Liddy Letter

NATO FAULT LINE
By Thomas P. Liddy

For fifty-six years, the United States and Western Europe have thrown their lots together in order to prevent a recurrence of the horrific errors of 1914 and 1939.  In the past, the balance of power in Europe suffered such asymmetry that World Wars were the order of the day, dominating the first half of the twentieth century.

Twice America had to enter into bloody conflicts on the side of democracy because we had separated ourselves from EuropeÂ’s relationships until it was too late to prevent the outbreak of war.  Our tardiness cost us nearly half a million Americans and tens of millions of European men, women and children.

Since 1945, America has formally attached herself to EuropeÂ’s security through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  The alliance formalized that which was undeniable in 1945.  American power reigned supreme, and so long as she stood on the side of EuropeÂ’s democracies, those who sought expanded political and economic power by threat of tyranny and military aggression were held at bay.

The collapse of Soviet Communism tempts Europeans and Americans alike to risk separating America and Europe by a degree or two.

The latest fad among European leaders is to urge the European Union to create a 60,000 man all-European rapid reaction force.  The idea, dubbed the European Security Defense Initiative or ESDI, is to build a new military force wholly independent of American troops, equipment or influence, one that can be put into action without worry about an American veto.  Desire for ESDI grows, in part, out of the shocking reliance Europe had on the American logistical support and command and control infrastructure during the recent, very limited, military expedition into Kosovo.

Battlefield commanders need at least two things to wage war: the logistical lift capability to move their armies and equipment to the battlefield, and the reconnaissance and communications structure to identify enemy troops and movement on the battlefield and direct friendly troops accordingly.

At the dawn of the 21^st century, lift is executed by huge fleets of massive transport aircraft and sealift ships.  America has them.  Europe does not.  Battles are directed by employing satellite communications technology that receive realtime video from the battlefield and broadcast it encrypted to commanders on ships off shore and in capitals continents away.  This is warfare in the information age.  Our European allies were humiliated in Kosovo because they were wholly reliant on America to lift personnel and equipment into the battle zone.  They knew nothing about actions on the battlefield without asking America for a peek at what was pulled down off American satellites.

In theory, an independent European defense force, available to enter quagmires without risking American blood or treasure, is appealing.  But, as the Bush Administration weighs its reaction to the proposed creation of ESDI, it should give added weight to what happened when America was absent from the European balance of power scheme--World Wars I and II.  NATO has helped keep the peace not only by deterring Soviet aggression, but also by keeping Turkey and Greece, among EuropeÂ’s hottest flashpoints, in the same alliance.  Having one of the worldÂ’s largest Muslim countries allied to the West has other obvious security benefits as well.  At the end of the Cold War, NATO, under American leadership,d her arms to the newly liberated countries of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

After Boris YeltsinÂ’s fall from power, an invigorated Russia, lead by former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, has stirred up Russian nationalism, strangled an infant free press, reversed steps taken to decentralize power from Moscow, and threatened Western neighbors with the loss of oil and gas if they did not acquiesce to MoscowÂ’s views. 

Already those advocating the newly envisioned ESDI have shown reluctance to accept TurkeyÂ’s offer to participate with a brigade of troops to stand at the ready.  Turkey has a large Muslim population and a lower standard of living than Western Europe.  The hesitancy to accept TurkeyÂ’s offer reveals a reluctance to place security concerns over socio-economic biases.  It is not lost on Western Europeans that accepting TurkeyÂ’s participation in the new military alliance, but continuing to refuse their entry in the trade union, would reveal their fear of moreborders with Turkey and the cheap labor it would bring into Western Europe.   Recent clashes in Bosnia and Kosovo illustrate the volatility at the points where EuropeÂ’s Christians and Muslims meet.  The EU has also, so far, shown no stomach to stand up to MoscowÂ’s demand that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic be kept out of ESDI.

Americans have little stomach to handle peacekeeping and nation-building duties in Europe.  Although a secure and stable Europe is clearly in AmericaÂ’s national security interest, Americans and Europeans have frequently clashed over the disproportionate share of American money invested year after year for the security of Europe.  Nevertheless, the European UnionÂ’s creation of a standing military force--which rejects Turkey, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the United States-- seems a step back in time, closer to the unbalanced European partitionings of 1914 and 1939, than it does to the relative stability we have enjoyed since 1945.

President Bush and Secretary of State Powell know that America cannot impose itself on Europe. However, perhaps it is their duty to remind those gathering in Brussels, who strive to put distance between the worldÂ’s two most democratic continents, of our mutual modern history.

Copyright © 1996-2001 - FPL, Inc.