Allies

In Democratic lore the administration of George W. Bush engaged in unbridled unilateralism, needlessly angering the rest of the world and costing us valuable contributions from our allies. Indeed, long before the invasion of Iraq the Bush Administration abrogated the ABM Treaty with Russia and signaled that it had no intentions of ratifying the Kyoto Treaty. That would be the same Kyoto Treaty, mind you, that the Senate voted 95-0 to reject unless significant changes were made.

While a case can be made that the administration was needlessly abrasive at times in its handling of foreign affairs I similarly find it difficult to believe that this really cost us much. What exactly would our allies have contributed even in the best of times?

Indeed, let us hearken back to the most recent golden era of U.S.-European relations, the days that followed the Sept. 11 terror attacks. With the World Trade Center towers a pile of smoldering rubble and nearly 3,000 Americans dead Europeans began to rediscover their fondness for their transatlantic cousins. Le Monde famously proclaimed that "We are all Americans Now" and soccer players held hands in a moment of silence before their games.

Touching gestures to be sure, but when it came time to pony up some actual soldiers to go take out Al Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors -- you know, give us something more than just a symbolic gesture -- they typically fell short. As Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute says:

Immediately following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, NATO governments invoked Article V—which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all—for the first time in the alliance’s history. American leaders welcomed the European pledges of support, and the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan soon had a significant NATO component.

But early on, doubts arose about how serious the European allies were about their military commitments. Indeed, most of the NATO governments seemed to view their troop deployments as personnel for humanitarian relief and nation-building tasks rather than for combat operations. The military heavy lifting was by and large left to U.S. forces and those of a few other countries, primarily Canada, Britain and the Netherlands.

Most NATO members have placed various caveats on the use of their military personnel. Some are prohibited from night operations (which are inherently more dangerous). Others are prohibited from being deployed in certain areas of the country—specifically, those areas where significant combat is occurring and additional troops might actually prove useful.

Germany is one of the worst offenders in that regard. Berlin has restricted its troops to the northern regions of Afghanistan, where virtually no fighting is taking place. Despite Washington’s repeated requests, the German government has refused to lift that restriction. That might be just as well. A December 2008 German parliamentary report concluded that the country’s troops in Afghanistan spent most of their time lounging around and drinking beer, and that many were now too fat and out of condition to be of any use in combat operations.

Now, I suppose one could argue that perhaps the Europeans would be more forthcoming if that dumb chimp and his henchmen hadn't been running the ship of state at the time. But let's take a look back at the Gulf War, when Bush 41 conducted what was by all accounts was deft diplomacy, building an impressive coalition to take on Iraq:

The graphic, taken from this book, shows the following contributions from our vaunted NATO allies:

Canada: 24 CF-18 Hornet aircraft, 2 warships

France: 15,200 troops, 42 combat aircraft, 7 warships

Great Britain: 25,000 troops, 54 combat aircraft, 17 warships

Rest of NATO: 10 warships (from Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Spain)

So, really, only France and the UK stepped up to the plate. We're actually getting more help from NATO now than we did then.

The simple truth is that for the most part our allies aren't much interested in helping us, at least in any military fashion. For all of the talk about our close relations and common values there is a vast cultural chasm that separates the U.S. from most Europeans. Europeans have little desire in conducting military affairs, preferring to instead spend public funds on their social welfare programs. Leaving aside the merits of such an approach that is the reality. Anyone who thinks that merely having a different person in the White House or an increased emphasis on diplomacy would change this is kidding themselves.