The headline may state the obvious but we should sometimes remind ourselves of important truths.
Whatever one thinks of President Obama's new strategy in Afghanistan it is worth noting that America is alone in the free world in having the capacity to mount such massive military deployments. Only Britain comes close to America in demonstrating a willingness and ability to deploy troops overseas but the gap between the two nations' commitments to the two theatres of Afghanistan and Iraq tells its own story:
- In Iraq Britain has now withdrawn all combat troops. America still has 120,000 deployed.
- After Obama's troops surge of an expected 30,000 the US deployment in Afghanistan will increase to 98,000. Gordon Brown's promise of an extra 500 troops will take Britain up to approximately 10,000.
America also maintains massive commitments in other parts of the world: there are over 85,000 American troops in Europe, for example, and over 70,000 in East Asia and the Pacific.
America still accounts for 45% of global defence expenditure despite Chinese and Russian rearmament.
> AmericaInTheWorld briefing: The American military and its role in the world
As a conservative American I believe in a strong military. But given the state of our economy, one wonders if its not time bring the troops home from places like Europe. Why are they there? Are the European powers incapable of protecting themselves and from whom? The Soviets...? I wonder if US has not overstayed its welcome in many places, especially Europe.
Even so, this American is thankful for our allies in the UK and I sincerely hope our two nations can continue our military associations.
Posted by: Edward Mims | December 01, 2009 at 06:38 PM
I wouldn't blame you at all for withdrawing your troops from Europe.
NATO has been hugely ineffective in Afghanistan and it should be made to pay a price.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | December 01, 2009 at 07:09 PM
There's no need for the US to have troops in Europe. The Europeans are so bloody ungrateful for what America has done for them anyway I wouldn't blame Americans for wanting to get them home and spend the money plugging the Bush-Obama deficit instead.
Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | December 01, 2009 at 07:20 PM
Moreover the US Navy is able to opeate as a fighting force and rescue US nationals from Somali pirates. Its sailors have better navigational skills than to be apprehended by the Iranians....TWICE !
All in all, the US seems to have better fighting forces.
Posted by: TomTom | December 01, 2009 at 07:28 PM
Hey that picture on the Home Page looks like US troops liberating Paris.
I thought De Gaulle did that singlehandedly.
;-)
Posted by: Ken Stevens | December 01, 2009 at 09:10 PM
Apparently French forces held back on the liberation of Paris because the forces who were in place to do it were from the French Empire and they wanted all the people photoraphed to be white, even though troops from Africa were in the thick of some of the heaviest fighting.
So far as bases go, there hasn't really been a need for some time, even during the Cold war, if Soviet forces had turned up off the British coast then the thing to do would have been to launch a nuclear attack.
In fact US troops were barracked in the UK and British troops in Germany simply because nowhere had been setup for them elsewhere, a legacy of WWII.
The UK needs to double it's military spending, strengthen it's nuclear strike capabilities and conventional forces notably navy.
China and India appear to be going to emerge over the century as alternative superpowers.
Unfortunately the EU seems hellbent on having it's own security and foreign policies despite the fact that member states are divided over security and foreign policy matters, they will finish NATO off though unless other countries are brought in, once they have their new bodies they will no doubt turn round and say that they are leaving NATO and maybe there just won't be enough members to justify it's continuation.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | December 01, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Although the siren voices of isolationism might sound tempting, urging the US to withdraw its forces back to Fortress America, it is questionable whether this is now a possibility in the globalised world of today. Stability is as much in the US`s interests as it is in those of most other nations. We saw the reluctant entry of the US into two World Wars, simply because of this inescapable fact, which remains no less relevant today.
In spite of the ingratitude of some of her `allies`, the US is still, I believe, hard-headed enough to appreciate this; as well as the need for reliable allies in the same cause. The UK has a history of being one such friend and to bring about a rift between us is in the interest of neither, despite the disparity in our contributions to world stability.
Democratic administrations of the past have sometimes been slow to see this until circumstances have given them a sharp reminder. So let neither of us lose sight of the value of our alliance, nor our residual ablity to act as a bridge between the US and Europe; which an ambivalent EU might still require for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: john parkes | December 02, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Of course America has an enormous military capacity. Its habit of attacking other countries means that it needs it.
The problem for us is that we are endangered by the extremism and terrorism the our American masters' policies create.
The problem for the Americans is that they can't afford these endless wars. Excessive military spending exacerbates the real threat to America, which is economic.
Instead of using their cash to torment the Arabs they would do better to start buying their country back from the Chinese.
Posted by: Francis | December 02, 2009 at 01:19 PM