After World War II, a devastated and demoralized Western Europe felt vulnerable to a Soviet invasion. To pacify European anxieties and deter a potential aggressor, the United States agreed to station the equivalent of six infantry divisions in Europe. According to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, first supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe, the U.S. troops would remain there for a limited time only. When the economies of the European allies recovered, it was envisaged that the U.S. troops would be brought home.
"When I went back to Europe in 1951, to command the forces of NATO," wrote Eisenhower in 1963, "the United States agreed to supply the equivalent of six infantry divisions which were to be regarded as an emergency reinforcement of Europe while out hard-hit allies were rebuilding their economies and capabilities for supporting defense. Now, 12 years later, those forces, somewhat reinforced, are still there."
Today, some 36 years after Eisenhower took up his NATO command, more than 340,000 U.S. troops remain in Europe despite the fact that the aggregate European gross national product (GNP) now equals that of the United States. The cost of these troops to the U.S. taxpayer is enormous. The U.S. government spends approximately $130 billion to $160 billion per year to support NATO. If the United States withdrew from Europe, a significant portion of this money could be saved and used for other purposes. For example, as a result of the savings derived from a U.S. troop withdrawal, taxes could be cut, the federal budget deficit reduced, or an antimissile system such as SDI financed.
Benefits vs. costs
Such savings, of course, would be foolhardy if sufficient benefits to this country from our gargantuan expenditures on NATO could be proved - that is, if the benefits from NATO could be shown to be greater than their costs. NATO supporters claim that the most significant benefit from the U.S. troops in Europe is that they have kept the peace in Europe for some 40 years - a dubious argument. True, there has been peace in Europe for 40 years. And just as true, the U.S. troops have been in Western Europe for nearly that same period of time. But just because one event correlates with another in no way implies a causal relationship between the two.
For example, Eisenhower wrote in 1963: " I believe the time has now come when we should start withdrawing some of the U.S. troops....One American division in Europe can 'show the flag' as definitely as can several." Do NATO defenders, such as David Abshire, Richard Burt, and Lawrence Eagleburger, really mean to imply that had the United States followed the advice of this preeminent NATO expert and removed the five infantry divisions from Europe, war would have broken out in Europe?
NATO supporters also claim that the alliance has strengthened our European allies. The truth, however, is the opposite. By providing Europe with a defense guarantee (symbolized by the troops in Europe), the United States has robbed its allies of the incentive to defend themselves. In 1983, for example, the United States spent 6.6 percent of its GNP on defense, while non-U.S.NATO spent only 3.6 percent of its GNP on defense.
That NATO would weaken Europe's own defenses was seen clearly by both
...
Read Full Article
|
