently suggested in a research paper I wrote for my doctoral program. The idea was to move away from industrial warfare and towards a focus on counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, and counter-insurgency, whereby the industrial powers of NATO (US, UK, Germany, etc.) would field the big guns, while smaller countries would field specialized experts, such as linguists, HazMat recovery and clean-up crews, intelligence experts and technology, etc. Not only would this NATO confront the more likely threats to security (rather than massive war with Russia), but countries could contribute the personnel and material they are suited to, improving the quality of NATO forces and reducing the perennial “burden-sharing” debate. Furthermore, it would free up enough European military resources to allow for an independent, but complementary, European defense force, as countries like France have been pushing for, and which the US should get behind.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Nobody has mentioned that the Icelandic Coast Guard fought the Royal Navy to a draw in the ’50s, and again in the ’70s. Google “cod wars.”
February 25th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Does that $711 Billion include the “emergency expenditure” for Iraq & Afganistan or is that just “regular” military spending?
February 25th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
While not in the European Union, Iceland is in the European Economic Area which is the closest thing to membership without actual membership. The EU describes this relationship as follows (emphasis mine):
In other words Iceland has to implement EU rules on the internal market without having a say in their creation – let’s hear it for national sovereignty.
Membership of the Eurozone is another thing again. And given the fate of the Icelandic currency over the last year I think it is safe to say that the people of Iceland were unwise to reject membership of the European Union and the access to the Eurozone it provided. Were all these fish really worth it?
February 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Iceland already protects us from whales and fish ‘n shit.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Stefan @ 25 makes the most pertinent point: We are not in Europe for Europe’s sake. We are there because it is viewed as serving America’s interests to have bases in Europe. Originally against the Russian threat, now to provide support for our pacification campaigns in the Near East.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
When comparing military spending, wouldn’t it make sense to adjust for different personnel costs?
Even if you did, personnel costs are a drop in the bucket compared to, say, maintaining multiple carrier battle groups.
We account for 48% of world military spending, while the Middle East and North Africa account for 5% (and that includes our ally Israel). Yet we are deathly afraid of them.
As Paul Kennedy noted back in 2003:
And I’ll nth those who say that the “European freeriders” line is really just a rationalisation of deployment decisions by the US to serve US interests.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
“Even if you did, personnel costs are a drop in the bucket compared to, say, maintaining multiple carrier battle groups.”
This is utterly false. Personnel costs are the biggest ticket item. And even when it comes to R&D and procurement, the higher labor costs in the U.S. are a large fraction of that.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:48 am
“Stefan @ 25 makes the most pertinent point: We are not in Europe for Europe’s sake.”
Europe benefits from our presence there. Western Europe, you may remember, wasn’t always so peaceful. Our presence helps keep it that way.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Europe benefits from our presence there. Western Europe, you may remember, wasn’t always so peaceful. Our presence helps keep it that way.
So far that this is true, it is completely beside the point. We are not in Western Europe for their sake. We are there because it serves our interests. If we thought it no longer served our interests, we would not be there, and it would just be too bad for the Europeans. I know we like to play the role of the altruistic father to our European “partners” (”Oh, the sacrifices I make for you ungrateful kids”), but the fact of the matter is there is nothing altruistic about it.
Bandow’s underlying question is the wrong one. If we are “defending Europe,” we are not doing it for Europe’s sake. We are doing it for our own sake, on the theory that we also benefit from a stable Europe. The benefits that Europe may or may not gain from these basing decisions are just a happy side effect.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
While it’s true that America defends Europe because it is in our own interests to do so, I think the posters here are oversimplifying the issue. People only protect what they feel connected to, and Americans are connected to Europe in not ONE but TWO ways–economically, which has already been pointed out. But also, culturally, historically, and yes, racially. This last part has been the focal point of many an angry African’s outcry against the willingness of America to send troops over to Europe at the smallest sign of flare-up, while millions of black Africans perish unheeded and, it would seem, unmourned. It is clear that the relationship b/w the U.S. and Europe is NOT a simple economic matter but is also based on race.
The link below contains a letter (which begins on pg 11) published anonymously by an African who points this out with equal parts eloquence and fury. Yet he has the opposite problem–he focuses on racism alone without acknowledging that America also defends Europe based on its vested economic interests.
http://wayneandwax.com/pdfs/ferguson_mimicry.pdf
March 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Sorry. When I was a kid my parents moved a lot, but I always found them.
I am from Romania and now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Cheap airline ticket deals and last minute discounts at farecast.”
Thanks 8). Dinah.