10-25-2004, 08:09 AM
My tentative thesis:
Both sides of the Atlantic want increased capability by Europe, the budgets of Europe notwithstanding. On a realist, very simplified level, the Americans will not want to help guarantee the success of an operation with which they emphatically oppose; thus, NATO assets will ultimately be withheld for the majority of EU OPS. Case in point, the EU-led stabilization force to the Congo, which was done under the UN but without the logistical or C3 support from NATO it probably could have used. EU action independent of the US/NATO will have to be self-sustaining.
On the European side, the option of contributing (even under-capable and minimal forces) to an alliance which does not meet their strategic goals will be similarly unappealing. Thus, they have an incentive to back ot of NATO as well. However, to make up for the "capabilities gap" with the US, they have to spend even more than for simple force expansion (R&D costs, C3 establishment costs). Also, their program for EU security is more focused on "crisis-management" and "humanitarian missions" than for true-blue warmaking. All these factors will lead to a desire to continue the cooperative venture with America, albeit it probably will undergo drastic restructuring.
The Bush Administration (er. the current one) has been passively supportive of European endeavors. Under Clinton, Albright (SECSTATE) and Cohen (SECDEF) warned against straying too far from NATO, but the Bush Admin seems to realize that EU efforts will ultimately result in greater capabilities for Europe; and Europe and the US will likely be cooperative partners in any world order, r.e. the democratic peace theory.
Well, that's about it. Let me know what ya'll think.
Thanks.
Both sides of the Atlantic want increased capability by Europe, the budgets of Europe notwithstanding. On a realist, very simplified level, the Americans will not want to help guarantee the success of an operation with which they emphatically oppose; thus, NATO assets will ultimately be withheld for the majority of EU OPS. Case in point, the EU-led stabilization force to the Congo, which was done under the UN but without the logistical or C3 support from NATO it probably could have used. EU action independent of the US/NATO will have to be self-sustaining.
On the European side, the option of contributing (even under-capable and minimal forces) to an alliance which does not meet their strategic goals will be similarly unappealing. Thus, they have an incentive to back ot of NATO as well. However, to make up for the "capabilities gap" with the US, they have to spend even more than for simple force expansion (R&D costs, C3 establishment costs). Also, their program for EU security is more focused on "crisis-management" and "humanitarian missions" than for true-blue warmaking. All these factors will lead to a desire to continue the cooperative venture with America, albeit it probably will undergo drastic restructuring.
The Bush Administration (er. the current one) has been passively supportive of European endeavors. Under Clinton, Albright (SECSTATE) and Cohen (SECDEF) warned against straying too far from NATO, but the Bush Admin seems to realize that EU efforts will ultimately result in greater capabilities for Europe; and Europe and the US will likely be cooperative partners in any world order, r.e. the democratic peace theory.
Well, that's about it. Let me know what ya'll think.
Thanks.
Out here,
--Ajax
--Ajax